EPTOccupy Wall Street - Page 106
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tskarzyn
United States516 Posts
| ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:01 semantics wrote: I've always found it funny how people frame starvation and poverty as a choice as if people would chose that over being treated like shit. Just because people will nearly always choose the better option does not mean it is not a choice. When an employer offers an unskilled worker a low paying, harsh job, he is only giving that person another option. The worker is free to refuse it but he often will not because that low paying, harsh job is the best option he has. By offering that job, that employer has not forced anything on anyone but has given the worker a chance to better his life in a mutually beneficial relationship. The fact is, the choice between starvation and a low paying job, is a choice, no matter how you put it. The fact that people will not choose the worse option does not make it not a choice, it's just that the latter is a better choice that people will take. I know I sound redundant but I'm trying to be as clear as possible. The choice between an inferior choice and a superior choice is still a choice and there is nothing wrong with offering someone a superior choice. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 23 2011 22:02 BlackFlag wrote: What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolete? And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter. I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries). Set aside the the classical liberal (libertarian) ideal for a moment and consider the role of regulators in the market. In a primitive market without quality controls and regulations, a buyer would be hard pressed to engage in a market transaction with a vendor that is an absolute stranger. The buyer would have learn the business practices of the stranger and inspect each item to be assured of quality. The buyer would only be able to buy the item after the lengthy inspection process and may have to repeat the inspection process on several future transactions before classifying that specific vendor as trustworthy. The buyer would have to repeat said process for every single new vendor. That is the low-trust market environment. In such a market place, national corporations won't have much business, never mind multi-national corporations. When buyers can't trust vendors further than they can throw them, they will be buying locally with sellers that they personally know and have vetted out. Quality controls and regulations attempt to change that by normalizing business practices and inspecting products for quality. The unspoken transaction is that businesses are subjecting themselves to third-party quality control and regulations in exchange for trust from prospective buyers. When everyone in the market subjects themselves to effective regulation and quality control, the market becomes a high-trust environment where buyers can safely purchase from any vendor and be assured of a quality product. The key, of course, is effective regulation and quality control. If the regulation is ineffective, the trust is misplaced, and many people are going to conned in the process. Misplaced trust in financial regulations during the housing bubble is what resulted in such pervasive errors in valuations of assets. Compared to ineffective regulation, no regulation is preferable because then buyers know to not place trust in vendors that don't deserve it. If that all makes sense, then it can be time to discuss how to ensure effective regulation. As for It makes political parties pretty obsolete? Would you really miss political squabbles? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2011/10/22/ym-cain-taibbi-occupy-wall-street.cnn?iref=allsearch | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:07 OsoVega wrote: Just because people will nearly always choose the better option does not mean it is not a choice. When an employer offers an unskilled worker a low paying, harsh job, he is only giving that person another option. The worker is free to refuse it but he often will not because that low paying, harsh job is the best option he has. By offering that job, that employer has not forced anything on anyone but has given the worker a chance to better his life in a mutually beneficial relationship. The fact is, the choice between starvation and a low paying job, is a choice, no matter how you put it. The fact that people will not choose the worse option does not make it not a choice, it's just that the latter is a better choice that people will take. Replace the word "starvation" with death(because that's what it is), and you'll probably realize how ridiculous that sounds. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:13 Josealtron wrote: Replace the word "starvation" with death(because that's what it is), and you'll probably realize how ridiculous that sounds. No, it's the exact same. People can choose between life and death. They do it all the time. They generally choose life. It doesn't even sound all that different because everyone knows that starvation leads to death. The choice between an inferior choice (death) and a superior choice (life, working, etc.) is still a choice and there is nothing wrong with offering that superior choice to people. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:15 OsoVega wrote: No, it's the exact same. People can choose between life and death. They do it all the time. It doesn't even sound all that different because everyone knows that starvation leads to death. The choice between an inferior choice (death) and a superior choice (life, working, etc.) is still a choice and there is nothing wrong with offering that superior choice to people. But no healthy (physically as well as mentally) being will chose death over living. The threat of death is the biggest possible force an individual can face - calling that a choice isn't even cynical anymore, it's just inhuman. You can sugarcoat it all you want by calling it a choice and thereby implying that the individual is the one in control. If you're choice is death or working under inhumane conditions while being complelty exploited by your company to barely continue living, the choice will always be awful life instead of death, as history has proven millions of times, and still proves every day. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:15 OsoVega wrote: No, it's the exact same. People can choose between life and death. They do it all the time. It doesn't even sound all that different because everyone knows that starvation leads to death. The choice between an inferior choice (death) and a superior choice (life, working, etc.) is still a choice and there is nothing wrong with offering that superior choice to people. So given you find yourself in the situation to choose between no job and starvation and a shit job which barely sustains you, you would be happy with the options offered to you? | ||
|
djRAMbO
United States66 Posts
On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote: You think as a consumer you can't be deceived? I already gave the example but a third of your fellow american are obese. A THIRD. Maybe the fact that your food industry is feeding your whole nation with poisonous crap helps a little. ? This is exactly what is wrong with your entire perception of society. The food industry doesn't feed us poisonous crap, those unhealthy people choose to eat it. There are plenty of healthy foods available, and the more people who choose to eat healthy the cheaper and more available it will become, that's called supply and demand, a.k.a. capitalism. How can you blame the food companies for feeding us what we want? Maybe we should start this protest by fixing our own lives first. I was raised in minimal conditions, my parents didn't pay for any extras, I couldn't afford a 4 year, and now I own a business because I actually worked hard and exploited the freedom we have to better myself. If I can do it, anyone can do it. Or, I could be camping on wall street, I guess. | ||
|
jmack
Canada285 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:04 tskarzyn wrote: I'm sorry if I don't want some lazy, "average" joe to get an MD and operate on me. Or that some people would rather sit around and complain than bust their ass in school to land a job at Goldman's and work 80-90 hours/week. Seriously, when did America turn into a country full of undereducated and lazy whiners? Sometimes I wonder if people who make posts like this ever take the time to think. Ofcourse people have to work, people want to work. meaningfull employment could be considered a human need with how boring life would be without it. Humans want a challenge and to overcome, but think about what you're saying. 80-90hrs a week? In case you didn't get the memo we're mortal; eventually our time will be up. We shouldn't need to spend the majority of our week working, whats the point? If you never enjoy any minute of the 90hr a week grind to "get somewhere" whats the point. A gigantic assumption in your statement is that all work is the same. Would I put in 90hrs a week developing software I love? I would, and I have. But I wonder if I am expected to spend 90hrs answering tech support phone calls so that an enormous corporation can make record profits while laying off my fellow employs, my friends,. To spend 90hrs in a factory, sweat-shop, working for just enough food to live is a standard in your country because of what OccupyWallStreet protesters are standing against, many of which are off from their jobs, it's the inequality produced by the corrupt capilist-mafia system currently in place. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph If that information doesn't help you realize how far in the favor of big business the system has swung then try Google. The facts are right in front of you. They want to work, they just don't want to do it for next to nothing or not have time to enjoy life. Now they're mad enough to demand change. Whats the difference between someone who has to work 100hrs a week for a large heartless corporation just to live and a slave? + Show Spoiler + I don't know. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:18 KiaL.Kiwi wrote: But no healthy (physically as well as mentally) being will chose death over living. The threat of death is the biggest possible force an individual can face - calling that a choice isn't even cynical anymore, it's just inhuman. You can sugarcoat it all you want by calling it a choice and thereby implying that the individual is the one in control. If you're choice is death or working under inhumane conditions while being complelty exploited by your company to barely continue living, the choice will always be awful life instead of death, as history has proven millions of times, and still proves every day. What is so bad about an employer offering an "awful life" when the alternative is death? Shouldn't the workers be glad that their only option isn't death? There's nothing wrong with the fact that people will nearly always choose life over death. There's nothing sugarcoating about it. Giving people this choice is in no way using force against them and giving them this choice is in no way immoral. On October 24 2011 06:18 Talin wrote: So given you find yourself in the situation to choose between no job and starvation and a shit job which barely sustains you, you would be happy with the options offered to you? No but I'd be happier than only having the option of no job and starvation which is the option people against sweat shops seem to propose. Sweatshops will not continue to employ workers when they are forced to spend money making working conditions better or pay their workers more than market value. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:15 OsoVega wrote: No, it's the exact same. People can choose between life and death. They do it all the time. They generally choose life. It doesn't even sound all that different because everyone knows that starvation leads to death. The choice between an inferior choice (death) and a superior choice (life, working, etc.) is still a choice and there is nothing wrong with offering that superior choice to people. What you describe was how society worked once. It caused workers to flip out and form unions. Jobs that are both low paying and excessively harsh went out of style. Additionally, half the world got to try being governed by communist parties. Why would history not repeat itself, if we would go back to sweatshops? I think your idea to make sweatshops viable again (by removing all social welfare) is pointless. | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:22 OsoVega wrote: What is so bad about an employer offering an "awful life" when the alternative is death? That he'd usually be easily able to offer a decent, if not good life easily, but doesn't do so, because companies don't care for people, but for profit (which is a generalisation, yes, but a pretty good one at that). The whole jada jada about an unregulated market magically providing the best for people has disproven itself hundred years ago - capitalism treated people like cattle and environment like a waste dump before unions and governments began to regulate it. You're idea of fighting bad times by making them worse just seems kind of strange. Edit: I'll stop posting now, I'm not the only one making this argument and it's kind of derailing anyway. Have a good night everyone. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:28 KiaL.Kiwi wrote: That he'd usually be easily able to offer a decent, if not good life easily, but doesn't do so, because companies don't care for people, but for profit. The whole jada jada about an unregulated market magically providing the best for people has disproven itself hundred years ago - capitalism treated people like cattle and environment like a waste dump before unions and governments began to regulate it. So you're basically expecting altruism of the employer? Why should the employer offer the employee more than the market value of the employee's work? I've never in my life heard a legitimate reason to practice true altruism. Yes, the employer could offer higher wages but why should he? Why should an employer be forced to sacrifice himself until his workers live at a quality of life arbitrarily decided by the government? No, the employer does not necessarily care for his employees but in order to get them to work for him and earn him a profit he must give them a reason to. That reason is by making working for him a better choice than any other option they have. Giving people a better option in life benefits them. Capitalism has never existed but we've seen that as we came close to capitalism, the living standards, of even the poorest of the capitalist societies were raised to levels never before seen on Earth. It's not magic. When people are free they will be most productive and this benefits everyone. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:07 OsoVega wrote: Just because people will nearly always choose the better option does not mean it is not a choice. When an employer offers an unskilled worker a low paying, harsh job, he is only giving that person another option. The worker is free to refuse it but he often will not because that low paying, harsh job is the best option he has. By offering that job, that employer has not forced anything on anyone but has given the worker a chance to better his life in a mutually beneficial relationship. The fact is, the choice between starvation and a low paying job, is a choice, no matter how you put it. The fact that people will not choose the worse option does not make it not a choice, it's just that the latter is a better choice that people will take. I know I sound redundant but I'm trying to be as clear as possible. The choice between an inferior choice and a superior choice is still a choice and there is nothing wrong with offering someone a superior choice. Except factory owners are given an unfair advantage in the process. They get to choose where to put their factory to minimize costs (with 100s or 1000s of choices), while the workers only have 2 choices. The market price is unfairly determined by one side since the mobility of workers isn't as great as the mobility of factories. | ||
|
Ympulse
United States287 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:04 tskarzyn wrote: Seriously, when did America turn into a country full of undereducated and lazy whiners? Ever since the "Haves" started wanting to control the "Have nots" Do some research. Capital has always been opposed to Labor, in a sociological sense. For even more fun, draw yourself some parallels between Germany in the 30s and 40s and America since 2001. | ||
|
tskarzyn
