There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.
Discuss:
- The merits of competing theories.
- The role of the government in managing the economy.
- The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
- Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
- Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.
edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan
Make eating in China safer?
![]()
I worked long enough on fast food joints to know that anything there can come from wherever they want and whatever label they put on their meat packs is what they are serving.
Since making fast food meat usually means tearing meat apart, sterilizing it and then lumping it back together to resemble flattened minced meat, in the end it won't make a difference if it came from animals or plant, it will look the same anyway.
Bollocks, I'm kinda wanting the artificial meats based on soy to kick off, after all my country is one of the major soy producers in the world.
edited 11th Sep '15 11:38:31 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legeshttp://beyondmeat.com/products
More pea based than soy based.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.How Welfare Reform Ruined Public Assistance for the Very Poor
In some ways more politics than economics related, but I decided it would probably be appropriate to post here too.
Quoting this from Bonai's article because it's a really good illustration of how even well meaning policy can go wrong:
"Both for political and substantive reasons, candidate Clinton made the reform of cash welfare, the receipt of which wasn’t much conditioned on work, a key plank in his platform. As Edin and Shaefer stress, this was not a wholly conservative or even centrist position. Progressive scholars recognized that work had to be a ladder out of poverty, and were thinking about ways to facilitate that upward climb. Notably, this view is widely held by the working-age people in Edin and Shaefer’s sample. They want decent, steady jobs, and not just because the recognize work as an economic necessity but because of the dignity they believe it will bring to their lives as people and as parents.
There are numerous things that need to be in place for that to happen, i.e., for the deeply poor to be able to work their way up. First, there have to be enough jobs paying livable wages. Second, work supports, including affordable child care, are necessary. And third, any skill deficits must be closed. As one might expect, many of the subjects in the book have few marketable skills, but not all. One woman, a cashier at Walmart, handily memorized four-digit bar codes on dozens of common items. Based on her numerical acumen, she’s heading for a management position when she gets fired because one of the people she lives with used up all the gas and there was no money left to fill the tank."
Actually solving a deep social problem so that vulnerable populations are not left behind is complex and difficult, but it can be done. Why dont we have gas coupons in this country?
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Why do we feel overworked
? Probably because employers treat us like machines, not people.
Yet that's exactly how many employees function on the job — every day of every week of every year. And often employers either explicitly or implicitly expect it of them. "The model for how to work has been the machine, and more recently, the computer. More, bigger, faster remains the prevailing mantra," Tony Schwartz, founder of The Energy Project, wrote in a study of 20,000 employees. But, Schwartz noted, that's a losing formula for humans, who "are designed to pulse regularly between spending and renewing energy."
His study, done in concert with the Harvard Business Review, found more than half of employees did not have:
- Regular time for creative or strategic thinking
- Ability to focus on one thing at a time
- Opportunities to do what they enjoy most
- Opportunities for learning and growth
More than 40% also lacked:
- Overall positive energ
- Ability to balance work and home lif
- Ability to disengage from wor
Meanwhile, other studies confirm what star athletes know — working hard is useful but recovery time is just as important for peak performance. Psychology professor K. Anders Ericsson studied professional violinists and found that they get the most out of their practice when it's limited to about four hours a day, with breaks in between. Great writers often set aside their mornings to write, and spend the rest of the day doing less-intense tasks.
The takeaway for the rest of us? "Even experts are unable to sustain full concentration for more than 4 or 5 hours per day," Ericsson said.
Of course, a four-hour workday with plenty of breaks isn't really feasible — financially or professionally — for most people. But better managing time at work can be. For instance, The Energy Project advises that people work in no more than 90-minute cycles and take rests in between. An occasional nap even. People who do so report having higher levels of focus, creativity and sense of well-being, the consulting firm said.
Another big idea: Leave at the end of an 8-hour day. Go home, meet friends, workout, catch up with your kids, vacuum, whatever. But leave the job behind. "Employees who work at least 55 hours compared to those who work 40 hours or less report feeling 21% less engaged and 27% less focused," according to Schwartz's study.
All this is easier said than done, of course, especially when you work for bosses who believe everything should be secondary to work, including your family commitments and personal well-being. But that kind of leadership keeps the company and the employee from doing their very best. While only about of fifth of people surveyed in Schwartz's study said their leaders model more "sustainable" ways of working, those who work for them felt far more engaged and satisfied on the job and much, much more likely to actually stay at the company.
The way to fight it is to simply push back against the idea. I know i look at email only infrequently when i'm away from school or work, and only more frequently when i'm waiting for something. I suppose it depends on your exact position in the company, along with your sector. Some demand availability at odd hours by their nature, while others are competitive enough to the point where any perceived slacking is aggressively drummed out.
Really, what i don't want to see is mission-creep for a job. If it says 40 hours a week, i should hold them to that, just as they would for me.
Yeah but with so many states being Right To Work that makes any sort of push almost impossible.
You literally have no rights whatsoever. Literally nothing. You can be fired for any reason and it's legal.
So you can't exactly complain or do anything your boss doesn't like without losing your job.
Oh really when?Right to Work often gets confused with At-Will employment. Right to Work just bans shops from being union-only or forcing any employee at that location to pay dues. At Will just means you're free to leave or be let go as you/they please (compare to a sports star, who can't just walk away from a team whenever they feel like it, you just don't see that right as a good thing very often at the low end of things), there are no contractual obligations to employment without the presence of a union contract (aside from the various protected class laws).
Right to Work effectively means that it's impossible to organize a union (because those don't work unless they're coercive - free rider problem), which in turn means that there won't be a union, which means all employment is at-will.
I understand how "right to work" gets the name it does, because it means that unions can't force people to join. The problem is that expanding negative rights in that manner curtails workers' positive rights, and in most cases having unions around does more good than harm. For example, while teachers' unions make it a pain in the ass to fire teachers for not delivering (or for abusing the kids), they also ensure that teachers actually clear some money after paying out of pocket for their kids' school supplies (though unfortunately, public workers' unions are hamstrung by the fact that budgets are set by people who have no obligation to talk to them).
And while you guys are caught up in semantics you don't realize that states have called their laws Right to Work as a package deal of shit that hurt people.
Arkansas is Right to Work and Right to Hire.
They can fire you over everything. They don't have to give you cause. They can ignore federal discrimination laws and ask questions like where is your church home or if you have daycare.
You can argue what is supposed to be all day, but this is how it is down here and it will stay that way because there isnt anything you can do to fight back.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurThey do. I get that shit all the time.
And you need money and proof to file a claim and even then, it is our word against theirs in a state that feels it is okay to make kids participate in public prayer in schools.
That is what Garcon, Aprilla, Morg, and other southern tropers besides myself have been trying to get the rest of you to understand.
They dont give a fuck about your federal laws and your rights.
They care about states rights and the state of Arkansas has their back.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurAnd even though in the end they'd lose a proper legal battle there's no way in hell you have the money and the time to fight one.
And that's not even getting into how you'd be basically blacklisted from any other local company as a result or the damage to your public reputation. Which does matter in these tiny rural places.
edited 12th Sep '15 6:27:46 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?The EEOC doesnt charge you anything to file a complaint. And if you can find enough people with the same problem, then it shouldn't be that hard to find a lawyer willing to get paid out of the damages awarded. 'Course that means you have to go out and find people.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The Federal government wont take the initiative and go out of their way to stop a violation of civil law. Almost always, it takes a formal complaint from someone to get things started. Not exactly fair, but it is what it is... at least they do respond to complaints.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.

Unless it's the McRib.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick