|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 10:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:32 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 10:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
90 hour work week why not? Americans already work longer hours for less pay anyway, why not make it 96 hours so we work 4 days non stop eh? Some workaholics do it. Hell I've done it at least a dozen times. As have I, do I want to make it a norm? Hell no, the first 32 hours are the hardest. I did it because I had to do my job and cover for somebody else, I worked at a Hospital which always has tons of coffee. My check was amazing, but I didn't get better Health Insurance etc.
People do it to get ahead or are really passionate. That is what we are talking about right? People who work excessively hard because they want to move up in life or make money, right?
|
On October 24 2011 10:41 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On October 24 2011 10:32 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 10:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
90 hour work week why not? Americans already work longer hours for less pay anyway, why not make it 96 hours so we work 4 days non stop eh? Some workaholics do it. Hell I've done it at least a dozen times. As have I, do I want to make it a norm? Hell no, the first 32 hours are the hardest. I did it because I had to do my job and cover for somebody else, I worked at a Hospital which always has tons of coffee. My check was amazing, but I didn't get better Health Insurance etc. People do it to get ahead or are really passionate. That is what we are talking about right? People who work excessively hard because they want to move up in life or make money, right?
Isn't this called "karoshi"?
|
On October 24 2011 10:41 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On October 24 2011 10:32 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 10:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
90 hour work week why not? Americans already work longer hours for less pay anyway, why not make it 96 hours so we work 4 days non stop eh? Some workaholics do it. Hell I've done it at least a dozen times. As have I, do I want to make it a norm? Hell no, the first 32 hours are the hardest. I did it because I had to do my job and cover for somebody else, I worked at a Hospital which always has tons of coffee. My check was amazing, but I didn't get better Health Insurance etc. People do it to get ahead or are really passionate. That is what we are talking about right? People who work excessively hard because they want to move up in life or make money, right?
But how many companies actually do that, I believe one poster said will a Factory hire somebody in the U.S. with minimum wage laws, and who expects Insurance etc? Or will they outsource to a country that has none or few laws that dictate a certain wage, insurance etc?
More companies in the U.S. are cutting costs while employers who are already working are working longer hours, seeing their benefits being cut and so forth, yet not being promoted or seeing their wages increased. But what does the public see, companies enjoying massive profits yet not hiring, that is why so many people are pissed off. They see jobs going overseas, those who have jobs getting nothing for their hard work except cutbacks, while CEO's get millions from bonuses alone, and a Government putting Corporations before it's own people.
|
|
|
On October 24 2011 10:41 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On October 24 2011 10:32 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 10:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
90 hour work week why not? Americans already work longer hours for less pay anyway, why not make it 96 hours so we work 4 days non stop eh? Some workaholics do it. Hell I've done it at least a dozen times. As have I, do I want to make it a norm? Hell no, the first 32 hours are the hardest. I did it because I had to do my job and cover for somebody else, I worked at a Hospital which always has tons of coffee. My check was amazing, but I didn't get better Health Insurance etc. People do it to get ahead or are really passionate. That is what we are talking about right? People who work excessively hard because they want to move up in life or make money, right?
And yet you are still a debt slave who will probably leave your children nothing. Movin right on up.
The thing I don't get is why all these hardworking conservatives think they are "moving up" and that everyone should join them working hellish hours for little pay and no security. Don't you get it? Don't you know who you are? The American Dream™ is a myth.
|
On October 24 2011 10:11 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 07:54 IgnE wrote:
If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness. Life is unfair. Suffering is real.
Therefore, we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.
It isn't immoral to deprive the winners in society of a portion of their winnings. They got those winnings through the birth lottery anyway. This includes inherited wealth as well as wealth they got by being smart/creative/hard working individuals in the right place at the right time. There are literally billions of smart/creative/hard working individuals who never got nearly as much as you have. Taking advantage of the society you were born into, the inherited wealth you received, and your other natural advantages doesn't make any of your winning less of a lottery. It isn't immoral to redistribute some of your wealth to the less fortunate.
It is immoral to exploit the poor through a capitalist system to enrich yourself at the expense of the workers simply because you were a winner in the birth lottery.
The confusion comes in when people think they "make choices" and "work hard" and therefore "deserve" everything they have. You don't. You are a product of your genes and environment. Free will doesn't exist. Stop being such immoral fuckheads. You don't even need a "strong government" to solve this injustice. You just need to prevent ownership of the means of production. Ownership of ideas, ownership of the means of production, these are both sociological fictions that perpetuate injustice.
Market fundamentalists live in a fantasy world. Crony capitalism is intrinsic to the capitalist system. Without regulation, the winners in the market will exploit the losers and accumulate more and more wealth for themselves. They will rewrite the rules of society to benefit themselves. You market fundamentalists who don't even believe in breaking up monopolies might not suffer from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a society completely without regulation while still preventing the formation of monopolies, but you clearly live in some fantasy world that chooses to forget how monopolies form and how they entrench themselves. Throw "fuckheads" around all you want, it's not going to be convincing. Since you have a vision of how society should work. Instead of simple platitudes, let's hear some details and specifics. Free will does exist even for people that are nominally slaves, and if you assert that again, your argument is DoA and will be squashed like a gnat. How is the size of winnings of a birth lottery determined? How does society take from these winnings? Who deserves help? How do you dispense said help? What is justice? How is justice achieved? Who owns means of production? If no one legally owns means of production, who decides how to deploy the means of production? Who takes risks with means of production? Who bears creative risks? What is your idea of regulation? What is its purpose? Who crafts the regulation? Who executes the regulation? How does regulation handle creativity? How do you manage 1 million people? How do you manage 10 million people? How do you manage 100 million people? How do you manage 1 billion people? Be sure to make the system robust such that the rich and powerful can't subvert it. One simple reminder, the rich and powerful will be ones making most of the decisions in your political system. BTW, it's hard. I don't expect an answer.
It's hard. We shouldn't even try to answer those questions. Let's just go back to working 80 hour work weeks for slave wages, mountains of debt, and shiny objects we bought on credit from our corporate overlords.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
|
This thread and entire discussion feels like it needs a bit of marx injected into it. The reason I say this is because people have been debating back and forth about exploitation of workers, free will, social responsibility, and the question of how profits are made and distributed. All of this has been thought through a thousand times over and I feel it would help to remember what has come before to give us a leg up. I would like to leave the moral posturing for the moment and stick with the way value is generated. The sentiments in this thread which echo marx in his book capital are that the worker is fundamentally underpaid for his contribution to the final value of the good being produced. The reasoning behind this thought is that wage does not represent time spent working. Instead it represents the amount paid to the worker in exchange for the right to use whatever labor can be performed by the worker. Since the working class individuals have less bargaining power they will be exploited through this process. In most cases they will not be terribly upset however because they will be paid enough to live.
The problem with this traditional capitalist system occurs when workers lose their jobs and suddenly have no ability to find another job. In tbhat situation workers notice that they have been exploited but are beyond any ability to fight it, living out the recession in suffering while extra income pads the pockets of the owners. Marx would say that this would be the precise situation which an uprising of the working class would be in order.
If it is not yet apparent why I feel that remembering marx is important then I have done an exceedingly poor job of conveying his thoughts to you. Now the problems with marxist theory are broad in that his system for the determination of value based on labor input is clearly wrong because he ommited the effects of supply and demand, and he did not have the math to understand inter-temporal economic models, but he had something of value in understanding the plight of the working class in crisis. This is the part where we have to think about the modern american economic system and mindset.
In the united states today we have an economic system which favors both those who are born well off and those who are both hardworking and lucky. We also have a social welfare system which does and incredibly poor job of giving everyone a fair shot at that second category of success as well as helping those who are trying but not succeeding. The attitude that americans tend to have is dependent on social position. The wealthy think that they are wealthy because they are hardworking and the poor are poor because they are lazy. The poor think that they are poor because they weren't lucky enough to be wealthy and that the wealthy are just lucky people who are too selfish. The problem with these two mindsets is that neither of them will actually create a good system. A completely socialist system that does not reward the lucky and hardworking will not keep the country on the leading edge of modern nations because developments and advancements will not be rewarded.
