Quote from: Findura on August 11, 2022, 10:49

Quote from: cypher on July 14, 2022, 23:01
Just curious -- when (if ever) do you choose to vote in the poll provided on this site?

What poll? I have read about it a few times in some threads, but I have never seen this poll.

The poll on the right, Findura.

Since 2012, there have been studies that conclude that it is not just the issue of water that is a problem with fracking, but the release of methane. There are studies that conclude that fracking gas could have a worse climate footprint than coal, for example.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fracking-boom-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphere

Whether this is true or influenced by some vested interests, I don't know either, of course.

Here in Europe, there are other problems with energy supply.
Norway wants to supply less green power to the EU. The green power there is largely generated from hydropower. Since there is severe drought, there is now very little water in the dams and reservoirs.

In France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and other countries, the rivers are now at extremely low water levels and are beginning to dry up. The remaining water is heating up due to the heat waves. This leads to cooling problems of the power plants (nuclear power plants, coal-fired power plants). The output has to be reduced or the power plants shut down. Gas-fired power plants are affected to a lesser extent because they require less cooling water.

Quote from: SVH on August 08, 2022, 21:32

Quote from: Wilm on August 08, 2022, 20:40

But if everyone would live like most Africans and not like you, then we would not have endless problems.

So everybody poor and starving. That is your solution?

Quotethese people exploited by all of us do not have the right to multiply

I did not say that, that is your political correct storted thinking. But it is a fact that while Western Nations are not growing and even shrinking they are growing enormously. So you cry about what we are doing and not even considering to say,"hey guys maybe it's not so wise to multilpy this much". There is no activism whatsoever to stop this huge problem but it is really a problem for the world community as a whole. You have to speak up to everyone in this world and not the mere 1 billion people in the West to overcome things, it will not be enough. You can live by your guilt, as a German, and you should actually, messing up two times in recent history, but it will not help to stay in this politcally correct posture. Even Africans and Middle East people are just normal people, like you and I. There is no wrong doing in telling them to back off a bit with this people breeding. You however, still think they are pittyful and that is actually very, and very,  racist, because you don't respect them at all or give them absolutely any worth, because after all you think they are all poor fools, who are nothing and can do nothing, right?

And then you get mad at me? While you are whining that stock companies don't pay you right.

??

I read in your post ,,... but maybe it's time to shout at Africa and the Middle-East to stop f**ing like bunny's".

Quote from: SVH on August 08, 2022, 19:34
You guys just don't get it. When my parents were born there were 2.3 billion people on this planet. When I was born there were 3.8 billion people. Now there are 7.9 billion people on the planet. And we wish everyone a good life. So what does this do to our consumption and climate then?
You can do all the little things you do and want but maybe it's time to shout at Africa and the Middle-East to stop f**ing like bunny's. Because they are exploding with putting more people on this planet day by day, with their needs and thus their CO2 footprint if you will.
The will need food, water, electricity and leisure as cars, holidays etc.... You do the sum.
Growing number of people is the problem not the people perse.

This statement that we have far too many people for this small planet with its limited resources is correct at first.

But if everyone would live like most Africans and not like you, then we would not have endless problems. It is incredibly arrogant to make such a statement as a child of a western industrialized country - if you have grown up in all the resource-consuming prosperity, like you.

First, you can be quite sure that everyone reading along here is fully aware of the problem of overpopulation and does not need your incredible wisdom ("You just don't get it) and insight.

Secondly, I find - and I have really never written anything like this here before - absolutely unacceptable when a child who grew up in Western prosperity - and this prosperity was based on the merciless exploitation of the countries which are still poor today - says that these people exploited by all of us do not have the right to multiply! This is really underground!!! This thought system might originate so or similarly still from the times of the slavery where the "supermen" were of the opinion to be allowed to tell the "submen" what they are allowed to do or should do in their life.

You should think once about it whether it would not be better if there would not be you instead of 10 new people in the countries of which you write.

Example:

If all humans would live in such a way, like the US Americans, we would need for our consumption over 5 earths, for me as a German 3 earths.

If everyone would live like the Afghans, we would need only 0.4 earths.

Now you come and write that these people from Africa and the Middle East want to live like us in the future. That is their right. Meanwhile, we will celebrate a family party in space for our pleasure, wasting vast amounts of resources.

Maybe you should question if maybe you are the person who doesn't get it.

Last week we were in the water tower in Lüneburg. There is a permanent exhibition there that deals with the topic of water consumption.

I photographed a few facts about water consumption there.

This is how much water is needed for the production and delivery of a product including the virtual* water consumption:

1 sheet of paper = 10 liters
1 cup of tea = 30 liters
1 roll = 80 liters
500 grams of strawberries = 140 liters
1 cup of coffee = 140 liters
30 grams of cheese = 150 liters
1 glass of orange juice = 170 liters
1 kilogram of tomatoes = 184 liters
1 glass of apple juice = 190 liters
1 egg = 200 liters
1 liter of beer = 300 liters
1 half liter milk = 500 liters
100 grams of cotton = 1100 liters
1 kilogram sugar = 1500 liters
1 bar of chocolate = 1700 liters
1 cotton T-shirt = 2500 liters
1 blue jeans = 11000 liters
1 kilogram of beef = 15450 liters
1 personal computer = 20000 liters

Some examples on water consumption per capita per day of individual countries in 2018, source statista.com:

- Estonia = 3717 liters
- USA = 3306 liters
- Greece = 2635 liters
- Australia = 1926 liters
- Spain = 1836 liters
- China = 1150 liters
- France = 1142 liters
- Germany = 814 liters

* The actual water consumption looks different, because not only the direct water consumption is calculated, but also the water used for production, cleaning, disposal etc. of the products - also of the products which are produced for a country abroad. Examples from the exhibit for total water consumption per capita per day in liters:

- USA = 6800 liters
- Spain = 6365 liters
- Germany = 4230 liters
- India = 2680 liters
- China = 1920 liters

Quote from: Lizard on August 07, 2022, 08:43

Quote from: Big Toe on July 26, 2022, 22:43

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28
Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!

The current molecular composition of Earth's atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent; diatomic oxygen (O2), 20.95 percent; argon (A), 0.93 percent; water (H20), about 0 to 4 percent; and carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.04 percent. Inert gases such as neon (Ne), helium (He), and krypton (Kr) and other constituents such as nitrogen oxides, compounds of sulfur, and compounds of ozone are found in lesser amounts.


SOURCES:

https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/carbon-dioxide

https://ballotpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html


So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it.   

If you read the text in the 2nd source you linked here, it is very clear to read that the - supposedly so small - share of CO2 emissions caused by us humans is a huge problem. I hope you read that.

Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from 288ppm to 414ppm. This means that in this very short time, humans are responsible for an increase in CO2 levels of almost 45%. This figure is also confirmed in the fourth link you posted.

Calculated differently: 0.0288% before, 0.0414% today = 0.0126%.

Where you found the 0.0016%, I don't know either. Unless you have a source that says, for example, that many more volcanic eruptions occurred during the Industrial Revolution than before, and that therefore humans had nothing to do with this increase.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 05, 2022, 20:39

Quote from: blvdone on August 05, 2022, 19:34

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 05, 2022, 16:02
Below are my Top 5 photo and Top 5 video best sellers

I think you actually have some talent with that kind of sales.

Lol, I'll take this as a compliment. Thanks! 

But for me, being "talented" is not really a compliment, because it assumes being lucky at birth.

These sales are based on acquired knowledge applied in practice, i.e. engineering and physical work, not talent. 

Even though the term "talent" is hard to categorize, you definitely have a very good feel for microstock! Your images are exceptionally good. And your numbers reflect that very well.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 05, 2022, 17:40

Quote from: Wilm on August 03, 2022, 09:47

But this and other images have brought in significantly more, because some of the images run very well at several agencies. But I have no idea how to determine the right numbers, because you can't get the necessary information from some agencies.

However, it must be said quite clearly: today, this will be far from possible. This was only possible with images that were uploaded many years ago.

So true, those dimes just don't add up as fast as the 38¢ did. Then there were ODs and ELs and others which have vanished.