United States516 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:22 jmack wrote: Sometimes I wonder if people who make posts like this ever take the time to think. Ofcourse people have to work, people want to work. meaningfull employment could be considered a human need with how boring life would be without it. Humans want a challenge and to overcome, but think about what you're saying. 80-90hrs a week? In case you didn't get the memo we're mortal; eventually our time will be up. We shouldn't need to spend the majority of our week working, whats the point? If you never enjoy any minute of the 90hr a week grind to "get somewhere" whats the point. A gigantic assumption in your statement is that all work is the same. Would I put in 90hrs a week developing software I love? I would, and I have. But I wonder if I am expected to spend 90hrs answering tech support phone calls so that an enormous corporation can make record profits while laying off my fellow employs, my friends,. To spend 90hrs in a factory, sweat-shop, working for just enough food to live is a standard in your country because of what OccupyWallStreet protesters are standing against, many of which are off from their jobs, it's the inequality produced by the corrupt capilist-mafia system currently in place. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph If that information doesn't help you realize how far in the favor of big business the system has swung then try Google. The facts are right in front of you. They want to work, they just don't want to do it for next to nothing or not have time to enjoy life. Now they're mad enough to demand change. Whats the difference between someone who has to work 100hrs a week for a large heartless corporation just to live and a slave? + Show Spoiler + I don't know. Again, it's a choice. No one is forcing people to work 90 hours a week, but if you want to make it at a top finance/legal firm and that's what it takes. The smartest and hardest working people I know are well-compensated, and the laziest and dumbest people I know are either living at home or working at a shit job. personal anecdote- My grandfather came here from Poland without a word of English nothing but his mind and determination, but he worked his way through law school so that he could give his family a better life. He passed his work ethic and passion for education onto his six children, and they grew up to be: a lawyer, two CEO's, a cardiologist, a marketing exec, and a high school principal. Five of them are millionaires today and the other loves what she does. How come "the system"/corrupt politicians/evil corporations didn't hold back my family? Because while other people were whining about slave wages or having fun, they were working or studying. I'm sorry, but if you can't afford anything but food and shelter there is only one person to blame. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:35 OsoVega wrote: So you're basically expecting altruism of the employer? Why should the employer offer the employee more than the market value of the employee's work? I've never in my life heard a legitimate reason to practice true altruism. Yes, the employer could offer higher wages but why should he? No, the employer does not necessarily care for his employees but in order to get them to work for him and earn him a profit he must give them a reason to. That reason is by making working for him a better choice than any other option they have. Capitalism has never existed but we've seen that as we came close to capitalism, the living standards, of even the poorest of the capitalist societies were raised to levels never before seen on Earth. It's not magic. When people are free they will be most productive and this benefits everyone. I am not sure you actually see it, but essentially you are saying slavery (jobs for only food and housing) is a good deal if the alternative is death. Slavery is however not generally seen as advantageous to a society economically since those people never interact with the economy of said society. Putting everything up against this kind of "market value" will essentially end up with a society based on: "If he ain't worth needing, he ain't worth feeding!" "libertarian" Government with military still? Guess they don´t need weapons or the true lobby of that kind of a "libertarian" government would be the weapon-producers fighting for spending money on weapons and maybe using them, just to keep a steady demand... It is not as easy as some people think to change society to something better. If it is done right it might work with a "free market" and minimal government, but if you need serious regulation to make it work, is it really what you are fighting for? Edit: Btw. I think some people from certain ideologies are holding an occupy the occupy wall street thread. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Also anyone else feel like it's 1890 and apparently morality is trumped by social darwinism which isn't darwin's idea at all infact it's closer to Lamarckism. | ||
|
HCastorp
United States388 Posts
On October 24 2011 06:04 tskarzyn wrote: I'm sorry if I don't want some lazy, "average" joe to get an MD and operate on me. Or that some people would rather sit around and complain than bust their ass in school to land a job at Goldman's and work 80-90 hours/week. Seriously, when did America turn into a country full of undereducated and lazy whiners? To paraphrase Jesus, "The lazy you will always have with you". However, to characterize the current rise in unemployment as a rise in laziness is absurd. It is obvious that the pool of unemployed is going to consist of, on average, people who are less able than those with employment. However, there are a finite and shrinking number of jobs. So, if those unemployed people all worked harder, they may solve their personal "unemployment problem", but, since they would simply be replacing someone else, there would be no effect on unemployment as a whole. BONUS: History according to tskarzyn: Beginning in October 1929, an epidemic of laziness broke out in the United States. People everywhere put down their tools and refused to work, many even preferred starvation to having to lift a finger. Many of the country's hardest working men were so distraught at what was happening to the values of the nation that they threw themselves from the windows of their workplaces in despair. The government tried many times to spur the masses to put their nose to the grindstone, but to no avail. In the end, only the outbreak of World War II proved sufficiently motivating for the nation to return to work. Those people who grew up in this time and rejected the lazy ways of their parents are often referred to today as the "Greatest Generation". | ||
| ||
