Aren't We Supposed To Be Smarter Than Microsoft?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Throwing stuff away costs less money because we have a productive society.  That's what tends to tip the scale from "fix" to "replace".  When poorer countries become wealthier, mass production will become a better use of financial resources than having expensive workers laboriously repair something to extend its usable life.
     

    With your permission; FTFY.

    Replacing is not fundamentally different from the fix-model. It's just different speeds of the same machine, and I prefer to go a little slower.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    The Blu-Ray drive is a fairly independent, modular component that can be easily replaced.  What's more, it's also a fairly cheap component to replace, compared to the rest of the system.  And even then it's still 1/3rd of the cost of just replacing the whole console.

     Agreed, but it's amazing that it costs that %$#! much to basically swap a drive and send it back.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    There's plenty of land

    There's never plenty of land.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    That doesn't mean it is always utilized properly.

    I'm glad that at least, you're a proponent of efficiency.

     



  • @tdb said:

    Hey, I have a great business idea that will get multiple birds with one stone. [...]
     

    Good, but where is your point?

    @tdb said:

    I'm becoming convinced that you're either an idiot or a troll.

    Shh, no flaming.



  • @dhromed said:

    With your permission; FTFY.

    Replacing is not fundamentally different from the fix-model. It's just different speeds of the same machine, and I prefer to go a little slower.

    That's fine, but it tends to be a more efficient use of resources because having specialized workers is more expensive than mass producing extra units.  Financial resources are just representative of any other resource, be it land, oil or human work.  Currency simply permits the liquid transactions that allow resources to be distributed efficiently.

     

    @dhromed said:

    I'm glad that at least, you're a proponent of efficiency.

    Free market capitalism is what leads to the efficient allocation of resources.  By permitting price to be set by current supply and demand, resources go to the most imporant uses during times of scarcity and during times of over-production cues are given to supplies to reduce production.



  • @dhromed said:

    @tdb said:

    Hey, I have a great business idea that will get multiple birds with one stone. [...]
     

    Good, but where is your point?

    I was trying to demonstrate the idiocy of this endless consumption by combining it with another of my favourite subjects, namely the pay-per-view direction the media industry is taking.  But more of that another time.

    The resources on this planet are not infinite, and we are using them at an alarming rate.  I'm waiting with great curiosity for the day when oil finally ends.  That's sure to open some eyes.  What we have here may be unique in the entire universe.  If we destroy it with pollution, then what?  I'm sure in a few centuries science will advance enough that we can produce nutrition pills and live forever, but what good will that do to us in the long run?  What are we trying to accomplish anyway?  Colonize the entire universe?  That does seem like a sensible choice, considering that the Sun will blow up in 5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million.  Only problem is that the universe is, you know, [i]huge[/i].  And even then, according to current theories, it is finite.  Given the laws of thermodynamics, it won't last forever.  Eventually it will either collapse or face a thermal death.  There's no way for us to survive that, save for finding a wormhole to another universe.  On the off chance that the theory of cosmic inflation turns out to be true, the universe might be (nearly) infinite.  In that case, it might be able to contain an infinite amount of entropy.  But given how matter is clumped in galaxies, which each have a supermassive black hole in their centers, it's likely that there won't be enough interactions to keep it going forever.  Galaxies will start dying out as more and more of their matter falls into the black holes.  Will we be able to outrun that effect?

    All right, I realize I went way off onto a tangent there.  I hope someone found that insightful, amusing or whatever.  I'll end my post with this: A small change in our habits now might save us from a large one in the future.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    ....  The ability for humanity to persist for a long time has nothing to do with conserving resources.  It will happen as it always has, through human ingenuity in utilizing resources in different ways...

     

     

    Just one more thing. I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but, I believe you cannot compare the way humans have lived the last ten thousands of years to the way they have lived the past 50 years. I don't think you can rely on "It'll work out as it always has" because you can't compare the current way of living to anything that has happened for a longer time in the past.
    On a sidenote: I feel ashamed for taking this thread so damn far off-topic. I guess there'd be enough talking material to split this into a separate thread.



  • @seriousJoker said:

    I believe you cannot compare the way humans have lived the last five thousand years since Adam and Eve to the way they have lived the past 50 years.
    FTFY, Blasphemer!