However neither will the purely capilast system because the unlucky will suffer and the population will have to deal with crime and unrest. the obvious solution would be a compromise, but that is hard to make work well because many people are either undereducated, selfish or unwilling to participate in the process. This leads to events like the occupy movement. I disagree with the method of action because I do not think results are generated through simple publicity because it is too easily ignored. Although I think that the best way to start would be a return to following the constitution and amending it if we believe it is lacking in some way I do not know how to make our nation return to what it says it believes in.
I hope people can take a look at my background info here and my opinion and tell me what they think. I am not a genius or a left winger or a right winger, but I pride myself on being an american who thinks with his brain.
Edit: added lines between paragraphs
|
On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. 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 obsolet?
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). Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor. Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government? No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part. It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
No you just need to have strict rules that politicians aren't allowed to break...
WOW... arguing with you is like arguing with a wall, because you don't use reading comprehension, and then you go ahead to suggest that it's the purpose of non-supported companies to fuck "the little guy"
It's already been established that governmetn support is the way corporations fuck the little guy... I guess the public education in europe is doing its job... indoctrination from a very young age, just back how it was when my parents were in school in Soviet Union.
|
On October 24 2011 12:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:11 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 07:54 IgnE wrote:
If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness. Life is unfair. Suffering is real.
Therefore, we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.
It isn't immoral to deprive the winners in society of a portion of their winnings. They got those winnings through the birth lottery anyway. This includes inherited wealth as well as wealth they got by being smart/creative/hard working individuals in the right place at the right time. There are literally billions of smart/creative/hard working individuals who never got nearly as much as you have. Taking advantage of the society you were born into, the inherited wealth you received, and your other natural advantages doesn't make any of your winning less of a lottery. It isn't immoral to redistribute some of your wealth to the less fortunate.
It is immoral to exploit the poor through a capitalist system to enrich yourself at the expense of the workers simply because you were a winner in the birth lottery.
The confusion comes in when people think they "make choices" and "work hard" and therefore "deserve" everything they have. You don't. You are a product of your genes and environment. Free will doesn't exist. Stop being such immoral fuckheads. You don't even need a "strong government" to solve this injustice. You just need to prevent ownership of the means of production. Ownership of ideas, ownership of the means of production, these are both sociological fictions that perpetuate injustice.
Market fundamentalists live in a fantasy world. Crony capitalism is intrinsic to the capitalist system. Without regulation, the winners in the market will exploit the losers and accumulate more and more wealth for themselves. They will rewrite the rules of society to benefit themselves. You market fundamentalists who don't even believe in breaking up monopolies might not suffer from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a society completely without regulation while still preventing the formation of monopolies, but you clearly live in some fantasy world that chooses to forget how monopolies form and how they entrench themselves. Throw "fuckheads" around all you want, it's not going to be convincing. Since you have a vision of how society should work. Instead of simple platitudes, let's hear some details and specifics. Free will does exist even for people that are nominally slaves, and if you assert that again, your argument is DoA and will be squashed like a gnat. How is the size of winnings of a birth lottery determined? How does society take from these winnings? Who deserves help? How do you dispense said help? What is justice? How is justice achieved? Who owns means of production? If no one legally owns means of production, who decides how to deploy the means of production? Who takes risks with means of production? Who bears creative risks? What is your idea of regulation? What is its purpose? Who crafts the regulation? Who executes the regulation? How does regulation handle creativity? How do you manage 1 million people? How do you manage 10 million people? How do you manage 100 million people? How do you manage 1 billion people? Be sure to make the system robust such that the rich and powerful can't subvert it. One simple reminder, the rich and powerful will be ones making most of the decisions in your political system. BTW, it's hard. I don't expect an answer. It's hard. We shouldn't even try to answer those questions. Let's just go back to working 80 hour work weeks for slave wages, mountains of debt, and shiny objects we bought on credit from our corporate overlords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
just wondering in your system, will I be able to do absolutely nothing all day and get a free ride? because if so sign me up, I wonna do taht.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 12:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:11 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 07:54 IgnE wrote:
If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness. Life is unfair. Suffering is real.
Therefore, we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.
