Author Topic: Modern Day Slavery  (Read 17580 times)

RWD

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #150 on: May 31, 2018, 02:15:49 PM »
This seems like a good place to put this link: 

http://slaveryfootprint.org/

How many slaves work for you?  (Hint: A LOT more than you think.)

Apparently if I'm like the average American then there are 11 billion slaves supporting the United States alone... Somehow I am skeptical of the results of that survey.

The quote I saw for that site on estimated worldwide slave populations was 11 million. Very different from 11 billion.

My point exactly. The number their site spits out for "my" slaves doesn't pass a mathematical sniff test and is grossly exaggerated. Maybe there really are ~30 slaves involved in creating products I use, but then they are also working for a thousand other people too. If I was never born there wouldn't be 30 less slaves. More likely what it means is that I am [allegedly] directly responsible for 0.03 slaves. But that wouldn't be a very sensationalist number.

Ahhhhh that makes more sense.

I don't find it particularly misleading, but my take on it was "it took 23 slaves to produce the things I own" -- not that I am directly responsible for 23 slaves being held in slavery in perpetuity. I completely believe that 23 slaves were involved in the labor that it takes to mine materials for and then physically produce objects that I own -- like a smartphone, a laptop, and a car. I certainly do not believe that 23 slaves are slaves solely because I own a smartphone, a laptop, and a car.

I think my interpretation is reasonable, but looking at the info actually on the page at the end of that test, I think your interpretation is reasonable too (especially if someone had never seen the total estimated number of slaves worldwide on the front page, like if they'd just been linked straight to the test). It should be made way, way clearer on that page what they mean by "working for you," whether or not the clarified meaning has the same effect on someone's mind/heart.

No problem. I came to the same conclusion you did after running the math and seeing that a direct link was mathematically impossible.

As long as I'm complaining about that survey... I'm annoyed they didn't break down how much each of my choices affected my slave count (unless I missed the explanation somewhere). The result is extra meaningless when it doesn't tell me which changes I could make in my life to reduce the number most effectively.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7193
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #151 on: May 31, 2018, 02:37:03 PM »
It should be made way, way clearer on that page what they mean by "working for you," whether or not the clarified meaning has the same effect on someone's mind/heart.

The world has always been pyramid shaped.  We enjoy an upper middle class American lifestyle that is absolutely dependent on the poverty of billions.  There just aren't enough resources on earth for everyone to live an American lifestyle.  We need poor people to sew our walmart clothes and mine our REE and pick our fruit.

But we are equally part of the pyramid, and above us is a much smaller population of people living lives of fabulous wealth, who are just as dependent on us (scientists, lawyers,  dentists, etc) as we are dependent on the people below us.  They can't be bothered to file their own taxes just like we can't be bothered to pick our own fruit.  Our society generates abundance by specializing labor forces into tranches of shittiness.  Our global economy thrives on inequality.  The rising tide may float "all" boats, but it floats some of them much higher than others on purpose.

I don't really have a good proposed solution to this problem.  Some people in this thread are lamenting that the base of the pyramid suffers in poverty, and other people are lamenting that they themselves suffer compared to the folks at the top, but in truth we all suffer to varying degrees, even the people at the top.  We all have a role to play, and your freedom to change rolls is more limited than we like to believe.

I think of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, commanding vast armies of laborers and slaves to build massive monuments.  They may have wanted fancy tombs, but what they really wanted was a stable and productive economic system that supported their lavish lifestyle, and pyramid building was just the easiest way to keep everyone busy making beer and pickles and bread to feed the laborers who worked for the quarry engineers who worked for the masons who worked for the architects who worked for the priests who worked for the pharaoh's monarchy.  Everyone had a role to play, and limited freedom to change it.  But everyone worked, and their civilization prospered because it was self-stabilizing as long as everyone colored between the lines.  Monuments got built and everyone had enough to eat, because of the inequality they imposed.  Without a pharaoh, they would have been just another desert tribe lost to history.

Is our modern economy really so different?  I'm all for eradicating slavery, but just like with American abolition it won't do away with poverty or violence or abuse, and it certainly won't change the shape of the world.  You have to look at it as a human rights issue for the individuals involved, not a game changing reconstruction of global markets.  Just like we did in America, we'll certainly find some other way to keep everyone busy making beer and pickles and bread, while the guys at the top build their fancy monuments.

And that's why I think the OP in this thread has a point.  You can quibble over whether or not it's PC to call it "slavery", but it's not really that different.  The means of control have changed, but the shape of the world has not.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #152 on: May 31, 2018, 04:53:45 PM »
I don't really have a good proposed solution to this problem.

The solution is automation. AI robot slaves. The tricky part is avoiding a dystopian future where only 0.01% of the population gets to enjoy the fruits of the labor of those robot slaves, and avoiding the even more terrifying prospect of what that 0.01% might choose to do to the rest of us when they realize they no longer need us for anything.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #153 on: May 31, 2018, 05:53:04 PM »
I don't really have a good proposed solution to this problem.

The solution is automation. AI robot slaves. The tricky part is avoiding a dystopian future where only 0.01% of the population gets to enjoy the fruits of the labor of those robot slaves, and avoiding the even more terrifying prospect of what that 0.01% might choose to do to the rest of us when they realize they no longer need us for anything.

Nah.

The tricky part is ensuring that you're part of that 0.01%.  :P

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #154 on: May 31, 2018, 08:18:28 PM »
BTW, why do you attribute "mattering by comparison" with the ability to alter politics or make lots of money.

I thin Elon Musk has "mattered" because he has chosen to use his wealth and power to change the way society works, in several different ways (all of which benefit him, of course).  No politics required.  He's not using his money to lobby Congress the way the Koch brother's do, he's just changing things.

Zuckerberg and Gates are also good examples.  They changed the world, and got rich, and used their riches and their power to change the world some more.

Who else is on the list of fabulously wealthy people who steer the ship?  Arguably the wealthiest and most powerful man in the entire world today, eclipsing even Jeff Bezos by a large margin, is Vladimir Putin.  Like all fabulously wealthy people, he uses his wealth and his power to preserve his wealth and his power.

Definitely easier to change the world when you have money.  Personally i am not a huge fan of Zuckerberg though I am a big fan of Musk and Gates. Buffet plans to donate much of his wealth to the Gates Foundation upon Death.  Soros spends lots of money on social changes though I do not fully agree with all of them.  Now lets look at the Koch brothers who also choose to change the US but I am sure you disagree with the changes they want.  Trump is another example of a rich guy trying to make changes that he feels is right.  What about Alexander Fleming who invented Penicillin who changed the planet for the better.  Ghandi and Martin Luther King are other examples.  You do not necessarily have to be rich to do something that matters though money makes it easier.  Sol, you want to make changes then create something amazing for the world.  You want to matter socially then run for politics and if what you want is popular you can make a difference as well. Or you can be a good person to the people around you such as your friends, family and neighbors and you will matter to them. 

ChpBstrd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #155 on: May 31, 2018, 08:32:18 PM »
It should be made way, way clearer on that page what they mean by "working for you," whether or not the clarified meaning has the same effect on someone's mind/heart.

The world has always been pyramid shaped.  We enjoy an upper middle class American lifestyle that is absolutely dependent on the poverty of billions.  There just aren't enough resources on earth for everyone to live an American lifestyle.  We need poor people to sew our walmart clothes and mine our REE and pick our fruit.