Quote from: ribtoks on August 03, 2022, 13:42
Mine has brought me over $6,000 and I did the analysis how fast the sales dry up: https://xpiksapp.com/blog/earn-6314-usd-single-photo-shutterstock/

Basically the estimate is that sales will reach zero in approximately 10 years after the start. And they have clear seasonal peaks, at least for me.

Fantastic Photo, it deserves to sell and something that you aren't going to have a bunch of copycats. There's one big positive to unique and interesting images. Less competition.

EL???

What is this Pete? I do not know that! Nobody buys an EL... 

Quote from: bolsher on August 04, 2022, 16:05
Hello, I have had a blatant slump in sales since the beginning of Corona in early 2020 for newly delivered pictures. Actually, I don't sell any newly delivered pictures anymore. And live only from the old pictures. To name a few numbers: in 2019, sales with the pictures in the 5-digit range. 2020/21/22 in the lower 3-digit range. Is this only my problem? Nice to hear from you all....

So I don't get it wrong: You had five-figure microstock revenues a year until 2019 - and now they're only in the low triple digits?

My downloads and revenue have also dropped significantly, but as extreme as you write it seems extremely strange to me.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 03, 2022, 09:07

Quote from: Wilm on August 03, 2022, 08:56
I wonder why I did not get this e-mail from 123rf. I also can't find any information about this topic anywhere on the website.

Where can I find the location for opt out?

Wilm, go to "Konto-Einstellungen" and then "Preference Settings"

Thanks a lot, Ralf! 

With shutterstock you can see that immediately. My bestseller has brought in just under $4,300 so far - uploaded almost exactly 10 years ago.

But this and other images have brought in significantly more, because some of the images run very well at several agencies. But I have no idea how to determine the right numbers, because you can't get the necessary information from some agencies.

I have a few images that I uploaded 5 years ago that are well over $2,000. And a couple of images that are 3 years old are approaching the $2,000 mark.

In any case, there are contributors who have made over $20,000 with just one image at shutterstock. If they have achieved similar sums at AS and such a picture - which I assume - also achieves good revenues at other agencies, $40,000 or even $ 50.000 for a picture is possible.

However, it must be said quite clearly: today, this will be far from possible. This was only possible with images that were uploaded many years ago.

I wonder why I did not get this e-mail from 123rf. I also can't find any information about this topic anywhere on the website.

Where can I find the location for opt out?

For me it was my worst month ever. 

Reading Alexandre's numbers, I guess I can still consider myself lucky, but after 12 years of microstock, it's really frustrating.

After all, I only offer at 7 agencies. And at 5 of them, RPD is extremely down. With CS it's okay, but I have so few downloads that it doesn't matter. How it is with videos I don't know, but with images I find it scary.

The current RPD values (for comparison the former values)

CS: $ 1.8 (1.69)
AS: $ 0.93 (1.41)
IS: $ 0.59 (0.68)
DP: $ 0.45 (0.42)
DT: $ 0.44 (1.20)
SS: $ 0.44 (0.79)
123rf: $ 0.32 (0.97)

RPD is down.

If I interpret the graph Annie posted correctly, the decline in CO2 emissions has been greatest in Germany.
At the same time, it is a pity that the topic of biogas, for example, has been neglected in the last two years. Only now is the topic coming back into focus. Biogas now has a share of over 50% of renewable energies for electricity and heat generation here - more than wind power and photovoltaics combined. This needs to be expanded even further.

At first glance, natural gas is more environmentally friendly than coal because it produces significantly less CO2 when burned. But both the extraction of natural gas in Russia, for example, and fracking release methane gases. Since methane is many times more harmful to the atmosphere than CO2, gas is not the miracle cure, but, as already mentioned, a bridging technology.

It is true, as I have already written: nuclear fusion could dramatically reduce many problems, but research is not yet as far advanced as we would like.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 28, 2022, 21:01

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2022, 19:47

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 28, 2022, 14:36

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2022, 14:09

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

Be careful Wilm. See my previous post about Russia's interest in the energy industry and their interference with the climate change "debate".
A lot of the noise around fracking originates from the same Russian troll farm trained to create controversy favoring Russia's interests. It's very clear that Russia didn't like the competition they had to face when fracking took off.
Don't fall for it.

Standard drilling is also polluting. Besides, those water contamination problems were mainly an issue during the early stages of fracking, when the technology was not completely mastered.
It's not really a problem with modern fracking wells more than it is with standard oil wells.

