Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (563372)	4/28/2010 12:12:07 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574636

"I already responded to that point:" No, you danced around the issue. "And I already know that you reject my viewpoint and think that the increase in productivity is all due to the worker and not due to the higher-tech tools that the employer invested in." There you go, putting words in my mouth. Exactly what you accuse me of. Again, that is the projection thingy which the Right suffers from. It really doesn't matter where the extra productivity comes from. The fact is, it happened. So there is more profit than there would have been, meaning any increase in wages won't break the company like you claim. That is, as you stated, Economics 101. As far as whether or not the increase in profits should be shared with the employees is another issue. I didn't address that. "I tried to address that viewpoint of yours:" But you didn't. You did construct a straw man. I was not addressing whether or not the workers deserved an increase because of the increase in productivity. That was between Z and you. I was just pointing out that your assertion that their productivity has not gone up over the past 30 years was wrong. And it is still wrong. "Like I said, put words into my mouth and split hairs. " And, like I have pointed out, this didn't happen. Despite how often you claim it. "When called out on it, deny deny deny. It's easier than actually arguing the issue." There is that projection thingy again. The only thing I denied were things that weren't true. Like many on the Right, you made up a "statistic" to buttress your argument, and when I called you on it you tried to split hairs("any productivity increase was because of automation, so it wasn't really an increase") and put up a straw man("so, you say the workers deserve an increase?"). When I didn't fall for your red herring, you then projected onto me what you were doing("Like I said, put words into my mouth and split hairs."). And, to top it off, you accused me of obfuscating the argument("When called out on it, deny deny deny. It's easier than actually arguing the issue"), presumably because you want to foster the idea that I don't have an argument. Granted, your buddies do the same thing. Which is probably why they have convinced themselves they win so many arguments. But dancing around, trying to shift the argument and waving your hands isn't really a win. Accusing your opponent of engaging in intellectually dishonest arguments when in reality it is you who are doing that isn't either. Just because y'all get together and pat each other on the back on your brilliant tactics is yet another example of what some are calling the "epistemic closure" on the Right. Y'all only listen to each other, and seek approval from each other. It doesn't matter how detached it is from reality, y'all get vindicated by recc'ing each other. To the point where your members of weaker intellect think that the number of recc's they get is a measure of how correct their arguments are.