> If the workers had been expected to do this for normal wages, this wouldn't have happened.
I know some people really believe that people are only motivated by monetary incentives, but this isn't the reality of mankind. People do make sacrifice without monetary compensation all the time. (And many, many, did during covid)
Unlike what microeconomics-obsessed people think, workers don't make sophistivated economic calculations, instead they mostly care about being treated fairly.
And I glad people aren't like how microeconomics model them, because the world simply wouldn't work otherwise.
Polypropylene is great: it revolutionized residential plumbing, at least in countries that adopted it (apparently not the US). With PP tubes you can weld any complex plumbing with like $50 worth of tools and minimum skills. The only drawback is significant thermal expansion, but they’re flexible enough that they won’t break even if you forget to design around that.
> The company would compensate them well: full wages for the whole time, even when sleeping, and a paid week off after.
Only a week??? I mean, we are all going to be replaced with AI any day now, but were it not the case, I'm fully expecting to see an American company to offer, as a benefit, "we will collect and bring your remains to the workplace if you by accident die outside."
Great article but it should have included some remarks about how unnecessary, fruitless and a waste of time and resources it all was.
Are people on average still not able to accept the whole thing was idiotic from start to finish? The very idea masking ever helped a single person avoid getting covid is just stilly at this point, right? Otherwise we'd still be doing it or at least getting the vaccine, I don't know anyone that's gotten it the last 3 years.
Article would have been better from the angle of, "look at all the stupid stuff people were doing, ha" not, "these people were HEROES!" At best they were misled, at worst, profiteer idiots.
Elderly in Sweden got hurt really badly while the very youngest didn't have the education losses seen elsewhere.
However, Swedes, unlike dumbass Americans, took sensible precautions even though there weren't required by law.
> Swedes were not forced to take action against the spread of the virus, but they did so anyway. This voluntary approach might not have worked everywhere, but Sweden has a history of high trust in authorities, and people tend to comply with public health recommendations.
> In its final report on the pandemic response, the Corona Commission concluded that tougher measures should have been taken early in the pandemic, such as quarantine for those returning from high-risk areas and a temporary ban on entry to Sweden.
This seems extremely reductionist in a reckless manner.
You're taking some partial truths (sure, some responses were overblown, though some were frustratingly half-measures too) and making an enormous logical leap that the entire response was "idiotic from start to finish".
You can't assume that because we eventually ended certain interventions, they never did anything at all. You're retrojecting.
One should consider how futures prices impact this economics model.
This factory could afford to upscale because they could sell their product for a much higher price, and pay their workers much more to do so.
However if they had already sold the factories output for the regular price via a futures contract (ie. 1 ton of polypropylene for delivery in June for $2000), then the story would be different.
Futures contracts are widely used as a way to take the risk out of doing things, but the side effect is your economy loses all incentive to be flexible to changing needs.
11 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 14.9 ms ] threadhttps://www.ausairpower.net/GBU-28.html
I know some people really believe that people are only motivated by monetary incentives, but this isn't the reality of mankind. People do make sacrifice without monetary compensation all the time. (And many, many, did during covid)
Unlike what microeconomics-obsessed people think, workers don't make sophistivated economic calculations, instead they mostly care about being treated fairly.
And I glad people aren't like how microeconomics model them, because the world simply wouldn't work otherwise.
Only a week??? I mean, we are all going to be replaced with AI any day now, but were it not the case, I'm fully expecting to see an American company to offer, as a benefit, "we will collect and bring your remains to the workplace if you by accident die outside."
Are people on average still not able to accept the whole thing was idiotic from start to finish? The very idea masking ever helped a single person avoid getting covid is just stilly at this point, right? Otherwise we'd still be doing it or at least getting the vaccine, I don't know anyone that's gotten it the last 3 years.
Article would have been better from the angle of, "look at all the stupid stuff people were doing, ha" not, "these people were HEROES!" At best they were misled, at worst, profiteer idiots.
Elderly in Sweden got hurt really badly while the very youngest didn't have the education losses seen elsewhere.
However, Swedes, unlike dumbass Americans, took sensible precautions even though there weren't required by law.
> Swedes were not forced to take action against the spread of the virus, but they did so anyway. This voluntary approach might not have worked everywhere, but Sweden has a history of high trust in authorities, and people tend to comply with public health recommendations.
> In its final report on the pandemic response, the Corona Commission concluded that tougher measures should have been taken early in the pandemic, such as quarantine for those returning from high-risk areas and a temporary ban on entry to Sweden.
You're taking some partial truths (sure, some responses were overblown, though some were frustratingly half-measures too) and making an enormous logical leap that the entire response was "idiotic from start to finish".
You can't assume that because we eventually ended certain interventions, they never did anything at all. You're retrojecting.
This factory could afford to upscale because they could sell their product for a much higher price, and pay their workers much more to do so.
However if they had already sold the factories output for the regular price via a futures contract (ie. 1 ton of polypropylene for delivery in June for $2000), then the story would be different.
Futures contracts are widely used as a way to take the risk out of doing things, but the side effect is your economy loses all incentive to be flexible to changing needs.