Even climate change activists should acknowledge that, while obviously not satisfactory long term, the extra boost of gas and oil from fracking is a step forward compared with coal-based energy production.

Hmmm, the essential information in this case comes from our federal government and our Federal Environmental Agency. To what extent they are influenced by Russian trolls, I don't know.

Context is important.
Many statements may be true when compared with "green" energy.
But as long as the government is OK with traditional oil and gas drilling (including massive imports from Russia), fracking must be compared with it. Apples with apples.

For example, I don't think there was any fracking incident that caused a disaster as big as the Deepwater Horizon spill, and yet Germany and some other countries are Ok with traditional oil drilling but are banning fracking. 
Probably because we are so familiar with traditional oil drilling and we learned to accept its cons.
But if traditional oil drilling would have been discovered today, rest assured it would have been banned in some places as well, the same way fracking is banned.

Here is an analysis from 2015: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/

The population density in the USA is about 34 inhabitants per square kilometer. In Germany, we are at about 230 inhabitants per square kilometer.

I think that the different ways of dealing with the issue of fracking is also due to these figures.

In the USA, fracking takes place in many places where only a few people live and where the risk of direct danger to the population is therefore lower than it would be in any place in Germany.

I therefore assume that the German government has a different attitude towards fracking than the US government.

Our federal government writes in the wording that there is not enough knowledge about fracking and its impact on the environment and local residents to allow fracking for industrial purposes. It is allowed and done on a small scale in the research sector.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 28, 2022, 14:36

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2022, 14:09

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

Be careful Wilm. See my previous post about Russia's interest in the energy industry and their interference with the climate change "debate".
A lot of the noise around fracking originates from the same Russian troll farm trained to create controversy favoring Russia's interests. It's very clear that Russia didn't like the competition they had to face when fracking took off.
Don't fall for it.

Standard drilling is also polluting. Besides, those water contamination problems were mainly an issue during the early stages of fracking, when the technology was not completely mastered.
It's not really a problem with modern fracking wells more than it is with standard oil wells.

Even climate change activists should acknowledge that, while obviously not satisfactory long term, the extra boost of gas and oil from fracking is a step forward compared with coal-based energy production.

Hmmm, the essential information in this case comes from our federal government and our Federal Environmental Agency. To what extent they are influenced by Russian trolls, I don't know.

Quote from: Annie on July 28, 2022, 12:29

Quote from: UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD on July 28, 2022, 11:03

Quote from: Annie on July 21, 2022, 11:54
You make it sound like the USA is right on track for environmental issues, Joe, but I doubt whether this is true. A lot of damage was done by your former administration in particular.

Hey Annie, how are you?
The thing is that I don't put a lot of faith in political solutions for environmental issues.
It does not matter what country you want to talk about the truth is if environmental issues cause jobs you can bet politicians will drop the environmental issues like hot potatoes.
Look at the Paris accords. Not one nation is going to keep its promises and the goals of the accords.
They never have and they never will. It's all just a bunch of hot air.
https://theconversation.com/australia-is-undermining-the-paris-agreement-no-matter-what-morrison-says-we-need-new-laws-to-stop-this-170198
I place my faith in technology. There are literally hundreds of projects to solve various environmental problems being worked on here plus more in western Europe and I'm sure in Australia and other places as well. Most of the innovations always come out of American labs, so that is where I put a lot of faith.
The trick is for corporations to save money or to make more money for them to jump on a new technology.
Corporations are not stupid and will not go with a non solution that costs money. Here in America the change over from coal to natural gas is going very well but not in a wasteful, stupid, job costing manner. Unproductive and old coal plants are getting replaced with new natural gas plants plus a lot of wind energy and more geothermal. Yup, we are doing and not talking like they do in Paris.
You paid for your solar installation in three years?
You must have had atrocious electric bills or your installation must have been nearly free.
My electric bill is around $120 a month, except for slightly higher bills in June, a LOT higher bills in July and slightly higher in August. Here in Texas average conversions cost around $25,000. Yes, a young person like you can make that pay over the years IF you stay in your home. There is absolutely no way I can make a conversion pay.   
It also does not do a lot of good if China and Russia pollute with abandon and then the western nations are supposed to clean up the environment. Trump is right in that regard. Biden is plodding along, very deliberate and very cautious. It's one thing to talk like a President and something else to be one. Germany is a good example too. They are now starting up coal plants to make up for the lost natural gas from Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow
Jobs trump every issue.
Speaking of talking, Australia exports massive amounts of coal, so any talk about conservation at home is pretty much useless when coal and oil get sold to the polluters. It's just talk.
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/energy-trade