  • @belgariontheking said:

    @seriousJoker said:

    I believe you cannot compare the way humans have lived the last five thousand years six thousand years, give or take a hundred or so, since Adam and Eve to the way they have lived the past 50 years.
    FTFY, Blasphemer Heretic!

    FTFTFY



  • @tdb said:

    The resources on this planet are not infinite...

    No resource is limitless but human ingenuity.

     

    @tdb said:

    ...and we are using them at an alarming rate.

    Alarming how?  Maybe if you think "humans will continue consuming precisely the same amount of our finite resources for the next 200 years with absolutely no advancement in technology" then I could see why you felt it alarming.  On the other hand, we have had 200 years of significant technological progress which has opened up new ways to exploit resources effectively.  And not only has that exploitation improved our lives dramatically, it has also spurred technological progress.  Much of the science had been around for hundreds of years, but it was commercialization of that science that improved the conditions of man and it was commercialization and wealth that has permitted the fantastic advances we have witnessed in science since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

     

    @tdb said:

    I'm waiting with great curiosity for the day when oil finally ends.  That's sure to open some eyes.

    Why would you wait for that?  It would surely be horrible.  Luckily, it isn't going to happen.  Do you really think we're just going to wake up one day and the oil will be gone?  There is an ungodly amount of it left and even with the minor disruptions in supply and demand that we've seen over the last decade the market has already kicked in and provided incentive to invent better alternatives.  Surely one day we will go off oil, but by that point nobody will have noticed, like with the passing of VHS.  Oil will be supplanted and will become a historical curiosity as the market slowly transitions to some alternative.  Worrying about the "end of oil" is incredibly short-sighted.

     

    @tdb said:

    What we have here may be unique in the entire universe.  If we destroy it with pollution, then what?

    And the wealthy society bought with that pollution will be even more unique than anything else we know.  You seem to be the delusional type who thinks the Universe exists in some "pristine" state that must not be "destroyed" or altered in any way.  The Universe of tomorrow will not be the Universe of today; it is always changing and from what we know appears to go through cyclic periods of rebirth.  Pollution is one of the costs associated with an industrial society.  It is a side-effect and something that must be dealt with.  However, it is the price we pay to live significantly better lives. 

     

    @tdb said:

    I'm sure in a few centuries science will advance enough that we can produce nutrition pills and live forever, but what good will that do to us in the long run?  What are we trying to accomplish anyway?  Colonize the entire universe?  That does seem like a sensible choice, considering that the Sun will blow up in 5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million.  Only problem is that the universe is, you know, huge.  And even then, according to current theories, it is finite.  Given the laws of thermodynamics, it won't last forever.  Eventually it will either collapse or face a thermal death.  There's no way for us to survive that, save for finding a wormhole to another universe.  On the off chance that the theory of cosmic inflation turns out to be true, the universe might be (nearly) infinite.  In that case, it might be able to contain an infinite amount of entropy.  But given how matter is clumped in galaxies, which each have a supermassive black hole in their centers, it's likely that there won't be enough interactions to keep it going forever.  Galaxies will start dying out as more and more of their matter falls into the black holes.  Will we be able to outrun that effect?

    All right, I realize I went way off onto a tangent there.  I hope someone found that insightful, amusing or whatever.  I'll end my post with this: A small change in our habits now might save us from a large one in the future.

    The fact that you would even spend your time worrying about this baffles me.  Nothing you've mentioned is likely to be a direct concern to you or even your children.  What's more, to even speculate about the right decisions that will need to be made in 200 years is utterly silly.  Our knowledge and ability to manipulate the world Universe will have grown so much by then that we can't even guess the problems, let alone the solutions.  I'm not saying we should act recklessly in spite of future generations but building our economy on what is "sustainable" for hundreds of years is pointless.  We do not know what future generations will face nor what tools they will have at their disposal, but that's not really our problem.



  • @amischiefr said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    @seriousJoker said:

    I believe you cannot compare the way humans have lived the last five thousand years six thousand years, give or take a hundred or so, since Adam and Eve to the way they have lived the past 50 years.
    FTFY, Blasphemer Heretic!

