|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2013 05:58 Ingsoc101 wrote:
What in the fuck? You just claimed that I want slavery legal because I don't believe in a living wage? There are some real loonies in this thread. You stay classy.
@farva well, if it says it in an article it must be true.
By the way, a quote from the article you are relying on to make your arguments:
"We have found that checkout times were longer for customers who used self-checkouts than for those using staffed checkouts," said Ikea spokesman Joseph Roth. "At Ikea, we believe staffed checkouts are more convenient to the customer - especially given the unique shopping experience our stores offer."
"The value to the business is very clear," said Gribbons. "The value to the shopper is less clear."
Also from the article.
Lots of customers talked about the self-service checkout lanes, wrote Albertsons in 2011, "but mostly" it was about how the checkout lanes "'take jobs away from people.'" Some also complained that it lessened the customer experience. "Customer service is always our highest priority," the company said.
So whether it be because of increased efficiency or a focus on employment, what I said still stands. Customers like to see humans working checkouts.
|
On June 03 2013 05:58 Ingsoc101 wrote:
What in the fuck? You just claimed that I want slavery legal because I don't believe in a living wage? There are some real loonies in this thread. You stay classy.
@farva well, if it says it in an article it must be true.
By the way, a quote from the article you are relying on to make your arguments:
"We have found that checkout times were longer for customers who used self-checkouts than for those using staffed checkouts," said Ikea spokesman Joseph Roth. "At Ikea, we believe staffed checkouts are more convenient to the customer - especially given the unique shopping experience our stores offer."
"The value to the business is very clear," said Gribbons. "The value to the shopper is less clear."
The first two sentences in your post came directly from my brain. Just a bit overboard, as is slammin the whole thread. So sad since ...You had me at hello!
|
On June 03 2013 05:58 Ingsoc101 wrote:
What in the fuck? You just claimed that I want slavery legal because I don't believe in a living wage? There are some real loonies in this thread. You stay classy.
@farva well, if it says it in an article it must be true.
By the way, a quote from the article you are relying on to make your arguments:
"We have found that checkout times were longer for customers who used self-checkouts than for those using staffed checkouts," said Ikea spokesman Joseph Roth. "At Ikea, we believe staffed checkouts are more convenient to the customer - especially given the unique shopping experience our stores offer."
"The value to the business is very clear," said Gribbons. "The value to the shopper is less clear."
Sorry, I have too much fun sometimes. Regardless, you advocate a position where the workers don't have the right to have housing and food... which is worse than slavery.
As for your actual points,
Your first paragraph is wrong. You've conflated living wage and family wage. Not much more needs to be said there.
Your second paragraph assumes that the value of an employee is an estimation that can be measured using pure economic theory, while completely ignoring human power dynamics and the reality of a world in which employers hold far more power than their employees.
|
United States43458 Posts
On June 03 2013 05:58 Ingsoc101 wrote:
What in the fuck? You just claimed that I want slavery legal because I don't believe in a living wage? There are some real loonies in this thread. You stay classy.
@farva well, if it says it in an article it must be true.
By the way, a quote from the article you are relying on to make your arguments:
"We have found that checkout times were longer for customers who used self-checkouts than for those using staffed checkouts," said Ikea spokesman Joseph Roth. "At Ikea, we believe staffed checkouts are more convenient to the customer - especially given the unique shopping experience our stores offer."
"The value to the business is very clear," said Gribbons. "The value to the shopper is less clear."
Is there a meaningful difference between being enslaved by force and by economic circumstance (assuming a hypothetical wage that pays enough to survive but too little to improve your condition)? In either case you're worked hard for someone else's profit, receiving only enough to keep you alive in order to ensure your productivity doesn't drop and only escaping through death.
Not saying that working for minimum wage is necessarily that bad but dismissing the concept is missing the point. In a situation in which there are surplus workers, the law is enforced rigidly and no employee protection wages would naturally drop until they hit the limit of the worker to put in hours (80 hour weeks?), provide himself with food and survive the elements (overcrowded barracks). Slavery and the free market have the same basic minimum concern for the wellbeing of the worker, providing enough to ensure continued productivity and no more. Now, this hypothetical isn't realistic because people steal, riot and revolt before it gets that bad but there is nothing that innately separates slavery from the free market. The mutually beneficial trades that the free market is built on can still be exploitative, a man may willingly trade his labour for another days subsistence but that doesn't change the fact he is a slave if his only alternative is voluntary starvation.
|
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse.
|
United States43458 Posts
On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse.
The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night.
It is not a meaningful difference.
|
On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference.
I'm reminded of this pertinent joke. Hey, you know what job stands for? Just over broke.
|
On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse.
The moral difference is merely one of justification. Where explicit slavery could be justified through religion and an assumption of (racial) superiority, implicit slavery carries that torch with an adherence to the religion of capitalism and assumed superiority to the disabled and poor.
