Today I learned about capitalism

[Number37]

This business body says children as young as 13 could be used to help solve labour shortages in Australia

The Australian Retailers Association is calling for changes to the national minimum working age requirements so that children as young as 13 years old can be put to work to help fill labour shortages.

www.sbs.com.au

Policy, Advocacy & Industry Engagement - National Retail Association
These toads are the ones pushing it, and are advocating for QLD laws - which apparently allow kids to work at 13 - to be uniform across Australia.

Kids can work at any age, except in QLD.
The only catch is they can't be employed during school hours.

 

[Gralin]

I mean I had a paper route before 15

but today I learned that you can already work in retail or hospitality (with some limitations) at 13 in Victoria

but the employer has to have a permit and all supervisors have to have working with children checks

 

[Sydney Kicker]

Home advantage: federal politicians’ hefty property portfolios revealed in register of interests

In addition to residences and investments, dozens of MPs own homes in Canberra for which they can claim a $299 a night travel allowance

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Punter]

The Canberra travel allowances are always brought up as a "rort", but I've never, ever read an alternative suggestion to how things should be handled.

 

[nut]

Sounds like the system is working fine …. For a few.

'They see themselves as gods': Why are so many tech billionaires planning for the apocalypse?

This professor was invited to speak at a meeting of billionaire preppers. It got weird.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Here's a fun Capitalist game all the Private Schools can play

 

[Seeds]

Sounds like the system is working fine …. For a few.

'They see themselves as gods': Why are so many tech billionaires planning for the apocalypse?

This professor was invited to speak at a meeting of billionaire preppers. It got weird.

www.abc.net.au

I cant figure out which part of that article is more nutty.

the paranoid rich people building bunkers or the professors ridiculous understanding of business and growth.

 

[QuietB]

The Canberra travel allowances are always brought up as a "rort", but I've never, ever read an alternative suggestion to how things should be handled.

Removing it is a rounding error as well. It would not actually solve much.

 

[E Shed]

Man with billions of dollars insists others have too much.

Major investor calls on Google owner to ‘aggressively’ cut staff and pay

Hedge fund owned by Christopher Hohn urges Alphabet to emulate cost-cutting measures of Silicon Valley rivals

www.theguardian.com

 

[AM]

 

[Gralin]

I like that

 

[kranky al]

I cant figure out which part of that article is more nutty.

the paranoid rich people building bunkers or the professors ridiculous understanding of business and growth.

Hyperbolic perhaps but what part of continuous economic growth and population growth can coexist with a finite planet?

 

[Seeds]

No you are thinking of feudalism and confusing the remaining elements of it that still exist in todays society with capitalism.

 

[Seeds]

Hyperbolic perhaps but what part of continuous economic growth and population growth can coexist with a finite planet?

the majority of Economic growth comes from efficiency. Using resources more efficiently. Therefore it can be infinite with finite resources.

Humans dont desire infinite growth in any case. the goal is to get to a point where all of humanities desires are met for zero cost. We are on that path with the rise of automation, dramatic declines in the cost of renewable energy and ongoing biological advances that will soon create free food. but in terms of achieving the end goal we are still so far away.

 

[Gralin]

No you are thinking of feudalism and confusing the remaining elements of it that still exist in todays society with capitalism.

No, it's capitalism.
We're even getting some feudalism thrown back in where people are renting off their employers now though so yay

 

[kranky al]

the majority of Economic growth comes from efficiency. Using resources more efficiently. Therefore it can be infinite with finite resources.

Humans dont desire infinite growth in any case. the goal is to get to a point where all of humanities desires are met for zero cost. We are on that path with the rise of automation, dramatic declines in the cost of renewable energy and ongoing biological advances that will soon create free food. but in terms of achieving the end goal we are still so far away.

That sounds just as utterly pie in the sky as reading soviet dogma.

 

[Seeds]

That sounds just as utterly pie in the sky as reading soviet dogma.

Go look at the stats then. I think you will find the majority of economic growth in Western countries has come from total factor productivity (tfp) growth. Solow growth theory states that all per capita gdp growth in the long run comes from tfp. This isn't one of my theories by the way. This is what they teach all undergraduate economic students.

 

[Gralin]

the majority of Economic growth comes from efficiency.

No it comes from demand growth which comes from population growth or consumption growth

Using resources more efficiently. Therefore it can be infinite with finite resources.

This is just not true, physics says so. You get diminishing returns you can't become so efficient that you can make unlimited products from finite materials

Humans dont desire infinite growth in any case. the goal is to get to a point where all of humanities desires are met for zero cost.

Just lol, captilism requires infinite growth, our economies are built on it

We are on that path with the rise of automation,

You get that what you're talking about here is increasing profits by reducing Labor costs.
And automation means decreasing available jobs in the market.
How exactly are all these unemployed people going to buy stuff?

dramatic declines in the cost of renewable energy and ongoing biological advances that will soon create free food. but in terms of achieving the end goal we are still so far away.

You're in a thread about capitalism talking about free food
Very good to see that as usual you are completely out of your depth

 

[Seeds]

No it comes from demand growth which comes from population growth or consumption growth

This is just not true, physics says so. You get diminishing returns you can't become so efficient that you can make unlimited products from finite materials

Just lol, captilism requires infinite growth, our economies are built on it

You get that what you're talking about here is increasing profits by reducing Labor costs.
And automation means decreasing available jobs in the market.
How exactly are all these unemployed people going to buy stuff?

You're in a thread about capitalism talking about free food
Very good to see that as usual you are completely out of your depth

gdp growth = tfp growth + alpha*employment growth + (1-alpha)* capital growth. (Alpha is the employment share)

employment growth has been much much lower then gdp growth and thus isnt the main driver of it as you claim. The last three hundred years has seen a massive boom in gdp per worker growth. I.e. growth that is beyond simply employment/population growth. capital growth has driven part of this growth but eventually it reaches a steady state level where on a per capita basis new capital created simply replaces depreciated capital resulting in the capital component making zero long term contribution to gdp growth (Read up on Solow growth theory if you want question this statement).

This means that in the long run the primary driver of GDP growth is total factor productivity growth.

And yes productivity does mean getting more output without using any additional resources. That is exactly what its definition is. As an example look at energy. we have long needed fossil fuel resources to create energy. We are almost at a point where energy can be produced without using any material resources on earth at all.

 

[Gralin]

gdp growth = tfp growth + alpha*employment growth + (1-alpha)* capital growth. (Alpha is the employment share)

employment growth has been much much lower then gdp growth and thus isnt the main driver of it as you claim.

I said more consumers or more consumption.
You need growth in spending

The last three hundred years has seen a massive boom in gdp per worker growth. I.e. growth that is beyond simply employment/population growth. capital growth has driven part of this growth but eventually it reaches a steady state level where on a per capita basis new capital created simply replaces depreciated capital resulting in the capital component making zero long term contribution to gdp growth (Read up on Solow growth theory if you want question this statement).

This means that in the long run the primary driver of GDP growth is total factor productivity growth.

And yes productivity does mean getting more output without using any additional resources.

No productivity doesn't mean getting more output without additional input.
It's the measuring of one vs the other ane you can't infinitely expand the output with the same input.

That is exactly what its definition is. As an example look at energy. we have long needed fossil fuel resources to create energy. We are almost at a point where energy can be produced without using any material resources on earth at all.

If this is your argument you couldn't be more wrong.
We don't get energy without material costs, we will never get energy without material costs.
You're arguing against physics here

 

[kranky al]

Go look at the stats then. I think you will find the majority of economic growth in Western countries has come from total factor productivity (tfp) growth. Solow growth theory states that all per capita gdp growth in the long run comes from tfp. This isn't one of my theories by the way. This is what they teach all undergraduate economic students.

Thst must be why western countries with declining birthrates keep bringing in immigrants who are brown / muslim despite the right hating and demonising those people.

 

[sdfc]

Thst must be why western countries with declining birthrates keep bringing in immigrants who are brown / muslim despite the right hating and demonising those people.

The poster said per capita GDP growth. What drives per capita GDP growth if not increasing productivity?

 

[Gralin]

The poster said per capita GDP growth. What drives per capita GDP growth if not increasing productivity?

They also said productivy could increase infinitely and we'd soon produce things for free using no resources

 

[Marcel Proust]

They also said productivy could increase infinitely

That's good of the earth to be infinite.

we'd soon produce things for free using no resources

Nice

 

[sdfc]

gdp growth = tfp growth + alpha*employment growth + (1-alpha)* capital growth. (Alpha is the employment share)

employment growth has been much much lower then gdp growth and thus isnt the main driver of it as you claim. The last three hundred years has seen a massive boom in gdp per worker growth. I.e. growth that is beyond simply employment/population growth. capital growth has driven part of this growth but eventually it reaches a steady state level where on a per capita basis new capital created simply replaces depreciated capital resulting in the capital component making zero long term contribution to gdp growth (Read up on Solow growth theory if you want question this statement).

This means that in the long run the primary driver of GDP growth is total factor productivity growth.

And yes productivity does mean getting more output without using any additional resources. That is exactly what its definition is. As an example look at energy. we have long needed fossil fuel resources to create energy. We are almost at a point where energy can be produced without using any material resources on earth at all.

Using no material resources unless you count the resources used to capture and store it.