Yes, Joe, I mentioned Australia when I opened up the discussion on this thread about climate change, and what are governments around the world doing. Plus I have talked about it on another thread recently. I have been campaigning here in Australia for a few years against coal production. It has to end. And fortunately we recently changed our Federal Government. Scott Morrison is no longer our Prime Minister.

But I was addressing your comments about USA being on track. Fortunately, the Biden/Harris administration is making some headway but last month the conservative majority of your Supreme Court has dealt them a huge blow (mentioned in my previous reply to you).

USA is one of the worse offenders in the world. Australia because of coal production is up there too but China, despite their population, is now the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources. See attached worldwide emissions graph.

And, Joe - natural gas is a fossil fuel composed mainly of methane. It just seems to be a waste of time and money converting to natural gas, when it still presents a problem.

Refer: Why Natural Gas is Dangerous for the Climate.

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/why-natural-gas-is-dangerous-for-the-climate/

From my perspective, there is another big issue with gas supply in the United States, Annie.

A significant amount of the gas is now being extracted by fracking, which uses chemicals that have already contaminated the groundwater there in places. In addition, gas is a bridging technology - to which, for the reasons you mentioned, it must not be seen as a forward-looking solution, but only as an intermediate step....

Here, in the city of Kiel, there was a coal-fired power plant until recently that supplied the city with heat to a large extent. This coal-fired power plant was replaced by a modern gas-fired power plant. Now we have the problem that too little comes from Russia and we have to look for other sources of gas supply.

By the way: in Germany, the value of 40.3 degrees in Kitzingen has long been outdated. In 2019, 41.2 degrees were measured in Duisburg.

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 19:53
Too bad this facts don't fit in the equation in this summers European record temperatures

The table is interesting. I cannot judge from which source it comes and how up-to-date it is.

It obviously shows global temperature records from 123 years - from 1887 to 2010.

Highlighted in yellow are less than 30% of the heat records - those from 1887 to 1951 - that is, from the earlier 52% of the statistics.

Shown in white are more than 60% of the heat records from the remaining 48% of the more recent years.

Very specifically, compared to the 64 years from 1887 to 1951, more than twice as many heat records are in the most recent period of the past 34 years between 1976 and 2010.

This speaks for itself - so thank you for your overview.

I am rock solidly convinced that the table would look even clearer if the very recent trends were included.

A few days ago, temperature records were broken in 6 of 17 German states. Even more extreme were the records in Great Britain...

Quote from: Pacesetter on July 26, 2022, 10:54
Not the biggest sale I've had (that was June 2020) but the biggest commission on a single download with this video and am already well into my BME before this dropped in...

Congrats to you! 

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 24, 2022, 21:29
Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

It is frightening - for a Central European - to see how much weight the topic of guns carries.

It is astonishing that the topic of climate change is at the bottom of the poll results.
I am absolutely sure that this will change very soon.

If the war in Ukraine escalates, or the political consequences of that escalate, perhaps humanity will no longer have to worry about climate change either. So it's true: this is a burning issue. But it is only more burning than the issue of climate change because we are better able to assess the reactions of people than the reactions of nature - of which we simply understand too little. We can't even comprehend the laws of nature with the most powerful computers. We can better put one and one together, what happens if a state leader, who has endless nuclear weapons, makes the wrong decision. We have zero idea what nature holds wide for us for our use of resources. But when in doubt, nature holds answers for us that are in no way inferior to nuclear weapons.

