Malazan Empire: Silencer - Viewing Profile - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

User Rating: ****-

Reputation: 829 Rep Panther, Rrrrow!
Group:
Administrators
Active Posts:
8,130 (1.85 per day)
Most Active In:
Games (1517 posts)
Joined:
07-July 07
Profile Views:
44,236
Last Active:
User is online Today, 06:54 AM
Currently:
Searching...

My Information

Member Title:
Manipulating Special Data
Age:
Age Unknown
Birthday:
Birthday Unknown
Location:
New Zealand
Interests:
Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
Computer Game Design.
Programming.

Contact Information

E-mail:
Click here to e-mail me
MSN:
MSN  assassin_006@hotmail.com
Website URL:
Website URL  http://forums.malazanempire.com
Skype:
Skype  silencer_006

Icon Latest Reputation

829

Current Reputation


Latest Visitors

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Pity for the Poor

    Yesterday, 01:05 PM

    Just because there are worse conditions in the world, doesn't invalidate the complaints of the ones affected.

    You are moving to America for a better opportunity (though I think you'll find your double salary doesn't go much further once cost of living is factored in), and you say there are 10,000 South Africans who would do the same job for less? What job do they have now?
    Because I can guarantee, no matter what it is, even if it is unemployment, I can find 10,000 people elsewhere who would rather be in there shoes. Maybe some people from the Congo, or North Korea, or maybe some kid in America who can't move and is wracked by constant pain due to some incurable illness.

    These stories are not a competition. They are not "we have it worse than you". They aren't meant to belittle other people's suffering. It's not, after all, a zero sum game.
    These Amazon workers can be overworked and underpaid and struggling to get by, AND there can be people enslaved by ISIS in Syria who are suffering more. They're not mutually exclusive, and the fact of one does not invalidate or lessen the fact of the other.

    You seem to be trying to make an absolute value comparison when that is not the intent nor the point. It is a *relative* comparison and doesn't need to be swept aside because someone else, somewhere, has it worse. To make that argument would be akin to claiming we don't need to deal with child labour abuses because somewhere else, someone is being literally tortured.

    I also think you're trying to intellectualise and pick apart an experience. It's not that simple. The effect of the whole situation is greater than the sum of its parts. The argument that walking 30km a day may not be that hard is 1) an assumption and 2) taken in isolation. Aside from the fact you admit the last time you did something similar you had sore feet, imagine doing that in shoes that don't fit right (Because you can't afford to buy good ones, or at least not as frequently as they'd wear out from constant 30km trips), or doing that then having to walk home another 15km because you can't afford a car. Hell, imagine doing that while needing to go to the toilet.

    As for the claim that raising the minimum wage causes inflation, this is true. What isn't mentioned though is that the increase of the cost of living is normally LESS than increased cash in hand for most workers and - more importantly - is not necessary. Most of these businesses have sufficient profit margins that they could absorb any such increase without increasing the cost of their products. They don't, however, because they want all the profit, and don't care for the broader economy (a short-sighted view I'll get into more in a moment). It is artificial inflation, not necessary.
    As for Amazon creating jobs....sure, it created like 60,000 jobs in the country when it started. But it also cost millions of jobs, by driving out smaller businesses due to lower prices. The rise of Amazon was a net job loss for the US, and remains so today. It funneled a diversified income across millions onto the hands of a fraction of the work force, who didn't get paid more - so guess where all that extra income went? To like 5 people who got very, very rich.

    It is the same problem as all automation. Every company wants to automate as much as possible, cut jobs, and therefore make profits.
    Here's the problem though. Every company is doing this...so if they keep cutting employees, who is going to buy their products? Nobody. Because those people won't have any money to do so without a job.
    This is why all companies are inherently damaging their own long term survivability once they focus on growing profits without growing employment and wages. They are reducing the size of their customers' disposable income! The tipping point is usually once a company is no longer able to grow their market share. This is why banks are among the first to do stupid things (you know, like cause the GFC) - banks are effectively always at 100% market share since everyone needs a bank account and there is only so much room for competitive pricing to steal your competitors customers. So at first you try to be more efficient, do things faster so you can do more. Then you run out of ways to increase speed. Then the only options left end up being to cut staff (an artificial profit bump as long term you either need to rehire due to volume management issues or staff burnout for those who remain, or even longer term you run into a collapsing economy as consumer spending decreases due to the factors mentioned previously) or start defrauding people.

    At the end of the day you either get why these people are complaining, or you buy into a system that wants to profit at your expense. :) just remember that it's not about who has it worst, it's about whether there is a problem with the current situation, and how to fix it. You can, after all, have sympathy for more than the most wretched life on earth. :)
  2. In Topic: Sports wages

    13 July 2019 - 08:25 AM

    View PostGorefest, on 13 July 2019 - 08:00 AM, said:

    Shareholders? Most (European) clubs don't have shareholders. And many are struggling to make ends meet. You are referring only to a select top flight of clubs with most of your comments, I believe. The Manchester Cities and the Barcelonas of this world. Heck, in Germany clubs aren't even allowed to be in private ownership.