It isn't immoral to deprive the winners in society of a portion of their winnings. They got those winnings through the birth lottery anyway. This includes inherited wealth as well as wealth they got by being smart/creative/hard working individuals in the right place at the right time. There are literally billions of smart/creative/hard working individuals who never got nearly as much as you have. Taking advantage of the society you were born into, the inherited wealth you received, and your other natural advantages doesn't make any of your winning less of a lottery. It isn't immoral to redistribute some of your wealth to the less fortunate.
It is immoral to exploit the poor through a capitalist system to enrich yourself at the expense of the workers simply because you were a winner in the birth lottery.
The confusion comes in when people think they "make choices" and "work hard" and therefore "deserve" everything they have. You don't. You are a product of your genes and environment. Free will doesn't exist. Stop being such immoral fuckheads. You don't even need a "strong government" to solve this injustice. You just need to prevent ownership of the means of production. Ownership of ideas, ownership of the means of production, these are both sociological fictions that perpetuate injustice.
Market fundamentalists live in a fantasy world. Crony capitalism is intrinsic to the capitalist system. Without regulation, the winners in the market will exploit the losers and accumulate more and more wealth for themselves. They will rewrite the rules of society to benefit themselves. You market fundamentalists who don't even believe in breaking up monopolies might not suffer from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a society completely without regulation while still preventing the formation of monopolies, but you clearly live in some fantasy world that chooses to forget how monopolies form and how they entrench themselves. Throw "fuckheads" around all you want, it's not going to be convincing. Since you have a vision of how society should work. Instead of simple platitudes, let's hear some details and specifics. Free will does exist even for people that are nominally slaves, and if you assert that again, your argument is DoA and will be squashed like a gnat. How is the size of winnings of a birth lottery determined? How does society take from these winnings? Who deserves help? How do you dispense said help? What is justice? How is justice achieved? Who owns means of production? If no one legally owns means of production, who decides how to deploy the means of production? Who takes risks with means of production? Who bears creative risks? What is your idea of regulation? What is its purpose? Who crafts the regulation? Who executes the regulation? How does regulation handle creativity? How do you manage 1 million people? How do you manage 10 million people? How do you manage 100 million people? How do you manage 1 billion people? Be sure to make the system robust such that the rich and powerful can't subvert it. One simple reminder, the rich and powerful will be ones making most of the decisions in your political system. BTW, it's hard. I don't expect an answer. It's hard. We shouldn't even try to answer those questions. Let's just go back to working 80 hour work weeks for slave wages, mountains of debt, and shiny objects we bought on credit from our corporate overlords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
I also know the basic idea of libertarian socialism. It's kind of funky strain of anarchism with radical decentralisation, abolishment of property, and no recognition of private property or corporate personhood.
It has answered some of the questions, namely government regulations (there won't be any), organising principles (workers/communities which will hold all political power), the organising scope (it'll be much much less than 1 million), justice (distributive justice),.
What I don't see is any answers concerning deployment of means of production or concerning new creativity. Overlooking that is acceptable if you want a stagnant society that'll be left behind by its peers in a generation.
|
On October 24 2011 13:28 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 12:10 IgnE wrote:On October 24 2011 10:11 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 07:54 IgnE wrote:
If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness. Life is unfair. Suffering is real.
Therefore, we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.
It isn't immoral to deprive the winners in society of a portion of their winnings. They got those winnings through the birth lottery anyway. This includes inherited wealth as well as wealth they got by being smart/creative/hard working individuals in the right place at the right time. There are literally billions of smart/creative/hard working individuals who never got nearly as much as you have. Taking advantage of the society you were born into, the inherited wealth you received, and your other natural advantages doesn't make any of your winning less of a lottery. It isn't immoral to redistribute some of your wealth to the less fortunate.
It is immoral to exploit the poor through a capitalist system to enrich yourself at the expense of the workers simply because you were a winner in the birth lottery.
The confusion comes in when people think they "make choices" and "work hard" and therefore "deserve" everything they have. You don't. You are a product of your genes and environment. Free will doesn't exist. Stop being such immoral fuckheads. You don't even need a "strong government" to solve this injustice. You just need to prevent ownership of the means of production. Ownership of ideas, ownership of the means of production, these are both sociological fictions that perpetuate injustice.
Market fundamentalists live in a fantasy world. Crony capitalism is intrinsic to the capitalist system. Without regulation, the winners in the market will exploit the losers and accumulate more and more wealth for themselves. They will rewrite the rules of society to benefit themselves. You market fundamentalists who don't even believe in breaking up monopolies might not suffer from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a society completely without regulation while still preventing the formation of monopolies, but you clearly live in some fantasy world that chooses to forget how monopolies form and how they entrench themselves. Throw "fuckheads" around all you want, it's not going to be convincing. Since you have a vision of how society should work. Instead of simple platitudes, let's hear some details and specifics. Free will does exist even for people that are nominally slaves, and if you assert that again, your argument is DoA and will be squashed like a gnat. How is the size of winnings of a birth lottery determined? How does society take from these winnings? Who deserves help? How do you dispense said help? What is justice? How is justice achieved? Who owns means of production? If no one legally owns means of production, who decides how to deploy the means of production? Who takes risks with means of production? Who bears creative risks? What is your idea of regulation? What is its purpose? Who crafts the regulation? Who executes the regulation? How does regulation handle creativity? How do you manage 1 million people? How do you manage 10 million people? How do you manage 100 million people? How do you manage 1 billion people? Be sure to make the system robust such that the rich and powerful can't subvert it. One simple reminder, the rich and powerful will be ones making most of the decisions in your political system. BTW, it's hard. I don't expect an answer. It's hard. We shouldn't even try to answer those questions. Let's just go back to working 80 hour work weeks for slave wages, mountains of debt, and shiny objects we bought on credit from our corporate overlords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
Out of curiosity, would you rather have slave wages to teach your children the value of hard work or fair wages to pay their college tuition? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I just don't really understand the opposition to it unless you either:
A) Are rich and therefore love the system
B) Are misguided to believe every occupier wants a handout
Are you defending it purely ideologically (you are a pure fiscal libertarian)? Do you believe that the system can't be improved (they're doing a lot better in Northern Europe and Canada from what I hear)?
Also, some of the people don't even have the opportunity to get one of these horrible jobs, and they want one because they need it. The country has a lot of money, the system could be better than that.
|
On October 24 2011 13:35 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:28 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 12:10 IgnE wrote:On October 24 2011 10:11 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 07:54 IgnE wrote:
If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness. Life is unfair. Suffering is real.
Therefore, we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.
It isn't immoral to deprive the winners in society of a portion of their winnings. They got those winnings through the birth lottery anyway. This includes inherited wealth as well as wealth they got by being smart/creative/hard working individuals in the right place at the right time. There are literally billions of smart/creative/hard working individuals who never got nearly as much as you have. Taking advantage of the society you were born into, the inherited wealth you received, and your other natural advantages doesn't make any of your winning less of a lottery. It isn't immoral to redistribute some of your wealth to the less fortunate.
It is immoral to exploit the poor through a capitalist system to enrich yourself at the expense of the workers simply because you were a winner in the birth lottery.
The confusion comes in when people think they "make choices" and "work hard" and therefore "deserve" everything they have. You don't. You are a product of your genes and environment. Free will doesn't exist. Stop being such immoral fuckheads. You don't even need a "strong government" to solve this injustice. You just need to prevent ownership of the means of production. Ownership of ideas, ownership of the means of production, these are both sociological fictions that perpetuate injustice.
Market fundamentalists live in a fantasy world. Crony capitalism is intrinsic to the capitalist system. Without regulation, the winners in the market will exploit the losers and accumulate more and more wealth for themselves. They will rewrite the rules of society to benefit themselves. You market fundamentalists who don't even believe in breaking up monopolies might not suffer from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a society completely without regulation while still preventing the formation of monopolies, but you clearly live in some fantasy world that chooses to forget how monopolies form and how they entrench themselves. Throw "fuckheads" around all you want, it's not going to be convincing. Since you have a vision of how society should work. Instead of simple platitudes, let's hear some details and specifics. Free will does exist even for people that are nominally slaves, and if you assert that again, your argument is DoA and will be squashed like a gnat. How is the size of winnings of a birth lottery determined? How does society take from these winnings? Who deserves help? How do you dispense said help? What is justice? How is justice achieved? Who owns means of production? If no one legally owns means of production, who decides how to deploy the means of production? Who takes risks with means of production? Who bears creative risks? What is your idea of regulation? What is its purpose? Who crafts the regulation? Who executes the regulation? How does regulation handle creativity? How do you manage 1 million people? How do you manage 10 million people? How do you manage 100 million people? How do you manage 1 billion people? Be sure to make the system robust such that the rich and powerful can't subvert it. One simple reminder, the rich and powerful will be ones making most of the decisions in your political system. BTW, it's hard. I don't expect an answer. It's hard. We shouldn't even try to answer those questions. Let's just go back to working 80 hour work weeks for slave wages, mountains of debt, and shiny objects we bought on credit from our corporate overlords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work? Out of curiosity, would you rather have slave wages to teach your children the value of hard work or fair wages to pay their college tuition? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I just don't really understand the opposition to it unless you either: A) Are rich and therefore love the system B) Are misguided to believe every occupier wants a handout Are you defending it purely ideologically (you are a pure fiscal libertarian)? Do you believe that the system can't be improved (they're doing a lot better in Northern Europe and Canada from what I hear)? Also, some of the people don't even have the opportunity to get one of these horrible jobs, and they want one because they need it. The country has a lot of money, the system could be better than that.
Children almost automatically prevent you from ever reaching a position of wealth. Why do you think women stay away from babies untill they are well over thirty?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 13:35 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:28 TanGeng wrote:
Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
Out of curiosity, would you rather have slave wages to teach your children the value of hard work or fair wages to pay their college tuition? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I just don't really understand the opposition to it unless you either: A) Are rich and therefore love the system B) Are misguided to believe every occupier wants a handout Are you defending it purely ideologically (you are a pure fiscal libertarian)? Do you believe that the system can't be improved (they're doing a lot better in Northern Europe and Canada from what I hear)? Also, some of the people don't even have the opportunity to get one of these horrible jobs, and they want one because they need it. The country has a lot of money, the system could be better than that.
It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave.
It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money.
|
On October 24 2011 13:56 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:35 Darclite wrote:On October 24 2011 13:28 TanGeng wrote:
Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
Out of curiosity, would you rather have slave wages to teach your children the value of hard work or fair wages to pay their college tuition? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I just don't really understand the opposition to it unless you either: A) Are rich and therefore love the system B) Are misguided to believe every occupier wants a handout Are you defending it purely ideologically (you are a pure fiscal libertarian)? Do you believe that the system can't be improved (they're doing a lot better in Northern Europe and Canada from what I hear)? Also, some of the people don't even have the opportunity to get one of these horrible jobs, and they want one because they need it. The country has a lot of money, the system could be better than that. It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave. It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money.
Are you religious? You know there is no afterlife right? You don't get to go to heaven by working your ass off for slave wages here on earth.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 14:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:56 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 13:35 Darclite wrote:On October 24 2011 13:28 TanGeng wrote:
Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
Out of curiosity, would you rather have slave wages to teach your children the value of hard work or fair wages to pay their college tuition? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I just don't really understand the opposition to it unless you either: A) Are rich and therefore love the system B) Are misguided to believe every occupier wants a handout Are you defending it purely ideologically (you are a pure fiscal libertarian)? Do you believe that the system can't be improved (they're doing a lot better in Northern Europe and Canada from what I hear)? Also, some of the people don't even have the opportunity to get one of these horrible jobs, and they want one because they need it. The country has a lot of money, the system could be better than that. It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave. It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money. Are you religious? You know there is no afterlife right? You don't get to go to heaven by working your ass off for slave wages here on earth.
You know the part where I talk about their children's future...
Yeah. read that again.
|
On October 24 2011 13:56 TanGeng wrote:
It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave.
It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money.
Translation: Poor people should learn to be happy to be poor. I'd suggest that when countries get down in the dumps, the entire citizenry should learn how to make sacrifices and display moral character, not just those who were already disadvantaged. But what do I know?
I find it very amusing that you imply progressive measures artificially raise the productivity of the poor and needy. From your previous posting history, it seems fair to say that you think collective bargaining laws and social welfare to be among these measures. Yet you have nothing to say about the artificial improvements to productivity that favor the rich.
Incidentally, the immigrant workers you extoll overwhelmingly vote more liberal than the median voter. Just saying.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 10:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 10:41 TanGeng wrote:
People do it to get ahead or are really passionate. That is what we are talking about right? People who work excessively hard because they want to move up in life or make money, right? But how many companies actually do that, I believe one poster said will a Factory hire somebody in the U.S. with minimum wage laws, and who expects Insurance etc? Or will they outsource to a country that has none or few laws that dictate a certain wage, insurance etc? More companies in the U.S. are cutting costs while employers who are already working are working longer hours, seeing their benefits being cut and so forth, yet not being promoted or seeing their wages increased. But what does the public see, companies enjoying massive profits yet not hiring, that is why so many people are pissed off. They see jobs going overseas, those who have jobs getting nothing for their hard work except cutbacks, while CEO's get millions from bonuses alone, and a Government putting Corporations before it's own people.
In jobs of manual labor, US workers are hopelessly uncompetitive. In general, they expect to get paid a lot, won't work long hours, and don't appreciate such jobs as opportunities. If the American people believe themselves above such kinds of work, those jobs should be outsourced. They would have to be if Americans would be insulted if offered such work.
In the western economies, simple physical labor and paper pushing aren't valuable anymore. Success requires creativity, entrepreneurship, and a bit of luck. In case of entrepreneurship, people have to hope that the government doesn't meddle and derail the vision.
|
On October 24 2011 14:13 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:56 TanGeng wrote:
It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave.
It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money. Translation: Poor people should learn to be happy to be poor. I'd suggest that when countries get down in the dumps, the entire citizenry should learn how to make sacrifices and display moral character, not just those who were already disadvantaged.But what do I know? I find it very amusing that you imply progressive measures artificially raise the productivity of the poor and needy. From your previous posting history, it seems fair to say that you think collective bargaining laws and social welfare to be among these measures. Yet you have nothing to say about the artificial improvements to productivity that favor the rich. Incidentally, the immigrant workers you extoll overwhelmingly vote more liberal than the median voter. Just saying.
Of course... TanGeng is also for ending corporatism, and removing the government created "improvements to productivity that favor the rich."
In fact there are more of those right now that favor the rich than those that favor the poor, that's why if we abolish all of them the poor will actually be in better shape.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 14:13 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:56 TanGeng wrote:
It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave.
It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money. Translation: Poor people should learn to be happy to be poor. I'd suggest that when countries get down in the dumps, the entire citizenry should learn how to make sacrifices and display moral character, not just those who were already disadvantaged. But what do I know? I find it very amusing that you imply progressive measures artificially raise the productivity of the poor and needy. From your previous posting history, it seems fair to say that you think collective bargaining laws and social welfare to be among these measures. Yet you have nothing to say about the artificial improvements to productivity that favor the rich. Incidentally, the immigrant workers you extoll overwhelmingly vote more liberal than the median voter. Just saying.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth... I suppose you'd prioritize aiding the deadbeats while letting the hardworkers languish. After all the deadbeats earn less than these hard working folks.
Did you enjoy that?
|
Funny how when it's labor it's the workers problems demanding too much and being too lazy, not he fact that the US population is quite heavy in educated/skilled labor. Believing in the free market cuts both ways you can't blame the american worker, when you can simply point out it being impossible to compete with a dense mostly unskilled labor from india/china. After all an American can't live on 30 dollars a day or how ever little their pay is. Calling them lazy is only an insult and ignorance as if they cannot live on the pay of the job in america then the job shouldn't exist, yet there is a demand for the job? So why the pay gap? If the company can still make major profits then pay isn't being scaled to the country properly and thus the a way to protest this disparity is to not do the job, that or actively shun them for that job.
Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
So wait people should suffer for their children? their happiness is already forfeited? How is that a society a person would want to be a part of. That is pretty much the shittiet thing i've ever heard putting down others to prop up another all so some can live in extreme excess? A society should be there to help people to better each other not to just be another jungle were we fight to the death and play king of the hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
