Hate is silly. I think the basic understanding is that if my boss refuses to hire people who are willing to do each job for the least wages out of compassion for his employees, then any competitor who lacks these scruples will use her edge in profit to expand beyond his means and put him out of business in the (extremely) long run. — absoluteaspiration

Typically, if you hire someone who isn't at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum, as an illegal immigrant, they tend to demand things that they haven't yet earned, which is actually a good thing contrary to the conservative sentiment of hatred against 'entitlement'... Instead, such behavior shows confidence and competence for the job to be performed. Paying someone more than they think they ought to earn is also a strategic tactic utilized by employers to decrease turnover, which can be costly in a job environment that requires a lot of training.

So, my point is, that neo-classical (pay the least you can get away with), isn't always the most rational thing to do.

How-so? Teach me! I wanna be rich too! — Wallows

Ha. Well I've never been much of a coin collector, though I am good at spending them slowly. I love grocery stores. As mundane as they are, so much of one's philosophy is manifest there.

Well, my point is that there's nothing unique about being rich or coming to that status. — Wallows

I think I know what you mean. And there's truth in that. But isn't there also truth in 'a fool and his money are soon parted.'? I've seen people squander tens of thousands of dollars. Others would use a small inheritance to invest, etc.

Ha. Well I've never been much of a coin collector, though I am good at spending them slowly. I love grocery stores. As mundane as they are, so much of one's philosophy is manifest there. — Eee

Hmm, grocery stores are the best, as are malls. You can see the invisible hand working its magic thereabouts.

'a fool and his money are soon parted.' — Eee

Yes, there is some truth to that. I am a fool. Not quite as mad as @TheMadFool, though. I'm working on it though. Maybe someday... who knows?

Important point to note: those with more to start with can better afford to fail until they make it. If you’re living check to check and one failure would make you a homeless bum with worse odds than you had before, you can’t afford the risk. Most new business ventures fail, so most people who can only afford to try once will either play it safe by not trying, or fail. Those with a huge safety net can afford to take risks until they hit the jackpot.

Hmm, grocery stores are the best, as are malls. You can see the invisible hand working its magic thereabouts. — Wallows

Nice contrast. I do like H&M. Lots of there stuff is too...something. But occasionally they really nail it, and it's a good price. But I scoff at diamond stores. Even Apples stores. My older iphones are good enough. And yet I need the monied to keep buying the latest. I depend on other lifestyles for my own.

All true. But, caveat... credit, borrowing, venture capitalism comes to save the day!

Nice contrast. I do like H&M. Lots of there stuff is too...something. But occasionally they really nail it, and it's a good price. But I scoff at diamond stores. Even Apples stores. My older iphones are good enough. And yet I need the monied to keep buying the latest. I depend on other lifestyles for my own. — Eee

"Fashion" is a concept I never did entirely get. The whole industry is probably worth maybe a trillion.

Ooo, 2.5 Trillion!

"Fashion" is a concept I never did entirely get. The whole industry is probably worth maybe a trillion. — Wallows

Well I guess I'm a peacock. But I like to work with the most understated, classic elements. A person just projects competence and self-respect when they are dressed carefully. And what one doesn't do is perhaps more important than what one does.

I'm just opinionating here, but I do indeed believe in the 'language' of clothing. And in my book one can err by spending too much. For me the game is nailing it via taste. In same way that bad cooking can always involve too much salt, fat, or sugar...so can bad dressing involve excessive expenditure. But all of this is relative. If a person is rich and hangs with the rich, they may need a suit that costs 2K. Background is 'part' of foreground. IMO we have to account for context. And this applies even to intellectual fashion.

One 'has' to learn to see one's self from the outside, in context, to be good at a certain kind of game. Now whether that's a worth game is another issue. But I personally love clothes that are just so. But that applies to other objects in life. I like the idea of living art. I like the idea of necessary life tools also being beautiful.

And what one doesn't do is perhaps more important than what one does. — Eee

Very Wittgenstian. I like! :up:

Aww, the mods are in a foul mood it seems. Once again, moved to The Lounge.

Can I like, build a tent or something and prosper here?

Aww, the mods are in a foul mood it seems. Once again, moved to The Lounge. — Wallows

I don't think it matters much, as long as the conversation is permitted to continue. I never pay attention to the categories. Like never.