But we are equally part of the pyramid, and above us is a much smaller population of people living lives of fabulous wealth, who are just as dependent on us (scientists, lawyers,  dentists, etc) as we are dependent on the people below us.  They can't be bothered to file their own taxes just like we can't be bothered to pick our own fruit.  Our society generates abundance by specializing labor forces into tranches of shittiness.  Our global economy thrives on inequality.  The rising tide may float "all" boats, but it floats some of them much higher than others on purpose.

I don't really have a good proposed solution to this problem.  Some people in this thread are lamenting that the base of the pyramid suffers in poverty, and other people are lamenting that they themselves suffer compared to the folks at the top, but in truth we all suffer to varying degrees, even the people at the top.  We all have a role to play, and your freedom to change rolls is more limited than we like to believe.

I think of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, commanding vast armies of laborers and slaves to build massive monuments.  They may have wanted fancy tombs, but what they really wanted was a stable and productive economic system that supported their lavish lifestyle, and pyramid building was just the easiest way to keep everyone busy making beer and pickles and bread to feed the laborers who worked for the quarry engineers who worked for the masons who worked for the architects who worked for the priests who worked for the pharaoh's monarchy.  Everyone had a role to play, and limited freedom to change it.  But everyone worked, and their civilization prospered because it was self-stabilizing as long as everyone colored between the lines.  Monuments got built and everyone had enough to eat, because of the inequality they imposed.  Without a pharaoh, they would have been just another desert tribe lost to history.

Is our modern economy really so different?  I'm all for eradicating slavery, but just like with American abolition it won't do away with poverty or violence or abuse, and it certainly won't change the shape of the world.  You have to look at it as a human rights issue for the individuals involved, not a game changing reconstruction of global markets.  Just like we did in America, we'll certainly find some other way to keep everyone busy making beer and pickles and bread, while the guys at the top build their fancy monuments.

And that's why I think the OP in this thread has a point.  You can quibble over whether or not it's PC to call it "slavery", but it's not really that different.  The means of control have changed, but the shape of the world has not.

Seadog

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #156 on: June 01, 2018, 11:32:32 AM »
Again - our topic is overweight/obesity. That IS determined by calories. You can get just as fat eating all the “healthy” foods you mentioned, if you eat enough of it. Someone can also lose weight by “just” eating McDonald’s, if they eat the right amount of it.

I suggest doing a little scientific experiment and giving this a try.

For the first two weeks, eat nothing but chicken and vegetables, but you're allowed to eat as much of them as you like.
For the next two weeks, go to McDonalds every day and have one Big Mac, large fries, large sugary drink, and you're not allowed to eat anything else for the rest of the day.

I'd guess that in the first two weeks, you won't actually want to eat too much, you'll end up losing some weight, and you'd really have to force-feed yourself if you wanted to put on weight. And in the second two weeks you'll be stupidly hungry and still end up not losing weight.

I do take your point about basic cooking not being too hard or expensive, though. Chicken and vegetables is a very cheap, easy, tasty, and healthy meal (which I tend to cook for myself pretty much every other day).

You're mixing up two different ideas here. He's not saying calories are the only thing that matter in whether you gain weight or not, as I think there is lots of evidence how variable diet compositions can effect things like insulin, hormone production and fat creation/retention.

There is a number of big macs/fries and cokes you can eat where you lose weight. Maybe that's one every 7 days with ravishing hunger for 165 hours of 168. That could financially and weightloss wise correspond to 3 square of chicken and rice with less hunger.   

You're saying the person eating shit food will be stupid hungry, and as such will keep eating crap, and become obese. I don't disagree. His point was that, even if they are stupid hungry, a western "poor" person has to means to satiate that hunger and continue eating thus enfattening. A real poor person does not have such an option. He isn't disagreeing that two people could have steady weight maintenance cals of 1000 cals of junk food (accompanies by massive hunger) or 2500 cals of good food (no hunger/fat retention), more that if you've bought that quantity of food, and have the option to continue eating, you aren't poor. 

An example that jumps to mind is in the book "The Lion" about the Indian kid who gets lost then adopted by a family in Australia but eventually finds his way home. Great heart warming story and all that. Anyways, he talks about being on the streets, eating samosa's and other fatty fried carby foods that fell to the ground (undoubtedly the "wrong" calories for someone trying to lose weight). Yet those were a luxury and you needed to be in the right place at the right time to snag one before other kids did. He was constantly hungry, which coincides with these pseudo-paleo ideas. But further to that, he was not obese. 

That was his point. Truly poor people are not worried about what kind of foods they eat or macros or hunger. Hunger is a constant reality, and the extent they satisfy it is wholly derived from their wily means, which will almost invariably not be enough to get above a BMI of 20.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #157 on: June 01, 2018, 11:57:58 AM »
So then the only question left is, how much longer do we wait?  How many more multiples of lifetimes do you and your progeny sign up to endure, before we say 'enough'?

Disregarding the other nonsense, I'm curious; do what exactly? Take the CEO's money? (and do what with it?). Cap CEO pay? As someone else said; pay him $0 and give the rest a $10 raise? Dissolve Walmart? What is your plan here?

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #158 on: June 01, 2018, 12:06:04 PM »
So then the only question left is, how much longer do we wait?  How many more multiples of lifetimes do you and your progeny sign up to endure, before we say 'enough'?

Disregarding the other nonsense, I'm curious; do what exactly? Take the CEO's money? (and do what with it?). Cap CEO pay? As someone else said; pay him $0 and give the rest a $10 raise? Dissolve Walmart? What is your plan here?

I don't have an answer for you, but the alternative of allowing Walmart to distribute dividends to shareholders (like me) with a preferred tax rate while their employees collect state benefits is both fiscally irresponsible and immoral.*

I mean, historically someone would eventually just murder the King/Tzar/Baron/(CEO?) and their family. If the new aristocracy doesn't want that to happen, maybe they should find a solution?

* - It is also not capitalism, because Walmart is getting away with externalizing some of their costs.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 12:07:55 PM by PDXTabs »

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #159 on: June 01, 2018, 12:13:36 PM »
So then the only question left is, how much longer do we wait?  How many more multiples of lifetimes do you and your progeny sign up to endure, before we say 'enough'?

Disregarding the other nonsense, I'm curious; do what exactly? Take the CEO's money? (and do what with it?). Cap CEO pay? As someone else said; pay him $0 and give the rest a $10 raise? Dissolve Walmart? What is your plan here?

I don't have an answer for you, but the alternative of allowing Walmart to distribute dividends to shareholders (like me) with a preferred tax rate while their employees collect state benefits is both fiscally irresponsible and immoral.*

I mean, historically someone would eventually just murder the King/Tzar/Baron/(CEO?) and their family. If the new aristocracy doesn't want that to happen, maybe they should find a solution?

* - It is also not capitalism, because Walmart is getting away with externalizing some of their costs.

No I agree. Walmarts practices are scummy, and tax-payers financing their low wage costs should offend anyone who's not a significant shareholder (so 99.9% of people?).

But OP had an air of "bring out the guillotine" which I don't think would be very constructive.. The relative pay level of the CEO is a pretty minor issue regarding walmart.

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #160 on: June 01, 2018, 12:16:36 PM »
So then the only question left is, how much longer do we wait?  How many more multiples of lifetimes do you and your progeny sign up to endure, before we say 'enough'?

Disregarding the other nonsense, I'm curious; do what exactly? Take the CEO's money? (and do what with it?). Cap CEO pay? As someone else said; pay him $0 and give the rest a $10 raise? Dissolve Walmart? What is your plan here?

I don't have an answer for you, but the alternative of allowing Walmart to distribute dividends to shareholders (like me) with a preferred tax rate while their employees collect state benefits is both fiscally irresponsible and immoral.*

I mean, historically someone would eventually just murder the King/Tzar/Baron/(CEO?) and their family. If the new aristocracy doesn't want that to happen, maybe they should find a solution?