    FTFTFY
    Adam lived 930 years, so saying 'since Adam' isn't actually so far wrong.



  • @Eternal Density said:

    @amischiefr said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    @seriousJoker said:

    I believe you cannot compare the way humans have lived the last five thousand years six thousand years, give or take a hundred or so, since Adam and Eve to the way they have lived the past 50 years.
    FTFY, Blasphemer Heretic!

    FTFTFY
    Adam lived 930 years, so saying 'since Adam' isn't actually so far wrong.
     

    Good point :)  Ahh the good olde days, where you weren't over the hill until at least 600 years old...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Free market capitalism is what leads to the efficient allocation of resources.  By permitting price to be set by current supply and demand, resources go to the most imporant uses during times of scarcity and during times of over-production cues are given to supplies to reduce production.

     

     No, resources go to those most able to afford them in times of scarcity. Sadly that's not  always the same thing.

     Economics is a powerful tool for understanding human interactions; those who think it explains everything are, I think, being short-sighted. It may make 'economic sense' to shut down a factory that is becoming less profitable (never mind those that rely on the work there or their families); or to allow millions to live under crippling debt in Africa because their grandparents' rulers squandered money lent at extortionent rates by ours; or for Union Carbide to have more relaxed safety standards in India than would be allowed in the US. But personally I think that misses the point.

    And the World at the moment is a pretty good place to be, and one on which everyone alive could live comfortably and sustainably if we so chose. It's pretty selfish just to say we'll do whatever we want now, and screw our children. Yes, they may be able to overcome whatever problems we leave them to deal with;  but if I were to be born a few generations from now I know I'd rather not inherit an Earth where the seas are full of litter and devoid of fish, and each city isn't surrounded by pits of garbage and nuclear waste.



  • @daemon_loki said:

    No, resources go to those most able to afford them in times of scarcity. Sadly that's not  always the same thing.

    Sure it is.  What we are concerned with is the ability of the person obtaining the resources to accomplish some task with them.  If someone pays a great deal for a scarce resource, they most likely have a very important, profitable task that can be accomplished with those resources.  If what that person produces is not more valuable than what they paid, then they waste their money.

     

    @daemon_loki said:

    It may make 'economic sense' to shut down a factory that is becoming less profitable (never mind those that rely on the work there or their families);

    Of course it does.  Keeping the factory open is just stupid -- if it is unprofitable then nobody wants what it is making and the resources are just being squandered.

     

    @daemon_loki said:

    or to allow millions to live under crippling debt in Africa because their grandparents' rulers squandered money lent at extortionent rates by ours;

    What does this even have to do with economics?  Wouldn't inter-government loans to African dictators be a flaw of government and not the free market?

     

    @daemon_loki said:

    or for Union Carbide to have more relaxed safety standards in India than would be allowed in the US.

    Clearly you are wrong.  Do you think the little tiny bit they saved in lax safety standards has made up for a fraction of the damage done to the company because of the Bhopal incident?  It was certainly a horrible mistake, but unfortunately our species frequently only learns from horrible mistakes.

     

    @daemon_loki said:

    And the World at the moment is a pretty good place to be, and one on which everyone alive could live comfortably and sustainably if we so chose.

    Um, define "sustainably".  Which is more sustainable: commercial agriculture that uses lots of pesticides or organic agriculture that produces less food per acre and is far more susceptible to being wiped out by bad luck?  Sure, solar is more sustainable than oil, but it's also damned expensive.  What is the real harm in burning oil, at least until technology improves to the point where solar is an economical alternative?  Recycling is a mess -- it produces a lot of toxic waste that must be disposed of and generally costs more than proper trash disposal and use of new materials.  So should we keep recycling and producing pits of toxic waste for future generations to handle?  Every decision has consequences but you have drank the Kool-aid and really believe that we can live without trade-offs which is sad.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    [quote
    user="daemon_loki"]or for Union Carbide to have more relaxed safety
    standards in India than would be allowed in the US.