Even if we look at it from an "every man is free" aspect, the chains are still there. A black man in the early 1800s could take a risk, flee his owners, and end up as the slave to another man. What is the difference now, where a no skilled worker could take a risk, quit his job as a stocker/janitor/cashier, and end up as... a stocker/janitor/cashier? The only difference now is that nobody cares if the worker dies of starvation.
Now, I don't think America works this way (nor any other first world country), but to deny that slavery exists outside of explicit ownership is nothing more than missing the slight of hand being done.
|
Even from a Libertarian perspective, one could argue that the labor market is not a free market because people are coerced into working by their physical needs for food, shelter, etc. If welfare ensured that everyone were provided with basic essentials regardless of work, then the labor market would be freer because people could actually choose to take jobs based on their assessment of whether not they feel the compensation is adequate.
|
On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse.
I can't for my life find the translation of this quote in english, but as Karl Marx said "Ce qui distingue principalement l'ère nouvelle de l'ère ancienne, c'est que le fouet commence à se croire génial".
|
On June 03 2013 05:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved. Hardly. Check out this article, it covers the topic nicely. The long and short of it is that customers like to see people working. Show nested quote +Automated self-checkout is appearing in more and more retail stores, with Walmart this year installing 10,000 self-service kiosks in hundreds of stores. But self-checkout is a technology direction with risks -- and even as Walmart moves ahead with its plan, other companies are already abandoning it.
Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.
At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
Even so, stores like Walmart say automated self-checkout kiosks can increase customer convenience and choice. But what does a checkout kiosk system actually fix?
Vendors argue that having more checkout options means shorter lanes and speedier customer transactions. But there are concerns about the impact on jobs, since stores that roll out the technology can steer customers to self-checkout systems -- and cut back on human cashiers.
That later issue is a flash point. Walmart, jobs and the rise of self-service checkout tech
Yes customers generally prefer seeing people - but not at any price. There are limits to how much people will pay for things, cashiers included.
|
On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference.
Huh? It has all the meaning in the world. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot. And one of the twin criticisms of Wal-Mart and one of the big reasons it has been difficult to form a union is that it has tremendous turnover, a large percentage of people quit within the first year of working there.
|
One of the more sophisticated antebellum defenses of slavery was actually pretty Marxist--pointing out that wage laborers are alienated from their labor and that their employers have no need to be concerned with their well-being, whereas slaveholders had a paternalistic interest in their slaves. The latter was of course a lie, and obviously capitalism was an improvement over slave agrarianism, but the former part of the argument was true.
|
On June 03 2013 07:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot.
I think this difference is rather massively overstated. For most people in a position where they'd be considering connections between slavery and their job, leaving = starvation or at least a massive reduction in their quality of life.
This is scarcely freer than making a choice with a gun to your head.
|
On June 03 2013 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 05:32 farvacola wrote:On June 03 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved. Hardly. Check out this article, it covers the topic nicely. The long and short of it is that customers like to see people working. Automated self-checkout is appearing in more and more retail stores, with Walmart this year installing 10,000 self-service kiosks in hundreds of stores. But self-checkout is a technology direction with risks -- and even as Walmart moves ahead with its plan, other companies are already abandoning it.
Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.
At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
Even so, stores like Walmart say automated self-checkout kiosks can increase customer convenience and choice. But what does a checkout kiosk system actually fix?
Vendors argue that having more checkout options means shorter lanes and speedier customer transactions. But there are concerns about the impact on jobs, since stores that roll out the technology can steer customers to self-checkout systems -- and cut back on human cashiers.
That later issue is a flash point. Walmart, jobs and the rise of self-service checkout tech Yes customers generally prefer seeing people - but not at any price. There are limits to how much people will pay for things, cashiers included.
Costco would like a word with you on that point.
Insert drunk anti free trade argument based on that the countries beifitng from free trade are the ones with a free- protectionist economic policy resulting in their quality of life going up and ours going down.
Tbh target is the anti union company wal mart is just big enough not to give a shit about the protests.
|
United States43458 Posts
On June 03 2013 07:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference. Huh? It has all the meaning in the world. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot. And one of the twin criticisms of Wal-Mart and one of the big reasons it has been difficult to form a union is that it has tremendous turnover, a large percentage of people quit within the first year of working there.
Any human anywhere may wish to do anything he likes, slave or not. Our minds are not limited, our bodies are. If a slave wishes to end his labour then he may attempt to run away and seek an improvement in his fortune but he will most likely remain a slave or die. If a wage labourer living day to day wishes to end his labour he too can attempt to leave but again, he will most likely remain a wage labourer or starve. Wal-Mart doesn't apply to this hypothetical because it is a hypothetical, the free market has been distorted to prevent such a nightmare.
Slavery isn't the whip, slavery is the loss of the ability to control one's own labour.
|
On June 03 2013 07:46 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 07:33 coverpunch wrote:On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot. I think this difference is rather massively overstated. For most people in a position where they'd be considering connections between slavery and their job, leaving = starvation or at least a massive reduction in their quality of life. This is scarcely freer than making a choice with a gun to your head.
How do you figure what "most people" think in that position? Are you there?
|
On June 03 2013 08:10 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 07:46 Shiori wrote:On June 03 2013 07:33 coverpunch wrote:On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot. I think this difference is rather massively overstated. For most people in a position where they'd be considering connections between slavery and their job, leaving = starvation or at least a massive reduction in their quality of life. This is scarcely freer than making a choice with a gun to your head. How do you figure what "most people" think in that position? Are you there?
He didn't say anything to that effect. He said that people with shitty jobs probably don't have a better option, hence their ability to leave is minimized.
|
On June 03 2013 08:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 07:33 coverpunch wrote:On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference. Huh? It has all the meaning in the world. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot. And one of the twin criticisms of Wal-Mart and one of the big reasons it has been difficult to form a union is that it has tremendous turnover, a large percentage of people quit within the first year of working there. Any human anywhere may wish to do anything he likes, slave or not. Our minds are not limited, our bodies are. If a slave wishes to end his labour then he may attempt to run away and seek an improvement in his fortune but he will most likely remain a slave or die. If a wage labourer living day to day wishes to end his labour he too can attempt to leave but again, he will most likely remain a wage labourer or starve. Wal-Mart doesn't apply to this hypothetical because it is a hypothetical, the free market has been distorted to prevent such a nightmare. Slavery isn't the whip, slavery is the loss of the ability to control one's own labour.
Oh, c'mon, you can see that you are stretching like taffy to make slave = wage laborer, right?
That's not to say Wal-Mart doesn't deserve criticism for its employment practices. Again, large turnover is a sign that Wal-Mart is a pretty bad employer. But, I don't think having the government raise the minimum wage or somehow force Wal-Mart to change is a good solution. You can't help people control their own labor by wielding a bigger whip.
|
United States43458 Posts
On June 03 2013 08:20 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 07:33 coverpunch wrote:On June 03 2013 06:52 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2013 06:40 NovaTheFeared wrote:
There is nothing that separates slavery from the free market except that which slavery is, ownership of other human beings. The market's first principle is that each person owns his or herself. The living conditions for workers between the early days of capitalism and slave societies may not have been that different, true. But that doesn't mean they are the same, morally. To say they are is obtuse. The knowledge that their employment contract is technically different from a bill of ownership would not keep the hypothetical wage slaves warm at night. It is not a meaningful difference. Huh? It has all the meaning in the world. The simple difference is a free person can leave if they want and a slave cannot. And one of the twin criticisms of Wal-Mart and one of the big reasons it has been difficult to form a union is that it has tremendous turnover, a large percentage of people quit within the first year of working there. Any human anywhere may wish to do anything he likes, slave or not. Our minds are not limited, our bodies are. If a slave wishes to end his labour then he may attempt to run away and seek an improvement in his fortune but he will most likely remain a slave or die. If a wage labourer living day to day wishes to end his labour he too can attempt to leave but again, he will most likely remain a wage labourer or starve. Wal-Mart doesn't apply to this hypothetical because it is a hypothetical, the free market has been distorted to prevent such a nightmare. Slavery isn't the whip, slavery is the loss of the ability to control one's own labour. Oh, c'mon, you can see that you are stretching like taffy to make slave = wage laborer, right? That's not to say Wal-Mart doesn't deserve criticism for its employment practices. Again, large turnover is a sign that Wal-Mart is a pretty bad employer. But, I don't think having the government raise the minimum wage or somehow force Wal-Mart to change is a good solution. You can't help people control their own labor by wielding a bigger whip.
I'm talking purely hypotheticals here, not about Wal-Mart. My point is that given no government distortions and a surplus of labour the competition for jobs will depress wages to the minimum that someone will work for or the level at which further reduction reduces the productivity of the labourer. The minimum that someone will voluntarily work for can be assumed to be basic survival, if given a choice between working and eating and not working and not eating people will choose the former. At this point they have lost all control over their labour, their only remaining exit is death, while the profits of their labour are kept by those who exploit them. The fact that they choose to work each day does not change the fact that it is slavery, they choose it because they wish to continue to live. Cotton pickers chose to pick cotton rather than to rise up, a human body will not do anything the mind does not wish it to, but we still characterise the slavery of blacks in America as slavery because there was no reasonable alternative to the exploitation of their labour.
The free market could conceivably create a scenario in which workers lacked a reasonable alternative to the exploitation of their labour, the reason it does not is because of social improvements, government intervention and the threat of revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