* - It is also not capitalism, because Walmart is getting away with externalizing some of their costs.

I find it neither fiscally irresponsible nor immoral. As such, I'm perfectly content leaving the system as it is. It hurts no one for the CEO to be paid X multiple of the janitor's salary, so I can't find a moral argument against it. The investors allow the company to be financially successful and thus are rewarded with dividends and capital gains for their investments, which doesn't seem financially irresponsible at all to me. Losing shareholders because you decided to "give away" the profits to workers by paying above market wages for their labor would seem financially irresponsible to me however.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #161 on: June 01, 2018, 12:19:35 PM »
I find it neither fiscally irresponsible nor immoral. As such, I'm perfectly content leaving the system as it is. It hurts no one for the CEO to be paid X multiple of the janitor's salary, so I can't find a moral argument against it. The investors allow the company to be financially successful and thus are rewarded with dividends and capital gains for their investments, which doesn't seem financially irresponsible at all to me. Losing shareholders because you decided to "give away" the profits to workers by paying above market wages for their labor would seem financially irresponsible to me however.

It is a direct transfer of taxpayer wealth to the shareholders. If you are okay with that, I don't really understand.

EDITed to add, and here I am talking about US taxpayers, and shareholders who are not all US citizens or permanent residents.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 12:24:51 PM by PDXTabs »

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #162 on: June 01, 2018, 12:24:17 PM »
Again - our topic is overweight/obesity. That IS determined by calories. You can get just as fat eating all the “healthy” foods you mentioned, if you eat enough of it. Someone can also lose weight by “just” eating McDonald’s, if they eat the right amount of it.

I suggest doing a little scientific experiment and giving this a try.

For the first two weeks, eat nothing but chicken and vegetables, but you're allowed to eat as much of them as you like.
For the next two weeks, go to McDonalds every day and have one Big Mac, large fries, large sugary drink, and you're not allowed to eat anything else for the rest of the day.

I'd guess that in the first two weeks, you won't actually want to eat too much, you'll end up losing some weight, and you'd really have to force-feed yourself if you wanted to put on weight. And in the second two weeks you'll be stupidly hungry and still end up not losing weight.

I do take your point about basic cooking not being too hard or expensive, though. Chicken and vegetables is a very cheap, easy, tasty, and healthy meal (which I tend to cook for myself pretty much every other day).

A big mac is 540 calories. Large fries at McDonald's is another 510 calories. A large Coke at McDonald's will toss in another 210 calories. If you eat only those 1,260 calories per day and are an average height, average weight, even sedentary, male in the US and are otherwise healthy, you'll lose weight on that "diet" because of the negative net calories each day.

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #163 on: June 01, 2018, 12:25:18 PM »
I find it neither fiscally irresponsible nor immoral. As such, I'm perfectly content leaving the system as it is. It hurts no one for the CEO to be paid X multiple of the janitor's salary, so I can't find a moral argument against it. The investors allow the company to be financially successful and thus are rewarded with dividends and capital gains for their investments, which doesn't seem financially irresponsible at all to me. Losing shareholders because you decided to "give away" the profits to workers by paying above market wages for their labor would seem financially irresponsible to me however.

It is a direct transfer of taxpayer wealth to the shareholders. If you are okay with that, I don't really understand.

Is it fair to say that you are upset with current federal tax policy as opposed to Walmart's pay policy?

emduck

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #164 on: June 01, 2018, 12:46:36 PM »
Quote
There is a number of big macs/fries and cokes you can eat where you lose weight. Maybe that's one every 7 days with ravishing hunger for 165 hours of 168. That could financially and weightloss wise correspond to 3 square of chicken and rice with less hunger.   

I realize this is hyperbole, but to be clear--

The average man in the US is 5'10''.  5'10'' and 175 is just barely overweight.  210 is obese.  A 30 year old 5'10'', 210 lb man who is in a literal coma needs over 2000 calories per day to maintain weight.  If sedentary, nearly 2500, and if lightly active, over 2800.  If they eat less than that, they'll lose weight.  A 500 calorie deficit per day is a pound a week of weight loss.   

A big mac and medium fry is 870.  Absolutely no one needs to drink soda. Nobody.  So a sedentary obese man who wants to lose weight can still eat two big macs and two medium fries per day and lose about a pound and a half a week.  The calorie needs of a lightly active, normal weight man of that age and height are similar.  If the obese man moved a bit more and bumped himself into the lightly active category, he would actually be losing weight too fast for some doctors to recommend. 

Order off the dollar menu instead--a cheeseburger is 300 cals and a McChicken is 400.  A small fry is a bit over a $1, but 230 calories.  For 2000 calories a day, you can have two cheeseburgers, two McChickens, and three small orders of fries.  Still losing weight. 

The problem is over consumption.  Whether it comes down to not understanding nutrition or not caring is up for debate.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #165 on: June 01, 2018, 12:50:42 PM »
I find it neither fiscally irresponsible nor immoral. As such, I'm perfectly content leaving the system as it is. It hurts no one for the CEO to be paid X multiple of the janitor's salary, so I can't find a moral argument against it. The investors allow the company to be financially successful and thus are rewarded with dividends and capital gains for their investments, which doesn't seem financially irresponsible at all to me. Losing shareholders because you decided to "give away" the profits to workers by paying above market wages for their labor would seem financially irresponsible to me however.

It is a direct transfer of taxpayer wealth to the shareholders. If you are okay with that, I don't really understand.

Is it fair to say that you are upset with current federal tax policy as opposed to Walmart's pay policy?

I think the crux of my argument is that Walmart is allowed to turn a profit while their employees collect state assistance. We could quibble about CEO pay vs greeter pay, but I'm far more concerned about the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders (which would include the CEO too).

EDITed to add - but the CEO pay is tied up in there too, because no one at the executive level is collecting food stamps.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 12:55:53 PM by PDXTabs »

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #166 on: June 01, 2018, 01:02:43 PM »
That the government chooses to give some people money (assistance) is not "because" of Wal-Mart and nothing I've seen convinces me that the two are related. Those people would get the same assistance working for minimum wage at the local mom and pop gas station or any other employer. As such, I see no way of calling that a transfer of anything from the government to the shareholders.

Heck, if they were laid off from Walmart, they'd likely be eligible to get even more taxpayer money from the government...
I find it neither fiscally irresponsible nor immoral. As such, I'm perfectly content leaving the system as it is. It hurts no one for the CEO to be paid X multiple of the janitor's salary, so I can't find a moral argument against it. The investors allow the company to be financially successful and thus are rewarded with dividends and capital gains for their investments, which doesn't seem financially irresponsible at all to me. Losing shareholders because you decided to "give away" the profits to workers by paying above market wages for their labor would seem financially irresponsible to me however.

It is a direct transfer of taxpayer wealth to the shareholders. If you are okay with that, I don't really understand.

Is it fair to say that you are upset with current federal tax policy as opposed to Walmart's pay policy?

I think the crux of my argument is that Walmart is allowed to turn a profit while their employees collect state assistance. We could quibble about CEO pay vs greeter pay, but I'm far more concerned about the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders (which would include the CEO too).

EDITed to add - but the CEO pay is tied up in there too, because no one at the executive level is collecting food stamps.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #167 on: June 01, 2018, 01:03:25 PM »
I find it neither fiscally irresponsible nor immoral. As such, I'm perfectly content leaving the system as it is. It hurts no one for the CEO to be paid X multiple of the janitor's salary, so I can't find a moral argument against it. The investors allow the company to be financially successful and thus are rewarded with dividends and capital gains for their investments, which doesn't seem financially irresponsible at all to me. Losing shareholders because you decided to "give away" the profits to workers by paying above market wages for their labor would seem financially irresponsible to me however.