I don't think it matters much, as long as the conversation is permitted to continue. I never pay attention to the categories. Like never. — Eee

Hmm, but I like being a philosophical celebrity, don't you? xD

Hmm, but I like being a philosophical celebrity, don't you? xD — Wallows

Oh yeah, I am trying to squeeze out a fresh meme now and then. But I like anonymity too. A nice compromise is launching a meme and see a few people assimilate it into the personality / system.

I want to be contagious. And yet I was never really here.

Oh yeah, I am trying to squeeze out a fresh meme now and then. But I like anonymity too. A nice compromise is launching a meme and see a few people assimilate it into the personality / system.

I want to be contagious. And yet I was never really here. — Eee

A contagious meme! Dennett would approve.

A contagious meme! Dennett would approve. — Wallows

This to me is the second, secret purpose of philosophy. It's not just about truth. It's also creative enterprise, a form of poetry. It's not non-fiction, exactly. It instead creates reality, installs new software. I think we live 'in' language, 'in' a field of shared concepts. And we can modify this 'field,' but usually only in small ways. The 'geniuses' (like Wittgenstein) seduce us with there memes. That seduction feels like a revelation of the real, and to some degree I think it is, but it is also a construction of a our shared conceptual reality. We swim in an ocean of signs. As 'spirits' we are chains of signs that talk about themselves. Something like that...

It's almost as if philosophy and not mathematics, were the true universal language, no?

That seduction feels like a revelation of the real, and to some degree I think it is, but it is also a construction of a our shared conceptual reality. We swim in an ocean of signs. As 'spirits' we are chains of signs that talk about themselves. Something like that... — Eee

Is this why nothing ever changes.

Not sure if sarcasm or not, but in case not: those are all means for those with money to gamble with to gamble on the ventures of those without such money. If you have to borrow at interest to take your risks, then you’re extra boned when you almost certainly fail anyway, and a bunch of your winnings go to someone who’s already rich if you unexpectedly beat the odds.

I’m stating direct opposition to the following ‘ought to know’ for the reasons stated.

Everyone ought to know that 10 people with a million is simply flat out better than one person with 10 million in any sort of socio-economic dynamical equilibria (perhaps barring monopolies, and even that is a stretch). — Wallows

Not only do I not know this I find it to be incorrect because it is a very poor generalisation.

What determines the ‘better’ is what is done with the resources NOT how equally they are distributed. What people do with what they’ve got matters more than the amount they have. I don’t see a way to avoid this point.

Better than nothing. And, if the idea pays off (being reasonable here, like patenting a new way to open a canned beer) then your set for life.

People with less money spend more of it, increasing the velocity of money and so the productivity of the economy. If you take money from the rich and give it to the poor it will immediately be spent on whatever businesses are making whatever the most in demand things are, generating greater value than whatever a few rich people decide they value most.

There was no mention of distribution here. I find it hard to fathom why you think one person with 10 million is a better consumer than 10 people with 1 million each??

I never said that. I was arguing against that your opinion is ‘flat out better’.

I may have read more into what you wrote than you intended though. If it is just individuals working independently then it is generally better to have ten people with clout than one person with clout - that said someone with ten million would likely have gotten to that point by mutual exchanges and will likely continue to feed back into the system. This is basically down to the individuals social attitudes and concerns.

I’d hazard a guess that a great number of successful business types are obviously stuck in a bit of a bubble, but I would say it is wrong to assume they’re completely blind to societal difficulties as well as inactive. Some don’t care and some do.

Well, then I should have been more specific and just said that the aggregate demand for goods produced by and for 10 consumers with 1 million each, would surpass the demand created by 1 person with 10 million.

Would that be any different than saying 10 people as opposed to 1. I still don’t quite see what you were getting at with the original point or this one?

Would 10 people with 10mil each and 1 person with 10mil in terms of consumer demands compared to 10 people with 1mil each and 1 person with 10mil? If so, how and why?

Would 10 people with 10mil each and 1 person with 10mil in terms of consumer demands compared to 10 people with 1mil each and 1 person with 10mil? If so, how and why? — I like sushi

Really Sushi? OK.

Let's assume the typical et ceteris paribus maxim here and assume nothing creative is being done with the net sum of 10 million. 10 people with a million dollars each are going to consume MORE than one person with 10 million.

Is there disagreement with the concept or wording thus far?

No, I don’t read latin. Just answer my question please.