    Oh, to be sure. Shareholders aren't entirely necessary to my point, though. If the money is going to managers/owners/what have you, it's the same end result. The reference to shareholders was specifically in the context of the broader argument I was making, which encompasses other industries, just to be clear.
  3. In Topic: Sports wages

    13 July 2019 - 06:15 AM

    View PostGrief, on 09 July 2019 - 12:06 AM, said:

    View PostSilencer, on 08 July 2019 - 10:58 PM, said:

    To be clear, I include a reduction in wages for the corporate side of the teams in my previous post.

    That could be achieved through a 100% tax above a certain income threshold, and I'm not inherently opposed to that, but I do think that comparatively the income of sportsball teams is skewed horrifically and not in a way that should be celebrated. Same as Hollywood.

    Nor do I think lauding it as an outcome of economics makes sense, given the whole system has been set up to create artificial scarcity of tickets and therefore inflate the prices accordingly. It's at best a very successful con and at worst the natural outcome of most "X as a service" models that are becoming more popular in other industries. It would, after all, be very easy to restrict the number of times a Netflix documentary can be viewed and so start charging higher one off viewing prices- that isn't a success story, even if Netflix employees get paid more as a result. It's a manipulation of the market to exploit consumers. Much like most big sportsball events and leagues. It just happens to result in unreasonably compensated employees in this particular case.


    Firstly, as far as I'm aware the money in football comes more from TV deals, merchandising, and sponsorships rather than from tickets. Guardian figures suggest this is certainly true for the premier league. Secondly, I'm curious as to why you think game tickets are "artificially" scarce. There are physical limits on the number of matches top athletes can play. There are physical limits on the number of seats the stadiums house. The fact that the industry is generally trying to push both of these numbers higher suggests that they see a stronger economic rationale for increasing the number of tickets where they can rather than keeping them scarce. The significant waiting lists for club season tickets similarly suggests that tickets are mostly likely underpriced in the short-term, if anything. That is, if the strategy is to keep tickets artificially scarce then they're under-exploiting the scarcity.

    I'm also curious as to where you draw the line on "exploiting" consumers who choose to buy your product. Data is very easy to duplicate so in a sense any scarcity is "artificial" but at the same time netflix has plenty of operating costs. Should they just be charging marginal cost? If an author realised they would make more money by charging higher prices to fewer customers, would that be immoral?



    So, exactly, yes. The tickets are artificially scarce because there is now an unlimited number of viewers of the game. Now, one can argue there is a difference between watching the game in person and watching it on TV, but at the end of the day it's the same game being observed. Those TV deals, merchandising, and sponsorships are why tickets should be a dime a dozen. Hell, make them free, make them a raffle based system (at least then when people are getting scalped they wouldn't be able to blame the cost on the fact the original tickets are stupidly expensive).

    In all seriousness though, my point is that ticket prices have increased as time goes on, despite other revenue streams coming into place, and the fact that the number of viewers of the event is now basically infinite. And I don't think it's unreasonable to say that just because there is demand for physical tickets, those physical tickets are not overpriced. I feel the same way about movie ticket prices - they keep increasing, while the same is true of the profits of the movie industry and accessibility to view - so where is the damn reduction in cost of physical DVDs, movie tickets, etc?
    The answer could be one of two things - I'm unreasonably lumping (stadium seats, TV views, etc)/(theater seats/Netflix/DVDs/etc) together, and going to the actual stadium to watch a live event is simply a different product that has a different value. Or, these companies could be milking their fans for money across all these avenues to the tune of endlessly increasing profits (potentially while deliberately furthering the belief that going to a 'live' event is somehow different to viewing it on TV in a way that justifies more cost for the tickets).


    As for the line on exploiting consumers, well, most industries passed that a long time ago. Netflix should be covering their operating costs and making a tidy profit to invest in future acquisitions and R&D, nothing more, and that author would definitely be acting immorally by creating artificial scarcity (e.g. restricting access through inflated pricing relative to demand). Also while data is easy to duplicate it still carries overheads to deliver, so there is still some increase in cost to distribute, but effectively yes, anything that can be delivered digitally should cost a fraction of the price of a physical copy due to minimal distribution costs in comparison. This is why it's insane that Steam charges similar prices for its games to a physical disk in a store - the game developer still has to cover their costs, but the actual reason for the pricing is that publisher profits are like 3000% what they were 30 years ago and they want them to keep increasing. So even though more people are buying the games, the prices are not decreasing, and there is actually zero valid economic strain on the developers to justify that. (e.g. yes, costs to make games have increased, but the profit margins far outstrip that cost still, so there should be no increase in price.) Same for sports teams - there has been no increase in cost to produce a game of football (except for, you know, artificially inflated player and manager wages - which are also being used to generate hype, "how much will this trade be for", "who will be the highest paid athlete", that sort of thing) and yet ticket prices are up, and profits are waaaaay up. Why are the profits up? What has changed that would lead to both an increase in cost to view the game AND an increase in profits? Nothing, it's just greed. Greed that coincidentally benefits some athletes, sure. But it still at the end of the day is exploitation of consumers.
    I think any company that is increasing it's prices without a corresponding increase in cost, purely to deliver more profits, is exploiting its consumers at this point. They are prioritising their shareholder's desires for increased profits over and above their consumer's wellbeing, knowing that most people will pay the increased price even if it puts them (further) into debt, because the entire system now is built around consumers having excess amounts of credit and living outside their means.