It is a direct transfer of taxpayer wealth to the shareholders. If you are okay with that, I don't really understand.

Is it fair to say that you are upset with current federal tax policy as opposed to Walmart's pay policy?

I think the crux of my argument is that Walmart is allowed to turn a profit while their employees collect state assistance. We could quibble about CEO pay vs greeter pay, but I'm far more concerned about the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders (which would include the CEO too).

EDITed to add - but the CEO pay is tied up in there too, because no one at the executive level is collecting food stamps.

You want a law stating that if a company is profitable, none of it's employees will be eligible for social programs?

AnswerIs42

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #168 on: June 01, 2018, 01:12:01 PM »
A big mac is 540 calories. Large fries at McDonald's is another 510 calories. A large Coke at McDonald's will toss in another 210 calories. If you eat only those 1,260 calories per day and are an average height, average weight, even sedentary, male in the US and are otherwise healthy, you'll lose weight on that "diet" because of the negative net calories each day.
Yeah, that was intended to be an amount of calories less than the average person needs (maybe I went a little too far, and they could eat slightly more, but still less than "needed"). Rather than actually losing weight, I'd guess that the person would just get hungrier and hungrier over the days and be forced to give up the experiment after about day four.

It would be interesting to see how this would work in practice, rather than just as a thought experiment. Not going to try it myself though, it sounds awful.

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #169 on: June 01, 2018, 01:14:39 PM »
A science teacher did a multi-month or so McDonald's only diet and lost around 40 lbs iirc. I wouldn't recommend it as you can lose weight eating anything (as long as calories in are less than calories out), but your nutrition etc matter for your overall health. It's not the dirt you suggested, but it was "just McDonald's".
A big mac is 540 calories. Large fries at McDonald's is another 510 calories. A large Coke at McDonald's will toss in another 210 calories. If you eat only those 1,260 calories per day and are an average height, average weight, even sedentary, male in the US and are otherwise healthy, you'll lose weight on that "diet" because of the negative net calories each day.
Yeah, that was intended to be an amount of calories less than the average person needs (maybe I went a little too far, and they could eat slightly more, but still less than "needed"). Rather than actually losing weight, I'd guess that the person would just get hungrier and hungrier over the days and be forced to give up the experiment after about day four.

It would be interesting to see how this would work in practice, rather than just as a thought experiment. Not going to try it myself though, it sounds awful.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Seadog

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #170 on: June 01, 2018, 01:17:09 PM »

A big mac is 540 calories. Large fries at McDonald's is another 510 calories. A large Coke at McDonald's will toss in another 210 calories. If you eat only those 1,260 calories per day and are an average height, average weight, even sedentary, male in the US and are otherwise healthy, you'll lose weight on that "diet" because of the negative net calories each day.

Jesus, again with this dribble from the other thread? All calories are not equal and your body is not a bomb calorimeter. Studies have been done where people eat the exact same number of calories of different composition carbs/fat/protein, and have wildly different weight changes and hunger responses. More to the point though, this has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

I realize this is hyperbole, but to be clear--

The average man in the US is 5'10''.  5'10'' and 175 is just barely overweight.  210 is obese.  A 30 year old 5'10'', 210 lb man who is in a literal coma needs over 2000 calories per day to maintain weight.  If sedentary, nearly 2500, and if lightly active, over 2800.  If they eat less than that, they'll lose weight.  A 500 calorie deficit per day is a pound a week of weight loss.   

A big mac and medium fry is 870.  Absolutely no one needs to drink soda. Nobody.  So a sedentary obese man who wants to lose weight can still eat two big macs and two medium fries per day and lose about a pound and a half a week.  The calorie needs of a lightly active, normal weight man of that age and height are similar.  If the obese man moved a bit more and bumped himself into the lightly active category, he would actually be losing weight too fast for some doctors to recommend. 

Order off the dollar menu instead--a cheeseburger is 300 cals and a McChicken is 400.  A small fry is a bit over a $1, but 230 calories.  For 2000 calories a day, you can have two cheeseburgers, two McChickens, and three small orders of fries.  Still losing weight. 

The problem is over consumption.  Whether it comes down to not understanding nutrition or not caring is up for debate.

I think to avoid getting side tracked we need to revisit the original point, which was that given that so many poor are obese, they clearly aren't *that* poor.

Indeed, we're not talking about the cause of over consumption be it laziness, apathy whatever, merely the *ability* to over consume. If you have the will power to ignore hunger, there is a certain amount of any food which result in weight maintenance. Truly poor people do not need will power, because it's beyond their financial means to exceed or often even meet their daily caloric needs. 

Use2Beatrix's point was the simple fact that since many of the "Western Poor" are obese, they clearly have the option to eat more. If this is because they're gluttons, hungry, lazy, it doesn't matter, but that they obviously have the option since so many engage it, it indicates they're not really poor. Regardless of what their maintenance calories are or how they get them, if for any reason they want to keep going, they can.

Children on the streets of India and 19th century Irish people did not have that luxury. 

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #171 on: June 01, 2018, 01:18:03 PM »
You want a law stating that if a company is profitable, none of it's employees will be eligible for social programs?

Why would I possibly choose that as the solution?

Like I said, I'm not offering solutions, but I promise you that there will eventually be recompense for the elites. The sooner we get around to it, the less severe it will be. I would rather not have a Bolshevik Revolution, but when people get fed up that's the sort of thing that happens.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:22:12 PM by PDXTabs »

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #172 on: June 01, 2018, 01:24:49 PM »
Interesting promise. Does your Crystal ball show us anything useful?
You want a law stating that if a company is profitable, none of it's employees will be eligible for social programs?

Why would I possibly choose that as the solution?

Like I said, I'm not offering solutions, but I promise you that there will eventually be recompense for the elites. The sooner we get around to it, the less severe it will be. I would rather not have a Bolshevik Revolution, but when people get fed up that's the sort of thing that happens.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #173 on: June 01, 2018, 01:25:31 PM »
You want a law stating that if a company is profitable, none of it's employees will be eligible for social programs?

Why would I possibly choose that as the solution?

Like I said, I'm not offering solutions, but I promise you that there will eventually be recompense for the elites. The sooner we get around to it, the less severe it will be. I would rather not have Bolshevik Revolution, but when people get fed up that's the sort of thing that happens.

I get that you aren't trying to offer solutions, but I guess I was. I don't see a problem with Walmart making a profit while complying with all applicable laws. I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of your position.

Seadog

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #174 on: June 01, 2018, 01:28:26 PM »
Yeah, that was intended to be an amount of calories less than the average person needs (maybe I went a little too far, and they could eat slightly more, but still less than "needed"). Rather than actually losing weight, I'd guess that the person would just get hungrier and hungrier over the days and be forced to give up the experiment after about day four.

It would be interesting to see how this would work in practice, rather than just as a thought experiment. Not going to try it myself though, it sounds awful.

I highly recommend the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, somewhat technical but gets very deep into a lot of dietary science, conflicting political motivations and some of the shaky science current ideas are based around along with heaps of interesting studies, including various starvation studies which would be considered immoral today.

Some of the studies are the above composition experiment, hunger experiments where people are on a sub BMR fat/protein diet and aren't that hungry, but then given additional calories in the form of carbs and comparing the hunger response. 1000 cals/day of protein = not hungry. 1500 cals of protein = not hungry. 1000 cals of protein + 1000 cals of carbs = famished.

The big take away was that fat retention and food input was governed more by hormones than strictly quantity of calories. Sort of like when a bear goes to hibernate or a woman gets pregnant. The body *wants* to put on fat. Even if it just maintains it's eating level from before the fall season/pregnancy, then it will *still* put on some fat because that's the priority the hormones have dictate. The body will be hungry, and since some energy that was being used as energy is now being pushed to fat reserves, the metabolism will slow, they'll be more tired, body temp decreases etc.

 

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #175 on: June 01, 2018, 01:31:11 PM »
Interesting promise. Does your Crystal ball show us anything useful?

Yes. When it comes, I'll lend them my pitchfork, and my vote (both in my state and country, but also WMT).

dustinst22

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #176 on: June 01, 2018, 01:54:41 PM »

Studies have been done where people eat the exact same number of calories of different composition carbs/fat/protein, and have wildly different weight changes and hunger responses.



Sounds interesting.  Curious to read about this, can you cite the studies that were done?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:56:52 PM by dustinst22 »

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #177 on: June 01, 2018, 02:37:16 PM »
I don't see a problem with Walmart making a profit while complying with all applicable laws. I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of your position.

I mean, I don't have a problem with Walmart per se, I have a problem with legislators that let it happen. We have a bunch of really smart economists and historians. I'm sure that with all of the resources of the US government we can figure out how to let corporations turn a profit without relying on employees who make so little money that they are on state assistance.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4313
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #178 on: June 01, 2018, 02:41:53 PM »
Minimum federal wage: $7.25
Wal-Mart: $11 starting wage

That's 50% more.

dustinst22

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #179 on: June 01, 2018, 02:51:20 PM »
Minimum federal wage: $7.25
Wal-Mart: $11 starting wage

That's 50% more.

+ paying workers to go to college.  Actually sounds like a good deal to me.

swaneesr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #180 on: June 01, 2018, 03:06:48 PM »
This aspect of Capitalism has always bothered me:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/business/highest-paid-ceos-2017.html

Quote
A Walmart employee earning the company’s median salary of $19,177 would have to work for more than a thousand years to earn the $22.2 million that Doug McMillon, the company’s chief executive, was awarded in 2017.

Sadly, that's not the most egregious example of how American CEO's earn vs. the rank and file employees.  If it's not outright slavery, then it is the moral equivalent. 

So then the only question left is, how much longer do we wait?  How many more multiples of lifetimes do you and your progeny sign up to endure, before we say 'enough'?  We are not only not playing a game that an average person can no longer 'win', we are playing a game that no longer benefits from everyone's participation.  Now we are being told that our superiors are winning for us and we are no longer encouraged to participate.

To the OP - We wait forever. CEO pay disparity is irrelavent. It is not slavery. It is just another jealous class warfare notion.

Every worker can quit, move to another employer.

You are deluded if you think another attempt at Socialism will result in a better outcome for workers than we currently enjoy. “Capitalism with constraints” is what we have and what results is an imperfect but better solution than any other system. You can argue about where to draw the constraints.

I live in a decent world and eventually and over time, I have been rewarded with more financial compensation.

Mustachians do not meet their goals in any other system.

PS - I am not on a first name basis with the GOOD capitalists like the Jeffs or Elon or Bill. I am also not friends with the evil ORANGE president or those Koch brothers. They have all managed to succeed in this system and not just luck, took some effort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #181 on: June 01, 2018, 03:32:28 PM »
It's perfectly reasonable to be content with the system as it is as long as it doesn't hurt you.  In fact, in most cases, as long as it isn't immediately painful, the status quo can continue for a lot longer than anyone would think is possible.  That the 90% are one illness, natural disaster, or un-affordable college tuition away from realizing they will never get ahead is a looming societal problem.  I don't blame the 0.1% for the problem, capitalism by its very nature concentrates gains to the top even when Warren Buffett says he's willing to pay more taxes.  The problem is that the 90% don't take Buffett up on his offer and push government for more social equality.  Discussion around repealing the Estate Tax (11 million USD exclusion in 2018) is a great example of how confounding the problem is.

It's interesting, even among Mustachians, to hear that folks don't think there's a problem.  There isn't an easy solution unless the majority begins to see that there is a consistently growing problem.  But it sounds like, in the meantime, the problem will get a lot more painful.  The last time I heard relatively widespread discontent was in 2008-9 when the bankers and investors got bailed out with taxpayer dollars.  Somehow, all of that simmered down and here we are again, chugging away. 

None of us have a crystal ball, I certainly don't know how it ends.  Capital is easy and maybe not optimally allocated, but the US is still doing pretty well despite itself...  To me, it's interesting to discuss these things that could go wrong, especially in these wonky, confusing times (trade wars with allies, Brexit, massive tax defects...).

But I doubt we will wait forever.     

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #182 on: June 01, 2018, 03:58:51 PM »
Again - our topic is overweight/obesity. That IS determined by calories. You can get just as fat eating all the “healthy” foods you mentioned, if you eat enough of it. Someone can also lose weight by “just” eating McDonald’s, if they eat the right amount of it.

I suggest doing a little scientific experiment and giving this a try.

For the first two weeks, eat nothing but chicken and vegetables, but you're allowed to eat as much of them as you like.
For the next two weeks, go to McDonalds every day and have one Big Mac, large fries, large sugary drink, and you're not allowed to eat anything else for the rest of the day.

I'd guess that in the first two weeks, you won't actually want to eat too much, you'll end up losing some weight, and you'd really have to force-feed yourself if you wanted to put on weight. And in the second two weeks you'll be stupidly hungry and still end up not losing weight.

I do take your point about basic cooking not being too hard or expensive, though. Chicken and vegetables is a very cheap, easy, tasty, and healthy meal (which I tend to cook for myself pretty much every other day).

A big mac is 540 calories. Large fries at McDonald's is another 510 calories. A large Coke at McDonald's will toss in another 210 calories. If you eat only those 1,260 calories per day and are an average height, average weight, even sedentary, male in the US and are otherwise healthy, you'll lose weight on that "diet" because of the negative net calories each day.

The proposed experiment is poorly set up. If you actually do the experiment directly as proposed (eating vegetables first, then McDonald's second, immediately after each other with no break in between) and the hypothesis that you'll lose weight eating nothing but vegetables is correct, then at the start of the McDonald's phase of the experiment, you'll have already lost weight below your assumed neutral set point. Your body will slow down your metabolism in response to you being below your set point. This will make it harder to lose weight and easier to gain weight during phase two of the experiment, biasing the results.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #183 on: June 01, 2018, 05:43:08 PM »
Minimum federal wage: $7.25
Wal-Mart: $11 starting wage

That's 50% more.

Quote
It’s worth emphasizing that the $10 wage only affects workers who have completed a 6 month onboarding and training period: with the high turnover rate that prevails in the retail industry, many workers will leave the company before they ever get to $10 an hour. As a result, a number of Walmart workers will remain below the $10 an hour threshold. Walmart’s forthcoming $10 an hour wage is equivalent to $17,680 annually for an employee working Walmart’s full-time standard of 34 hours a week.

Yet even in low-cost states such as Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota and Walmart’s home state of Arkansas, this wage provides only about 90 percent of what a single employee needs for a basic standard of living. In the median state nationwide, Walmart’s wage of $10 an hour for 34 hours a week provides just 81 percent of the income needed to support a single adult.

Even for workers able to pick up extra hours and average 40 hours a week for the year, a $10 an hour wage would only meet the needs of a single adult in 17 states. Yet many Walmart workers are not single adults and are not employed full-time. In a recent earnings call, Walmart disclosed that approximately half of its U.S. workforce is employed part time. On a sample part-time schedule of 20 hours a week, Walmart’s forthcoming $10 an hour wage is equivalent to only $10,400 a year – less than half of the income needed to afford a basic standard of living for a single adult in 33 states.
Despite raise Walmart wages schedules still aren’t livable

EDITed to add: the funny thing is that everyone that has worked retail in the last 20 years knows this stuff. That is, they know that only half the employees are getting the hours and benefits that they want, and that most retail stores define full time at 32-34 hours per week to carefully avoid ever paying a penny of overtime.

Quote
No matter how hard you work, they rather hire more part time employees then give you full time.
...
Stop hiring people part time!!!! Most of your departments are very understaffed because of this causing a very stressful environment. Making it extremely hard to complete tasks. Stop forcing people to clock out earlier for fear of overtime
Glassdoor
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 05:58:35 PM by PDXTabs »

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #184 on: June 01, 2018, 09:06:11 PM »
Just in time for this thread, but maybe not slavery:

Quote
The United States is a land of stark contrasts. It is one of the world’s wealthiest societies, a global leader in many areas, and a land of unsurpassed technological and other forms of innovation. Its corporations are global trendsetters, its civil society is vibrant and sophisticated and its higher education system leads the world. But its immense wealth and expertise stand in shocking contrast with the conditions in which vast numbers of its citizens live. About 40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty. It has the highest youth poverty rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the highest infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. Its citizens live shorter and sicker lives compared to those living in all other rich democracies, eradicable tropical diseases are increasingly prevalent, and it has the world’s highest incarceration rate, one of the lowest levels of voter registrations in among OECD countries and the highest obesity levels in the developed world.

The United States has the highest rate of income inequality among Western countries. The $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality. The consequences of neglecting poverty and promoting inequality are clear. The United States has one of the highest poverty and inequality levels among the OECD countries, and the Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks it 18th out of 21 wealthy countries in terms of labour markets, poverty rates, safety nets, wealth inequality and economic mobility. But in 2018 the United States had over 25 per cent of the world’s 2,208 billionaires. There is thus a dramatic contrast between the immense wealth of the few and the squalor and deprivation in which vast numbers of Americans exist. For almost five decades the overall policy response has been neglectful at best, but the policies pursued over the past year seem deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship.

UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America

Seadog

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #185 on: June 01, 2018, 09:07:04 PM »

Studies have been done where people eat the exact same number of calories of different composition carbs/fat/protein, and have wildly different weight changes and hunger responses.



Sounds interesting.  Curious to read about this, can you cite the studies that were done?

Don't have the book handy, but found a coles notes version online:

https://lowerthought.wordpress.com/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/#chapter-20

A few key takeaways:

Quote
Margaret Ohlson and Charlotte Young tested a low-calorie version

    subjects lost weight and never reported hunger as they did on balanced low-calorie diets
    compared low-fat vs low-carb
        1200 cal low-fat didn’t bring about the expected weight loss (from calorie deficit): only 0.5 lb/week
            subjects were always hungry and lacked ‘pep’
        1400 cal Pennington-style diet: almost 3 lb/week — 6 times more effective and higher in calories
            no hunger, felt well
    Ohlson then tested different dietary compositions for this diet
        subjects found low-fat versions bland, uninteresting and hard to eat
        hunger levels were proportional to carbohydrate intake
        high-protein diet increased muscle mass while burning fat
            balanced calorie-restriction causes muscle and fat loss
    Young had the same results: remarkable weight loss without hunger
        subjects were remarkably healthy on the diet
        in every case, the weight lost exceeded what would be expected from caloric deficit

Quote
his evidence overturns some fundamental assumptions

    “a calorie is a calorie”; weight gain is the result of overeating
        Bistrian and Blackburn: 650-800 cal meat-only diet; 50% of subjects lost 40 lbs each (no hunger)
            had they added 400 cal of carbs to balance the diet, only 1% would be likely to lose 40 lbs
                would cause hunger and semi-starvation
            but if they added 400 cal of protein and fat, they would still get considerable weight loss
                still no hunger
            somehow, adding extra carbs to the meat-only diet made it less filling
                how can people eat 10,000 cal (Sims) and still be hungry, but not feel hungry on very-low-calorie, zero-carb diets?

Quote
Conservation of Energy

    conventional wisdom is founded on two misinterpretations of thermodynamic law (caloric balance equation)
        first misconception: association implies cause and effect
            law of energy conservation: Change in energy stores = Energy intake – Energy expenditure
                the equation doesn’t indicate which is cause and which is effect
                it’s possible that a change in energy stores could cause changes in intake and/or expenditure
                    evidence supports this interpretation (metabolic/hormonal changes that drive us to change adiposity by adjusting intake/expenditure)
            in children, a positive caloric balance is associated with physical growth
                evidently, they eat a lot because they’re growing (not growing because they eat a lot)
                hormonal drive to grow causes increased appetite
                positive caloric balance is a result, not a cause, of growth
            pregnant women fatten due to hormonal changes
                hormones induce hunger and lethargy to create the positive caloric balance necessary for fat accumulation
            fattening is the cause, gluttony and sloth are the effects
                to understand what causes obesity, we need to understand what causes the hormonal changes that induce fattening
            studies on obese people’s behavior only find associations, not causes
                don’t explain why they eat more, are less active, have slower metabolism
                actually, the obese don’t eat more than the lean (both are in caloric balance)
            prospective studies show that pre-obese people expend less energy
                doesn’t imply causation; only an association
            obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome (diseases of civilization)
                conventional interpretation: obesity causes/contributes to the diseases
                alternative logic: the underlying disorder causes both obesity and the other diseases

I find this sort of science fascinating, because it's so complex, multiple inputs and outputs, and multiple independent and dependent feedback loops. Sort of like the climate sciences. I'm not saying all the answers are here, but for the people who say "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, case closed!" despite numerous examples to the contrary with no refutation beyond "Nuh-un!" where is the error?

Still hold on to all calories are equal? Fine. Do your own similar study. That's the thing with science is that it needs to be repeatable. Don't get the same results? Great! Now we can start asking more questions, try to find why results differed and get closer to the truth. But in dietary science, (as well as numerous other fields) often times entire reams of data are disregarded, or a brief pre-selection of data sets occur to ensure the answer someone wants is the answer someone gets.

Again like climate science, once a position is officially adopted by major world wide gov'ts, there is money to be made by towing the party line, which in turn strengthens that position and itself is a feed back loop which if initiated on a flimsy premise can grow into a monster.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #186 on: June 02, 2018, 05:45:11 AM »
If all calories are equal, there's no difference between the body of someone eating 2000 calories a day of lean protein, vegetables and whole grains, and someone eating 2000 calories a day of deep fried carbs and a few vitamin pills..... right? Right?

The whole equal calories argument is silly. It's never held true and it's never been real science. The idea that one loses weight by expending more than you consume is silly also. The human body was designed to hold onto fat stores at all costs, pretty much, and some human bodies are much better at it than others.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5806
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #187 on: June 02, 2018, 07:41:13 AM »
Yeah, that was intended to be an amount of calories less than the average person needs (maybe I went a little too far, and they could eat slightly more, but still less than "needed"). Rather than actually losing weight, I'd guess that the person would just get hungrier and hungrier over the days and be forced to give up the experiment after about day four.

It would be interesting to see how this would work in practice, rather than just as a thought experiment. Not going to try it myself though, it sounds awful.

I highly recommend the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, somewhat technical but gets very deep into a lot of dietary science, conflicting political motivations and some of the shaky science current ideas are based around along with heaps of interesting studies, including various starvation studies which would be considered immoral today.

Some of the studies are the above composition experiment, hunger experiments where people are on a sub BMR fat/protein diet and aren't that hungry, but then given additional calories in the form of carbs and comparing the hunger response. 1000 cals/day of protein = not hungry. 1500 cals of protein = not hungry. 1000 cals of protein + 1000 cals of carbs = famished.

The big take away was that fat retention and food input was governed more by hormones than strictly quantity of calories. Sort of like when a bear goes to hibernate or a woman gets pregnant. The body *wants* to put on fat. Even if it just maintains it's eating level from before the fall season/pregnancy, then it will *still* put on some fat because that's the priority the hormones have dictate. The body will be hungry, and since some energy that was being used as energy is now being pushed to fat reserves, the metabolism will slow, they'll be more tired, body temp decreases etc.

Word.  Second pregnancy especially the first 3 months...BOOM

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #188 on: June 02, 2018, 07:54:05 AM »
If all calories are equal, there's no difference between the body of someone eating 2000 calories a day of lean protein, vegetables and whole grains, and someone eating 2000 calories a day of deep fried carbs and a few vitamin pills..... right? Right?

o.0

Quote
The whole equal calories argument is silly. It's never held true and it's never been real science.

o.000

Quote
The idea that one loses weight by expending more than you consume is silly also.

o.00000000

So you seem to be tying together two arguments:

1. Calories are not the only characteristic of food which plays a role in how what we eat effects our body (true).

2. Calories deficits/surpluses don't play any role in whether people gain or lose weight (false).

It helps to prioritize the order of magnitude of effects. The two biggest factors determining whether and how much weight person X will succeed at losing on a given diet are (1) the deficit in calories between what they consume and what their bodies burn every day and (2) the degree of satiation the diet produces.

As others in the thread have talked about, a 1,500 calorie diet is going to produce a lot more weight loss if it leaves you feeling full than if you're painfully hungry all day, because in the second case you're much more likely to cheat, and also more likely to give up on the diet faster.

Foods are pretty interchangable for factor #1, but not for factor #2. If you have food that is satiating enough, you don't have to personally worry about tracking calories because you'll just tend to eat fewer calories than your maintenance requirements anyway (this is how high fiber, high produce diets tend to produce weight loss). There are other ways of tricking your body's hunger response like the high fat "ketogenic" diets which where all the fad a couple of years ago, but again, if you look at how many calories people are actually eating on those diets, after the first week of dramatic weight loss (produced by using up all the glycogen stored in your liver so that you body needs less water to keep the glycogen dissolved in), again the weight loss becomes a matter of calories in, calories out.

Now there are plenty of second and third order factors that are also statistically significant (the energy it takes to digest different kinds of foods, that some people tend to feel like they have more energy when they eat more, so they move around more and burn more calories, while others don't feel this response so their calories out doesn't increase much in response to an increase in calories in, all sorts of hormone signaling cascades), but none of that negates the critical importances of the two factors described above.

Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying that yes, if you eat substantially fewer calories than your body requires, you will lose weight.

The correct observation that there are other factors which determine how likely you are to successfully stick to a diet where you're eating fewer calories than you're using, and that the precise number of calories your body needs is a dynamic number rather than a static one doesn't make the statement above any less true, or any less scientific.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #189 on: June 02, 2018, 08:25:54 AM »
Minimum federal wage: $7.25
Wal-Mart: $11 starting wage

That's 50% more.

+ paying workers to go to college.  Actually sounds like a good deal to me.

Indeed, Walmart pays pretty well.  I know people working there that are making quite a bit more than that minimum as well, and they seem pretty happy with it.  If someone wants an even larger income, they should get the necessary skills.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #190 on: June 02, 2018, 10:22:46 AM »
Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying that yes, if you eat substantially fewer calories than your body requires, you will lose weight.

I've been trying to stay out of this because I have another iron in the fire. Yes, but what a couple people on this thread seem to be overlooking is that your body gets to control your resting metabolic rate. I know from personal experience that if my body thinks that I am starving to death I am going to feel lethargic and cold in a 72 degree room.

Will I lose weight if I cut enough calories? Yes. But if they are the wrong calories I will feel like shit and lose muscle mass, which will further reduce my resting metabolic rate and my ability to exercise.

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Age: 24
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #191 on: June 02, 2018, 10:34:06 AM »
Quote
A Walmart employee earning the company’s median salary of $19,177 would have to work for more than a thousand years to earn the $22.2 million that Doug McMillon, the company’s chief executive

We need to ensure equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #192 on: June 02, 2018, 11:01:54 AM »
Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying that yes, if you eat substantially fewer calories than your body requires, you will lose weight.

I've been trying to stay out of this because I have another iron in the fire. Yes, but what a couple people on this thread seem to be overlooking is that your body gets to control your resting metabolic rate. I know from personal experience that if my body thinks that I am starving to death I am going to feel lethargic and cold in a 72 degree room.

Will I lose weight if I cut enough calories? Yes. But if they are the wrong calories I will feel like shit and lose muscle mass, which will further reduce my resting metabolic rate and my ability to exercise.

To be clear the post I was replying to was saying that reducing the calories you take in, and/or increasing the calories you expend didn't matter to whether or not you would lose weight. That's factually incorrect.

Absolutely depending on what you chose to eat on a calorie restricted diet you can feel a lot better or a lot worse while losing weight at the same rate.

The couple of times I've needed to lose significant weight in my life, I've found a 1,000 calorie cut combined with building more exercise into my day is a good balance between what I'm told is the healthiest target (500 calorie deficit), and seeing change rapidly enough that I'm motivated to maintain the diet.

Similarly, for me (who knows if it is generalizable) lots of beans, oatmeal, and leafy greens feels a lot more satiating on a reduced calorie diet than eating the same number of calories in frozen pizza, but that doesn't mean calories don't matter, it just means by engineering the composition of diet I can reduce the amount of willpower I need to devote to controlling the volume of my diet.

Changes in resting metabolic rate in response to calorie restriction are good for explaining maybe a couple of hundred calories/day in expenditure. If you're aiming for only a 500 calorie/day deficit, that can certainly mean you see might see slower weight change than you were expecting. But it doesn't mean you can lose weight without running a calorie deficit.

pecunia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #193 on: June 02, 2018, 11:09:24 AM »
PDXTabs:

Quote
Yes, this is why I want to do away with social security, medicare, medicaid, workers compensation insurance, overtime laws, minimum wage, OHSA, child labor laws, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, insurance regulation, and everything to do with tenants rights. Hell, every road, library, school, and park should be privatized. Let the market sort it out you %*^&)@# communists!

Sorry - I didn't read all of the entries.

Odd - It's been my experience that many of the good things in life have been the result of socialized activities.  The schools, libraries, roads, parks and other items set up for the common good have been some of the best things in my life.

When things are privatized, the price is often higher than when it is socialized.  Towns, for example, that supply their own electricity seem to often have better rates.  the same applies to cable TV.  Farmers sometimes form cooperatives which are socialized ventures to share equipment and marketing.  This allows lower costs than hiring a private company.  Low electricity rates have been provided by the TVA and BPA.  The huge dams that provide inexpensive power for the many would be higher priced if profit were applied.

I could go on.  However, the reader can no doubt think of more examples.

The market has allowed good jobs to go overseas and has not provided for the workers that lost their jobs.  This has happened in my lifetime.  Not only are the industrial resources of former production facilities idled creating a waste of resources but the infrastructures of entire towns are sometimes wasted as people need to relocate.  This infrastructure may have had years of useful life.

I will finish up this blurb by informing you that you have been the victim of propaganda.  This propaganda has taught you that the free market is the be all and end all.  Think about it.  Who owns the sources of information you have been exposed to?

Like everything else, it must be a balance.  I wouldn't want the government to build cell phones, computers or most other things that benefit from rapid innovation.  However, libraries, roads, bridges, sewers, etc. provide for society better if done by a common entity that is not motivated by the profit motive.  I think history has shown this to be the case.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #194 on: June 02, 2018, 11:33:25 AM »
When things are privatized, the price is often higher than when it is socialized.  Towns, for example, that supply their own electricity seem to often have better rates.  the same applies to cable TV.  Farmers sometimes form cooperatives which are socialized ventures to share equipment and marketing.  This allows lower costs than hiring a private company.  Low electricity rates have been provided by the TVA and BPA.  The huge dams that provide inexpensive power for the many would be higher priced if profit were applied.

That's an interesting list. A number of your examples (electricity, cable tv, internet) are ones where it is very VERY hard to have an open and competitive market. The government can generally provide services at lower prices than a for-profit monopoly is going to charge.

The exception in your list is farmer co-ops. A lot of grain elevators, sugar beet processing factories, and ethanol plants are operated by farmer co-ops. However these are voluntary associations of farmers and, to the best of my knowledge, are generally organized along for-profit lines, it's just that the farmers are the owners. So I'm not sure they are a good analogy to government provided goods or services. 

TL;DR: I agree that in cases where there are strong structural barriers to competition, government can often provide higher quality services at lower prices. But I don't think these particular examples are generalizable.*

*And to be clear there are other reasons it might make government to step in in certain circumstances even if it means prices go up, that that's a separate discussion.

Radagast

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #195 on: June 02, 2018, 12:19:24 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/01/how-can-they-walk-away-with-millions-and-leave-workers-with-zero-toys-r-us-workers-say-they-deserve-severance/?utm_term=.842011129364
I'd say ToysRUs is the example OP was actually looking for. The CEO of Walmart has probably been justifying his salary, but its a lot harder to see how the "we win and our employees and creditors lose" lose mentality of these clowns is worth millions.

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Age: 24
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #196 on: June 02, 2018, 04:08:21 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/01/how-can-they-walk-away-with-millions-and-leave-workers-with-zero-toys-r-us-workers-say-they-deserve-severance/?utm_term=.842011129364
I'd say ToysRUs is the example OP was actually looking for. The CEO of Walmart has probably been justifying his salary, but its a lot harder to see how the "we win and our employees and creditors lose" lose mentality of these clowns is worth millions.

How is it that the success of the CEO has everything to do with taking from the others though? I don't see how that works.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #197 on: June 02, 2018, 04:31:05 PM »
PDXTabs:

Quote
Yes, this is why I want to do away with social security, medicare, medicaid, workers compensation insurance, overtime laws, minimum wage, OHSA, child labor laws, food stamps, WIC, CHIP, insurance regulation, and everything to do with tenants rights. Hell, every road, library, school, and park should be privatized. Let the market sort it out you %*^&)@# communists!

Sorry - I didn't read all of the entries.

Odd - It's been my experience that many of the good things in life have been the result of socialized activities.  The schools, libraries, roads, parks and other items set up for the common good have been some of the best things in my life.

When things are privatized, the price is often higher than when it is socialized.  Towns, for example, that supply their own electricity seem to often have better rates.  the same applies to cable TV.  Farmers sometimes form cooperatives which are socialized ventures to share equipment and marketing.  This allows lower costs than hiring a private company.  Low electricity rates have been provided by the TVA and BPA.  The huge dams that provide inexpensive power for the many would be higher priced if profit were applied.

I could go on.  However, the reader can no doubt think of more examples.

The market has allowed good jobs to go overseas and has not provided for the workers that lost their jobs.  This has happened in my lifetime.  Not only are the industrial resources of former production facilities idled creating a waste of resources but the infrastructures of entire towns are sometimes wasted as people need to relocate.  This infrastructure may have had years of useful life.

I will finish up this blurb by informing you that you have been the victim of propaganda.  This propaganda has taught you that the free market is the be all and end all.  Think about it.  Who owns the sources of information you have been exposed to?

Like everything else, it must be a balance.  I wouldn't want the government to build cell phones, computers or most other things that benefit from rapid innovation.  However, libraries, roads, bridges, sewers, etc. provide for society better if done by a common entity that is not motivated by the profit motive.  I think history has shown this to be the case.

I think pdx was being sarcastic.  Pdx's other comments appear more liberal and seem to support a more socialist model.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: MA
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #198 on: June 02, 2018, 07:56:15 PM »
Anyone else find it ironic that so many people in this thread are defending the current labor structure?  Seeing as this is a forum dedicated to getting out of it as early as possible?

It seems foolish to think that capitalism in it’s current form is the best economic system that humanity will ever come up with.  But I suppose people were having the same arguments defending monarchy back then, never imagining what could come after it.

It also astonishes me how many people in this thread who make good money talk about people who do unskilled labor as being lazy.  Has anyone ever thought that “someone” has to clean the toilets, run the machines, do the cleaning etc... and that there are many, many people who don’t have the capability to do the higher skilled labor that they happened to win the genetic lottery to be able to do?  I work in a manufacturing plant with many wonderful people, who just could never be engineers,  or managers.  A good work ethic helps, but it can only take you so far.  Some people could work 150 hours a week, and never get ahead in an economy that values mental over physical labor. 

Capitalism has been an absolutely fantastic economic system that has brought the standard of living for billions to the highest point in human history.  However, it has flaws, obviously, and I have hope that we can find an economic system that works even better.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
Re: Modern Day Slavery
« Reply #199 on: June 02, 2018, 08:22:29 PM »
Anyone else find it ironic that so many people in this thread are defending the current labor structure?  Seeing as this is a forum dedicated to getting out of it as early as possible?

*shrug* I can put myself in both mindsets. The philosophy o the MMM forums should enrich for people who find their work unfulfilling. But at the same time it's gonna enrich for people that are able to get ahead under the current system. So it makes sense you're likely going to get people with both extremely positive and extremely negative views.

Quote
It seems foolish to think that capitalism in it’s current form is the best economic system that humanity will ever come up with.  But I suppose people were having the same arguments defending monarchy back then, never imagining what could come after it.

That's an interesting way of framing it. However, my guess is a lot of folks would argument that as economic systems go, in most but not all contexts capitalism comes out ahead of every other economic system humanity has come up with to date.

Quote
It also astonishes me how many people in this thread who make good money talk about people who do unskilled labor as being lazy.  Has anyone ever thought that “someone” has to clean the toilets, run the machines, do the cleaning etc... and that there are many, many people who don’t have the capability to do the higher skilled labor that they happened to win the genetic lottery to be able to do?

I agree with you that there are lots of people who work really hard, and through either circumstances or nature ("genetic lottery"), really don't have any shot at finding their way into high paying work.

Getting ahead requires BOTH hard work and good luck (during your education and career and/or which parents you are born to and what skills and abilities you inherit). So the people who get ahead generally can thank both luck and hard work, while the people who don't get ahead may have bad luck, may chose not to work hard, or both.

It's obviously human nature to emphasize the hard work and determination in the stories we tell ourselves about how we got where we are if we're happy with where we ended up. And conversely, it's also human nature to emphasize the role of bad luck in the stories we tell ourselves about where we are when we're unhappy with where we ended up.

What surprises me about your response is that it would seem to imply we're not rapidly approaching a point at which no one is going to have to clean the toilets or mop the floors.