Quote from: Firn on July 24, 2022, 17:46
If there is one thing I can't stand hearing anymore, then it's the constant denying or downplaying of severe issues with the claim that these issues were not really bad and someone was making them appear more serious just so he could earn money with them. It's the same with the corona virus issue. "The parma industry just wants to make money!".   
Oh my gosh. People actually want to make money and not work for free! What a shock! Are there people profiting financially from crises? Yes, of course! But it's not the pharma industry or the solar energy industry or whatever that is warning us about climate change or pandemics. It's scientist. And not just individual ones who, of course, get paid by various industries as well, but it's scientific consensus all over the world! One has to be nuts and nose deep in conspiracy theories to assume that prrofiting industries managed to manipulatre scientist all over the world to come to the same conclusions.
Also, why is it held agains one industry to want to make money, but not the other? Take Germany. One of the reasons we still haven't ditched coal mining is the constant whining about all the jobs that will be lost. So what's the plan? We keep supporting a not sustainable production of energy, so people don't lose jobs, creating new jobs in that industry all the time so we have a neverending cycle till we run out of coal and these people lose their jobs anyways? Why not instead focus on creating jobs with another energy? Solar energy? Wind energy? Geothermal energy? Biomass from plants? Hydropower? But, oh no, it's the evil sustainable energy industry that "just wants to make money" and manipulate us. Because the coal mining industry is a charity and does not want to make money at all. 

Yes, someone profits from changes that would come with measures to fight climate change. But there is always also someoen who profits from not taking these measures. Why not point fingers at these people? The ones who do not want the change, do not want to fight climate change, because it would mean they'd make less money? Why is it always the people who want to fight climate change that get blamed for "just wanting to make money", why not the people who want to fight these measures, because, just the same, they "just want to make money?" For example Porsche just successfully influenced german politicans to fight the EU wide stop of production of  fuel based cars. There sole motive to fight this change was the fear of losing profit. But people who want to fight climate change and would profit from it financially are somehow the bad guys? All of this doesn't make sense.

Agree!

Quote from: cascoly on July 21, 2022, 23:35

Quote from: Wilm on July 21, 2022, 22:17
One more sentence on the subject: Companies usually pass on such enormous cost increases to their customers, not to their employees. Passing on costs to employees usually only happens when companies are on the verge of insolvency and then ask their employees to pass on this insolvency by foregoing wages in their own interests.

it also happens in profitable industries when labor has little influence - eg, large labor pool, weak/non-existent unions, entangling non-compete clauses.  in the US worker income has failed to keep up with either inflation or corporate profits

Yes, that's right.

Here in Germany, there is a statutory minimum wage. And the government has just increased it.

Nevertheless, many companies will find ways and means to circumvent this minimum wage with a few tricks.

Quote from: cascoly on July 21, 2022, 23:32

Quote from: Wilm on July 21, 2022, 21:05

Quote from: cascoly on July 21, 2022, 19:30

Quote from: Firn on July 21, 2022, 06:37
...It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.

That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.

i agree with your analysis, except (of course) another reason ms dont raise prices is competition - if one agency raises prices, they're at a competitive disadvantage w other agencies

cascoly,

I don't follow your argument, because the same laws apply to MS agencies as to the rest of the free economy. If your argument was, true, no gas station would raise prices, no craftsman, no parcel service, no fast food chain, no supermarket, etc. because of competitive disadvantage.

But they all do - only the microstock agencies don't. Why not? Because we put up with it. From my point of view, it's as simple as that.

in most of those cases you cite,  they're near monopolies; also, many have prices that can easily be raised / lowered (sometimes of a daily basis) - eg, without explicit coordination, most gas stations raise prices immediately when oil prices increase, but only slowly decrease when oil does.  if a major portion of the suppliers don't participate, prices revert. 

MS don't have that option as their market is both more muddled, less structured & less correlated - the market is splintered- it's also not as easy to change prices, to test the response of other agencies. so, when one agency raises prices, the others gain a competitive advantage by keeping prices low

as far as "Because we put up with it.", that has near zero effect, as the SS boycott showed - the number of suppliers is huge and constantly increasing, so there's not been any way to get a co-ordinated reaction from a critical mass

As for the gas stations, you're right, cascoly.

But there are many large discounters here that are in competition with each other. And butter, oil, flour, and many other foods have become more expensive at all of them.

I think that MS agencies and discounters are comparable.

As for boycotting shutterstock, I agree with you.