    Clearly
    you are wrong.  Do you think the little tiny bit they saved in lax
    safety standards has made up for a fraction of the damage done to the
    company because of the Bhopal incident?  It was certainly a
    horrible mistake, but unfortunately our species frequently only learns
    from horrible mistakes.[/quote]

     I
    doubt it was just a "little tiny bit" they saved in safety standards
    (of course much less than in lower wages) and I wouldn't be surprised
    if it really was more than the Bhopal disaster cost them. Neither would
    I be surprised if it was less, but I'm quite sure the lax safety
    standards and the lower wages together brought them much much more than
    the disaster cost them.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Recycling is a mess -- it produces a lot of toxic waste that must be disposed of and generally costs more than proper trash disposal and use of new materials.
     

    In full generality, that's wrong. There are several materials which are recyclable without producing any significant amount of toxic waste and which are cheap to recycle. However, for many materials it's economically [i]and ecologically[/i] stupid to recycle them indeed.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Sure it is.  What we are concerned with is the ability of the person obtaining the resources to accomplish some task with them.  If someone pays a great deal for a scarce resource, they most likely have a very important, profitable task that can be accomplished with those resources.  If what that person produces is not more valuable than what they paid, then they waste their money.
     

    you are aware of the existance of one person with the name Paris, last name Hilton, who can afford any ressource before you (or any of us mortals) can, no matter how important or profitable your task may be ...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Keeping the [unprofitable] factory open is just stupid -- if it is unprofitable then nobody wants what it is making and the resources are just being squandered.
     

    You have a simplified version of reality in which a purebred capitalist theory works.

    The problem is here:@morbiuswilters said:

    if it is unprofitable then nobody wants what it is making

    This is true only for a subset of all cases and the set of cases for which it is untrue is significant.

    Example: public transportation. There is always a need i.e. want for transport. Unprofitable lines are still wanted. Unprofitable transport companies are the result of mismanagement or an outside problem. Neither unprofit is the result of unwant.

    Also, I like to invent unwords.

    The same applies to all basic needs, really, like food and healthcare. Real capitalist conjecture only comes into play when it's about iPods and that new sofa, i.e. things people will cease to buy when they have no money or no interest. I'm not willing to make a dividing line between Basic and Luxury, because this changes form person to person and from time to time.

    It's like General Relativity: it only describes part of the system, and you can't build an entire reality with it.



  • @dhromed said:

    You have a simplified version of reality in which a purebred capitalist theory works.

    The problem is here:@morbiuswilters said:

    if it is unprofitable then nobody wants what it is making

    This is true only for a subset of all cases and the set of cases for which it is untrue is significant.

    Example: public transportation. There is always a need i.e. want for transport. Unprofitable lines are still wanted. Unprofitable transport companies are the result of mismanagement or an outside problem. Neither unprofit is the result of unwant.

    Also, I like to invent unwords.

    Agreed. Some argue that the Mexico City Subway System is unprofitable, but it does have about 4.5 million riders a day. I'd rather not see those 4.5 million commuters hitting the road instead, we already have enough traffic as it is. I've already had a friend pointing out to me that any subway system is unprofitable; yet I'd like to see how big cities would cope without it.

    @dhromed said:

    The same applies to all basic needs, really, like food and healthcare.
    Real capitalist conjecture only comes into play when it's about iPods
    and that new sofa, i.e. things people will cease to buy when they have
    no money or no interest.
    True. I don't really care if I'm buying "Florida's Finest Oranges" or "Florida's Oranges" or whatever. I'm buying oranges! Healthcare .... oh no, I really don't want to open up that discussion.I'll just state that "Sorry, you're going to die because you can't pay your life-saving operation" doesn't sound very humane.



  • Its because you greppers are missing the point. Why should we use linux when there are way to do everything with windows (vb5, dot bat). Holding onto old software like linux is why we arent advancing like we should.



  • @menta said:

    Its because you greppers are missing the point. Why should we use linux when there are way to do everything with windows (vb5, dot bat). Holding onto old software like linux is why we arent advancing like we should.

    Let's turn that around: Why should I pay thousands of euros for Windows and a pile of other commercial software when I can do everything I want with Linux for free?  And what exactly makes you think Linux is old software?  If anything, open source projects have the potential to be more advanced because new features can be distributed to adventurous users very rapidly through source code repositories.

    When talking about different operating systems, it's very difficult to ignore the cost of transition.  I have used and tweaked Linux for seven years.  My ways of using computers have adapted to the way Linux works.  I can do basic stuff on Windows, but to become a power user in that world, I'd have to spend months or perhaps years learning all the tricks.  I'm sure a long-time Windows user would feel equally lost with a Linux machine.




  • Get out of the stone-age man. There's this thing calles Vista that does all that. It doesnt cost thousands of euros (?) it comes with your computer! If you grew up and bought some modern hardware, you'd know this.



  • @menta said:


    Get out of the stone-age man. There's this thing calles Vista that does all that. It doesnt cost thousands of euros (?) it comes with your computer! If you grew up and bought some modern hardware, you'd know this.

    My sarcasm detector went off. Hmm... I wonder why??




  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    @menta said:

    Get out of the stone-age man. There's this thing calles Vista that does all that. It doesnt cost thousands of euros (?) it comes with your computer! If you grew up and bought some modern hardware, you'd know this.

    My sarcasm detector went off. Hmm... I wonder why??


     Sarcasm? Sarcasm is mean like linux!



  • @menta said:


    Get out of the stone-age man. There's this thing calles Vista that does all that. It doesnt cost thousands of euros (?) it comes with your computer! If you grew up and bought some modern hardware, you'd know this.

    No, it does not come with my computer.  Most of my computers, especially the most powerful ones, are built from components by myself.  If I wanted an OS with it, I'd have to buy it separately.  The OEM version of Windows Vista Ultimate is not prohibitively expensive at only 170 euros.  Then, assuming I'd want to "get out of the stone age" with everything else too, I'd need at least Visual Studio (350€), Photoshop Elements (100€), Microsoft Office (120€).  Several smaller utility programs come at 20-50€ each.  That's pretty close to 1000€ and probably doesn't contain everything yet.  I think I'd have to resort to just pirating 3D software since there's no way I could affor paying several thousands of euros for 3D Studio / Maya.


  • @tdb said:

    No, it does not come with my computer.  Most of my computers, especially the most powerful ones, are built from components by myself.  If I wanted an OS with it, I'd have to buy it separately.  The OEM version of Windows Vista Ultimate is not prohibitively expensive at only 170 euros.  Then, assuming I'd want to "get out of the stone age" with everything else too, I'd need at least Visual Studio (350€), Photoshop Elements (100€), Microsoft Office (120€).  Several smaller utility programs come at 20-50€ each.  That's pretty close to 1000€ and probably doesn't contain everything yet.  I think I'd have to resort to just pirating 3D software since there's no way I could affor paying several thousands of euros for 3D Studio / Maya.

     

    You can still use your linux applications on windows. You have the codes for them and you can make them on windows. You know what they say: "If linux can do it, windows can do it better". Why do you think all games are on windows? Take my word for it!



  • @menta said:

    Why do you think all games are on windows?

    Lazy programmers using DirectX? Really, id Software seems to be able to cope with OpenGL and do multi-platform.

    Hell, even Descent was released for the Mac, which had all the graphical improvements found in Descent2. The reason most games have since centered on Windows is because they went down the DirectX route and are now locked in.



  • And why do you think directx decided to use windows? Answer me that question please?



  •  @menta said:

    And why do you think directx decided to use windows? Answer me that question please?

    Because it's a Microsoft technology?



  •  It wasnt always. They just pickedwindows because it isbetter.



  • @menta said:

    You can still use your linux applications on windows. You have the codes for them and you can make them on windows.

    Oh, so it's only the OS kernel that is in the stone-age and not the rest of the software?  Care to explain why it is so?  Preferably on a technical, not marketing level.

    @menta said:

    You know what they say: "If linux can do it, windows can do it better".

    Funny, I had that the other way around.  Let's see...  My Linux-based firewall has in-kernel support for NAT and a bunch of other routing technologies.  How does Windows beat that? 

    @menta said:

    Why do you think all games are on windows?

    Because Microsoft provides commercial support for DirectX so the game developers can do away with mediocre programmers instead of needing to pay high salaries to the really skillful ones.  When combined with the pressure of tight deadlines from management, this results in the games being released half-finished and requiring hundreds of megabytes of patches to fix the glaring bugs.  Also because 95% of the target market is using Windows.  There are no technical reasons preventing game development for Linux.

    @menta said:

    Take my word for it!

    Not unless you provide some evidence in the form of non-biased research. 



  • @menta said:

     It wasnt always. They just pickedwindows because it isbetter.

    Care to provide a reference for this?



  •  @tdb said:

    @menta said:

     It wasnt always. They just pickedwindows because it isbetter.

    Care to provide a reference for this?

     

     Try this



  • @menta said:

     @tdb said:

    @menta said:

     It wasnt always. They just pickedwindows because it isbetter.

    Care to provide a reference for this?

     

     Try this

    Too bad it returns a 404.  Any 4chan link is hardly a credible reference though.



  •  I have created a monster...



  •  Menta is a blatant troll, and you're falling for him badly. The 4chan link was likely a goatse or suchlike - too bad menta forgot how quickly /b/ moves.



  • @tdb said:

    @menta said:

     It wasnt always. They just pickedwindows because it isbetter.

    Care to provide a reference for this?
    He's just joking at the expense of others. Do you really think anyone would believe DirectX is not from Microsoft? That Wikipedia entry I linked earlier clearly states how DirectX was "born".

    In late 1994 Microsoft was just on the verge of releasing its next operating system, Windows 95.
    The main factor that would determine the value consumers would place on
    their new operating system very much rested on what programs would be
    able to run on it. Three Microsoft employees – Craig Eisler, Alex St.
    John, and Eric Engstrom – were concerned, because programmers tended to see Microsoft's previous operating system, MS-DOS,
    as a better platform for game programming, meaning few games would be
    developed for Windows 95 and the operating system would not be as much
    of a success.

    DOS allowed direct access to video cards, keyboards and mice, sound devices, and all other parts of the system, while Windows 95, with its protected memory model, restricted access to all of these, working on a much more standardized model. Microsoft needed a way that would let programmers get what they wanted, and they needed it quickly; the operating system was only months away from being released. Eisler, St. John, and Engstrom worked together to fix this problem, with a solution that they eventually named DirectX.

    So there it is. DirectX was born as a quick hack fix to allow userspace software to access all that nifty stuff you could use under DOS. Even as late as 1996, Quake and Descent2 were released as DOS games.



  • @dhromed said:

    You have a simplified version of reality in which a purebred capitalist theory works.

    Of course capitalism "works".  It's not a theory of how economics should work, it's simply the observation and explanation of human behavior in regards to scarce resources.

     

    @dhromed said:

    Example: public transportation. There is always a need i.e. want for transport. Unprofitable lines are still wanted. Unprofitable transport companies are the result of mismanagement or an outside problem. Neither unprofit is the result of unwant.

    You seem to have very little knowledge of what you are talking about.  Public transporation is not profitable generally because it is taxpayer-funded, not because of a lack of need for it.  Profitability is the sale price minus the cost of production.  If it takes more resources to produce something than people are willing to pay for it, then it is an unprofitable enterprise and an inefficient allocation of resources: the value of the output is less than the value of the input.  Clearly this does not apply to public transportation for many cities as it is quite a desirable service.  In the US, most public transportation used to be for-profit until local governments seized control and ran the systems so far into the ground they were filthy, unreliable and costly.

     

    @dhromed said:

    The same applies to all basic needs, really, like food and healthcare. Real capitalist conjecture only comes into play when it's about iPods and that new sofa, i.e. things people will cease to buy when they have no money or no interest. I'm not willing to make a dividing line between Basic and Luxury, because this changes form person to person and from time to time.

    You have this completely backwards -- capitalism is most efficient when dealing with times of unexpected shortages or problems.  When it comes to luxury items, there is no strict necessity for X amount of iPods or Y quantity of jewelry so there is more flexibility when unexpected shortages arise.  On the other hand, food shortages cannot simply be made up by stretching healthcare a bit thinner -- it doesn't work like that.  When resources are strongly contended for due to scarcity and powerful demand, capitalism permits the most efficient allocation of the resources.  Hell, even that dumbass Lenin understood that markets were better at dealing with shortages of essential resources than command economies -- during the early years of the Soviet Union internal markets were set up to handle the allocation of critical resources.



  •  It's not just about 'efficiency' - it's about morality. No doubt it would be more efficient if there was no minimum wage and a great many people were paid so little that they had to go dumpster diving for enough food and live ten to a room. Probably slave labour is rather more efficient than paying workers.



  • @m0ffx said:

     It's not just about 'efficiency' - it's about morality. No doubt it would be more efficient if there was no minimum wage and a great many people were paid so little that they had to go dumpster diving for enough food and live ten to a room. Probably slave labour is rather more efficient than paying workers.

     

     

    If the workers weren't paid, then how would they afford the good produced?

    Capitalism encourages wealth creation through production and consumption - slave labour is against the point.

    Of course, as long as the people being paid enough to buy your goods > people actually working in your factories the companies will be fine, but that's another matter... 



  • @m0ffx said:

    It's not just about 'efficiency' - it's about morality. No doubt it would be more efficient if there was no minimum wage and a great many people were paid so little that they had to go dumpster diving for enough food and live ten to a room. Probably slave labour is rather more efficient than paying workers.

    Except that efficiency is a moral concern: it ultimately means fulfilling more needs and wants for less.  Also, minimum wages help absolutely nobody.  Minimum wages increase the base cost of anything that requires labor to produce, including necessities like food.  Workers who make minimum wage aren't getting anything more than what they would get without minimum wage, but plenty of lower-skilled workers are simply priced out of the market.  I suppose you think it is somehow better for them to make no money rather than 5 cents less than minimum wage... yeah, you're a real sharp one...   Minimum wages only hurt the poor and anyone who would still advocate them in this day and age is either an ideological asshole or too ignorant to bother with.  Hell, why not just make the minimum wage $100 and then we can all be wealthy??  Oh, that's right, anybody with a shred of knowledge would know that doesn't fucking work.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Public transporation is not profitable generally because it is taxpayer-funded, not because of a lack of need for it. 
     

    There appears to be some confusion here, so I'll narrow down the quote:

    @morps said:

    if it is unprofitable then nobody wants what it is making

    My point: Everybody will always want the products that a public transportation company makes, and its unprofitability is not a sign of consumer disinterest, as your quote above claims. I believe we agree on this. That's all.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    In the US, most public transportation used to be for-profit until local governments seized control and ran the systems so far into the ground they were filthy, unreliable and costly.

    As soon as we privatized PT here, service went down and prices went up, precisely because unprofitable lines were ruthlessly cut but not replaced with proftably adjusted ones. Funny, that. Same thing sort of happened with the energy market. I'm not sure if that's inherent to privatization, or just mismanagement of the process. It's hard to discount human error.

     @morbiuswilters said:

    When resources are strongly contended for due to scarcity and powerful demand, capitalism permits the most efficient allocation of the resources.

    A scarce resource becomes expensive and as a result, only those who have means will be able to obtain the resource. When the resource is a basic one, things go pear-shaped. A healthy capitalist society is one with a large supply of basic resources, so that free markets can take over the rest. I don't deny that free market can handle basic resources as well --when things are okay. In times of crisis, capitalism will only turn the crisis into a social issue with likely more momentum than the cirsis itself.



  • @dhromed said:

    My point: Everybody will always want the products that a public transportation company makes, and its unprofitability is not a sign of consumer disinterest, as your quote above claims. I believe we agree on this. That's all.

    Incorrect. Public transport has a competitor - private motoring. The number of cars on the streets of towns where public transport is excellent is proof enough that many people don't want public transport. Public transport cannot usually compete on 'quality' (trains or bus lanes getting through snarled up traffic being one advantage it does have), so it has to compete on price. Those using public transport are in many places mainly poorer - most of the time I get on a bus it's full of children, young adults and the elderly - and for us, if there was no public transport we would be unable to travel.



  • @m0ffx said:

    @dhromed said:

    My point: Everybody will always want the products that a public transportation company makes, and its unprofitability is not a sign of consumer disinterest, as your quote above claims. I believe we agree on this. That's all.

    Incorrect. Public transport has a competitor - private motoring. The number of cars on the streets of towns where public transport is excellent is proof enough that many people don't want public transport. Public transport cannot usually compete on 'quality' (trains or bus lanes getting through snarled up traffic being one advantage it does have), so it has to compete on price. Those using public transport are in many places mainly poorer - most of the time I get on a bus it's full of children, young adults and the elderly - and for us, if there was no public transport we would be unable to travel.

    It depends; I'm pretty sure that some residents prefer to ride the subway when traffic's sufficiently packed. Big cities like NYC, San Francisco and Chicago even have express services running alongside "regular" subway systems: BART, PATH, Metra. I'd bet I would've made less from O'Hare Intl on the subway instead of driving down the Kennedy Expy when I last went over there.

    Private motoring is more inefficient for daily commuting, as many cars on the road are only carrying one person (the driver), which means that all those congested roads are only being 25% efficient in doing their jobs. Subway usually goes ... well maybe over 100% during peak hours (overcrowded!) but it can be solved.

    Disclosure: I live in Mexico City, where the subway is usually the best option to get anywhere within its range. My office is outside the subway system's reaches, so I also have to suffer heavy traffic as well. I'm pretty sure that if the subway line were extended all the way here, the current 40-minute 8km trip from the terminus to my office would cut down to 15 minutes or less. (It takes me 15 minutes to travel the first 11km leg of my daily commute by subway.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    It depends; I'm pretty sure that some residents prefer to ride the subway when traffic's sufficiently packed. Big cities like NYC, San Francisco and Chicago even have express services running alongside "regular" subway systems: BART, PATH, Metra.

    What the hell are you talking about?  Those are "commuter rail" systems..  heavy rail transport from outer suburbs into a city..

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    I'd bet I would've made less from O'Hare Intl on the subway instead of driving down the Kennedy Expy when I last went over there.

    You also stand a 5000 times greater chance of being knifed to death for your shoes if you ride the L.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    Private motoring is more inefficient for daily commuting, as many cars on the road are only carrying one person (the driver), which means that all those congested roads are only being 25% efficient in doing their jobs. Subway usually goes ... well maybe over 100% during peak hours (overcrowded!) but it can be solved.

    Please... just stop talking...  you are so fucking stupid it hurts...  Normally I try to gloss over your really ignorant, pointless and bullshit statements but this is too fucking much to ask... 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    It depends; I'm pretty sure that some residents prefer to ride the subway when traffic's sufficiently packed. Big cities like NYC, San Francisco and Chicago even have express services running alongside "regular" subway systems: BART, PATH, Metra.

    What the hell are you talking about?  Those are "commuter rail" systems..  heavy rail transport from outer suburbs into a city..

    Yep, it also saves you from driving from the suburban areas. I kind of lost the point there, as over here the only "commuter rail" system in place just opened this year, and I'm not familiar with the system. It does, however, provide with a "quick jump" between two metro stations on different lines, serving as a shortcut.

    @morbiuswilters said:


    @danixdefcon5 said:

    I'd bet I would've made less from O'Hare Intl on the subway instead of driving down the Kennedy Expy when I last went over there.

    You also stand a 5000 times greater chance of being knifed to death for your shoes if you ride the L.

    Yipes. Mexico City's subway is actually safe, it is one of the places you'd least expect to be mugged. I forgot this isn't the case everywhere.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    Yep, it also saves you from driving from the suburban areas. I kind of lost the point there, as over here the only "commuter rail" system in place just opened this year, and I'm not familiar with the system. It does, however, provide with a "quick jump" between two metro stations on different lines, serving as a shortcut.

    Right, that's why it's a commuter rail.  People out in the burbs can hop onto a train and ride into the city for work rather than deal with traffic.  However, in the suburbs themselves driving tends to be the preferred mode of transport, which makes sense with everything being further apart.  Of course, the need for commuter rail systems is just another outgrowth of the problem of managing dense cities which themselves might be a bit of an anachronism.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    Yipes. Mexico City's subway is actually safe, it is one of the places you'd least expect to be mugged. I forgot this isn't the case everywhere.

    It tends to vary in the US.  In some cities (Boston, New York, San Francisco) the public transportation is used by all sorts of people so you're as safe as you are anywhere.  Chicago is modern enough, though, that driving is much less of a pain and so public transportation tends to be reserved for the poor, feeble and insane.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.