    And if you're thinking that sounds like a fundamental issue with captialism as it stands today, you're correct. Company profits keep soaring, while wages are stagnant, and people can't afford to pay rent or mortgages. That system is, fundamentally, unsustainable. Which is why we keep having crashes, and why those crashes are getting worse. Sports teams are just one example, with particularly egregious wages to their players at the expense of their fans - but it's honestly not that different to the wages of most corporate executives at the expense of their consumers, and in both cases the people who are lower down the totem pole (staff for a company, lower profile teams for sports) get none of it.
    You could charge a fraction of the ticket prices today, thereby screwing your fans less, and still pay these sports stars extremely well. But why do that when you can charge them more, right?
  4. In Topic: The USA politics thread -

    13 July 2019 - 05:18 AM

    View Postworry, on 12 July 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

    Dang, just came up with a far out hypothetical: How would ultra-patriots react if a president went so far as to deliberately target active US military, veterans, and their families, with the goal of destroying their lives, in order to enact a petty grudge against the previous president. You know, those real flag waving, support our troops at all costs types. What would they say in response? Anyway just thinking out loud. Not sure where I come up with these crazy ideas. Maybe it's just the fact that this exact situation is happening right now.




    Presumably exactly the same thing they said when he last floated the idea of revoking citizenship earned through service. "Sounds good!"

    -_-
  5. In Topic: Sports wages

    08 July 2019 - 10:58 PM

    To be clear, I include a reduction in wages for the corporate side of the teams in my previous post.

    That could be achieved through a 100% tax above a certain income threshold, and I'm not inherently opposed to that, but I do think that comparatively the income of sportsball teams is skewed horrifically and not in a way that should be celebrated. Same as Hollywood.

    Nor do I think lauding it as an outcome of economics makes sense, given the whole system has been set up to create artificial scarcity of tickets and therefore inflate the prices accordingly. It's at best a very successful con and at worst the natural outcome of most "X as a service" models that are becoming more popular in other industries. It would, after all, be very easy to restrict the number of times a Netflix documentary can be viewed and so start charging higher one off viewing prices- that isn't a success story, even if Netflix employees get paid more as a result. It's a manipulation of the market to exploit consumers. Much like most big sportsball events and leagues. It just happens to result in unreasonably compensated employees in this particular case.

Comments

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  1. Photo

    Tsundoku 

    19 Nov 2018 - 11:18
    Can we have a Rejoice! A Knife to the Heart subforum?
  2. Photo

    Tsundoku 

    18 Nov 2018 - 08:43
    Oi! Clear out your messages! Or have you blocked them? :P
  3. Photo

    Loki 

    22 Nov 2012 - 02:28
    SOOOOOOON! CHEE! XD
  4. Photo

    LinearPhilosopher 

    08 Oct 2012 - 16:06
    Also of note, it seems to only kick me when im in my st.catharines residence, not my toronto residence. Not sure if that helps you any.
  5. Photo

    LinearPhilosopher 

    08 Oct 2012 - 16:05
    ok so i clearly didn't realise how this conversation business thing works.
    i click the chat button at the top, when joining it says "you have been kicked from the chat room"
    On october 02 I tried joining around 10:24am gmt-5, so you can check the logs for that time. that is if you still have logs for that far back.
  6. Photo

    Loki 

    14 Jul 2012 - 14:13
    I love looking at your profile......so many Garruses in one place XD
  7. Photo

    Loki 

    11 Jul 2012 - 13:00
    I lied. I'm still going to use my new avatar XD
  8. Photo

    Loki 

    10 Jul 2012 - 13:37
    Do you like my new avatar? I figure I'll use this for awhile....at least for the remainder of my Sombra days ;)
  9. Photo

    Loki 

    23 Jun 2012 - 14:52
    If you had ME3 you could play too!
  10. Photo

    Loki 

    13 Jun 2012 - 12:34
    You're a strange one ;)
  11. Photo

    Loki 

    21 May 2012 - 03:46
    Sometimes the CoC gets in the way of righteousness. Just saying ;)
  12. Photo

    Loki 

    19 Mar 2012 - 10:49
    To be fair - I *had* already saved it once XD
  13. Photo

    Loki 

    26 Feb 2012 - 06:35
    Awesome Supreme - you really do deserve that title XD
  14. Photo

    Loki 

    12 Feb 2012 - 11:01
    Okay, did the download thing. Now, if the thread were to get deleted would I still be able to view it from the save file? (Probably a silly question but I want to make sure the save is dependant on the original URL)
  15. Photo

    Gust Hubb 

    12 Feb 2012 - 02:47
    you should drop by chat ;)
  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »