NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp

This article is way too long to copy and paste, so I'll just provide the link. For those who haven't heard from him, Frank Chodorov was a libertarian greatly influenced by anarcho-capitalist Albert Jay Nock. Anyway, this article is good stuff. Post your thoughts.

much much too long and boring to read. couldnt you at least pull out something worth reading from it??

my thoughts are still "all the top libertarians are nutz"

much much too long and boring to read. couldnt you at least pull out something worth reading from it??

my thoughts are still "all the top libertarians are nutz"

It is kind of slow, I'll agree. I couldn't read it all in one sitting. I read a few paragraphs, took a break, read a few more, etc., until I was finished.

I got as far as the title, and then gave up. I expect hyperbole in titles, but not something as sick as that.

What you call evil existed long before the income tax existed. That doesn't make it a good thing, but this kind of oversimplification seems to be a common element of "libertarianism". To claim that unregulated capitalism will solve our problems is simply naïve (just look at history for some probable counterexamples).

What you call evil existed long before the income tax existed. That doesn't make it a good thing, but this kind of oversimplification seems to be a common element of "libertarianism". To claim that unregulated capitalism will solve our problems is simply naïve (just look at history for some probable counterexamples).
I've looked at history, and there are no counterexamples. Perhaps you'd be so good as to provide the board with some? Oh, and you'd better be able to demonstrate that they are counterexamples, rather than just claiming they are and being done with it.

If people say that this thing is too long to read then I'll have to take their word for it. I've read too many of these sort of articles to read another-my mind is made up already.

Having not read the article I'll hold forth anyway.

The problem with the US income tax system is that, in a fit of populism, the people decided to punish the wealthy and voted in a small income tax on the wealthiest few. Not to be outdone, the wealthiest few simply bought off pols to change the code to favor them more and spreading the tax out to include the middle class.
80 years later, we have a contradictory code of law that requires an independent judiciary, massive bureacracy, accountants, tax lawyers who are preying upon decent, working people who couldn't figure out a tax code that would fill a 20x20x10 room from ceiling to floor.
Once you get caught up in the Tax Industry in this country the only thing that can be counted upon is that you are going to wind up owing somebody money, right or wrong, win or lose.
It is for these reasons that it will never be done away with. IF it was, there would be massive unemployment and a small recession while the lawyers and accountants found work not to mention how much it would cost to pay these people while they found work. The other aspect that is often forgotten is that the pols get campaign funds by promising to slip special provisions into the tax code for donors. What pols mean when they say,"targeted tax cuts" is, in other words, "people we want to buy off so they'll vote for me". It's a quite handy tool to have when you need campaign cash quick.

What you call evil existed long before the income tax existed. That doesn't make it a good thing, but this kind of oversimplification seems to be a common element of "libertarianism". To claim that unregulated capitalism will solve our problems is simply naïve (just look at history for some probable counterexamples).
Why the ""s around libertarianism? I could say many of the same things about communism.

Does anyone know who Paul Birch is?

He's written all these essays about Anarcho-Capitalism which make some (although not complete :p ) sense.

http://www.paulbirch.net/

http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp

This article is way too long to copy and paste, so I'll just provide the link. For those who haven't heard from him, Frank Chodorov was a libertarian greatly influenced by anarcho-capitalist Albert Jay Nock. Anyway, this article is good stuff. Post your thoughts.
You know Lew, posting stuff on income and taxes is fun, but there just isn't much future in it. There's the effort vs gain curve to think of. Most of the effort goes into convincing folks that don't work and don't pay taxes that taxes are bad. Pretty damned hard to do. Then add on the handicap of convincing communists and socialists that redistributing income is wrong and you've set some pretty high goals for yourself. You'd be better off writing letters to the editor of the local paper.

But it is fun.

I've looked at history, and there are no counterexamples. Perhaps you'd be so good as to provide the board with some? Oh, and you'd better be able to demonstrate that they are counterexamples, rather than just claiming they are and being done with it.

What, counterexamples saying that unlimited capitalism won't solve all (or any) of our problems? Well, that's bloody simple- you need but look at the conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_problems). Entire families- including children- working from before dawn till after dusk. No education for children whose parents couldn't afford it. Horribly unpleasant and dangerous working conditions. The absolute inability to do anything about it, because unions were illegal and if you tried to strike, you were fired and the company just grabbed another poor sap to fill your spot. Take away regulations on businesses, and this will only happen again.

For some reason, Americans resist taxes more than anyone else. We see it as the government stealing our money. Americans, more than anyone else, simply don't grasp that tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame. Tax money goes to police forces, road construction, social welfare, military forces (although I would have less go there than to social welfare), schools, and so on.

I support the income tax, and favor an 'inverted triangle' policy- those at the bottom who can't afford taxes don't get taxed, while those at the top who can afford to have the vast majority of their yearly income removed and still make more than a dozen wage-workers should be taxed heavily. The money should go to make sure that everyone in the United States has food, health care, and shelter. It is absolutely unforgivable to do otherwise.

I am liberal, hear me roar!

Why the ""s around libertarianism? I could say many of the same things about communism.
Because the word libertarianism is misused in the U.S.?

What, counterexamples saying that unlimited capitalism won't solve all (or any) of our problems? Well, that's bloody simple- you need but look at the conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_problems).
That's nice, but doesn't say anything about "unlimited capitalism", because it wasn't.

So--got any counterexamples?


Entire families- including children- working from before dawn till after dusk.
As opposed to when there were entire families--including children--working from before dawn till after dusk on a farm, or children starving because they had no food?

You might want to think about conditions before the Industrial Revolution and see if your "complaints" make one whit of sense.


No education for children whose parents couldn't afford it. Horribly unpleasant and dangerous working conditions. The absolute inability to do anything about it, because unions were illegal and if you tried to strike, you were fired and the company just grabbed another poor sap to fill your spot. Take away regulations on businesses, and this will only happen again.
Evidence?


For some reason, Americans resist taxes more than anyone else. We see it as the government stealing our money.
It is.


Americans, more than anyone else, simply don't grasp that tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame. Tax money goes to police forces, road construction, social welfare, military forces (although I would have less go there than to social welfare), schools, and so on.
The ends do not ever justify the means.


I support the income tax, and favor an 'inverted triangle' policy- those at the bottom who can't afford taxes don't get taxed, while those at the top who can afford to have the vast majority of their yearly income removed and still make more than a dozen wage-workers should be taxed heavily.
So you're jealous. Gotcha.

I support the income tax, and favor an 'inverted triangle' policy- those at the bottom who can't afford taxes don't get taxed, while those at the top who can afford to have the vast majority of their yearly income removed and still make more than a dozen wage-workers should be taxed heavily.

You know instead of working harder to make more money, I'm just going to laze about, do the minimum I need to keep a minimum wage job and then sponge off the those who do work hard to earn more money.

The money should go to make sure that everyone in the United States has food, health care, and shelter. It is absolutely unforgivable to do otherwise.

I am liberal, hear me roar!

You know if they were doing at least SOME job I might be willing to allot them this. But when I look at all the jobs that go unfullfilled then I say screw them. If you aren't working you deserve no help. If no one will hire you because you dropped out of school, you have only yourself to blame.

What, counterexamples saying that unlimited capitalism won't solve all (or any) of our problems? Well, that's bloody simple- you need but look at the conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_problems). Entire families- including children- working from before dawn till after dusk. No education for children whose parents couldn't afford it. Horribly unpleasant and dangerous working conditions. The absolute inability to do anything about it, because unions were illegal and if you tried to strike, you were fired and the company just grabbed another poor sap to fill your spot. Take away regulations on businesses, and this will only happen again.
Funny, because last time I checked the Industrial Revolution ushered in more technological progress and innovation in a 50 year period than the human race had enjoyed for the previous ten thousand years. The advances brought to us by the Industrial Revolution far outweigh the problems they caused for a minority of people a hundred years ago.

Also, while the policies in this country were structured close to pure capitalism, they didn't make it quite all the way. The US during the Industrial Revolution was about as close to Capitalism as the Soviet Union was close to to-the-letter Communism.

For some reason, Americans resist taxes more than anyone else. We see it as the government stealing our money. Americans, more than anyone else, simply don't grasp that tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame. Tax money goes to police forces, road construction, social welfare, military forces (although I would have less go there than to social welfare), schools, and so on.
Of course, because... well, you know, no political policy contrary to yours can possibly have any basis in reality. Yes, we're all just a bunch of idiots who think the government uses our money for paper mache rockets or bonfires. If this is honestly your opinion, you're wasting both our time and your own by countenancing this thread with your proverbial two cents.

It's not that we think the "tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame," we know what's being done with it but cant help but notice the private sector handles many of these issues cheaper and more efficiently than the government does.

Also, the principle of taxation is flawed on a fundamental moral level. I wouldn't expect a pickpocket to evade charges just because he used the money in my wallet to buy food for himself or some kid. I wouldn't seek a lower penalty if he put up a streetlight and gave me the change: these are not behaviors I tolerate among individuals, and I see no reason why a mob should gain these rights simply by being a mob. Tax hinges around the application of force--force against what I spend 40 hours a week working for. If taking my money without asking me and spending it on things that I dont even get to know about isn't theft, I don't know what is. If groups gain the 'right' to impose their will on other people's paychecks, then I might as well grab a pitchfork like all the other looters and mosey on over to my neighbor's house to wet my beak.

The Government also has something of a budget crisis at the moment and it is still continuing to lend out money that it most certainly does not have. I do not think continuing these programs is particularly advisable, especially considering that we've suffered the worst natural disaster in our nation's history and the worst man-made disaster in our nation's history within the last 5 years. Bad things are happening to us and we need to be responsible with what little money we can afford to spend. With Asian markets closing in on us with alarming speed, we need to give our consumers more confidence and more spending power to compete--which means less taxes.

I support the income tax, and favor an 'inverted triangle' policy- those at the bottom who can't afford taxes don't get taxed, while those at the top who can afford to have the vast majority of their yearly income removed and still make more than a dozen wage-workers should be taxed heavily. The money should go to make sure that everyone in the United States has food, health care, and shelter. It is absolutely unforgivable to do otherwise.

I am liberal, hear me roar!
So basically you're saying morality is dependent on number or amount--on every level conceivable. The public [i.e. the Government] not only has the right to dispense with its citizens earnings as it pleases, but those citizens that should happen to succeed nonetheless get punished by losing a higher percentage of their work. It's trendy to assume that when someone earns a lot of money, he doesn't deserve it/need it, and this means it should be taken away and given to someone else. Folks, this is tantamount to spending your money twice: If you want to go feed a starving child, put your money where your mouth is, goddamn it. Don't buy a computer and then tell Bill Gates to feed starving children.

Also, in response to this:

No education for children whose parents couldn't afford it. Horribly unpleasant and dangerous working conditions. The absolute inability to do anything about it, because unions were illegal and if you tried to strike, you were fired and the company just grabbed another poor sap to fill your spot. Take away regulations on businesses, and this will only happen again.
Yeah, and when you put your precious regulations on these businesses they cut and/or outsource jobs. Job outsourcing has traditionally been one of the more ambiguous issues I've ever seen when dealing with the left; they protest it whenever it happens, but whenever I ask why they support the legislative framework that made said outsourcing a necessity, they shrug it off, saying outsourcing is 'largely a myth' and that it's not a major problem affecting our workforce.

I'm not kidding, I've seen both arguments from the same side. Complain about it when it happens, and then pretend it's not a big deal once someone points out that it was your fault to begin with. Companies will always have cheap labor somewhere whether you regulate them or not.

I agree with Pennterra even though I am a libertarian. The way to go about making sure that no one is left behind is through non profit orgs.
The best npo that I know of that addresses more than just food, clothes, and shelter (Salvation Army is unbeatable at that) is CARITAS.
CARITAS also provides, pro bono legal representation. A lot of the poor can't get out of the ditch they find themselves in because of bad financial decisions and finance companies that exist only because they exploit the financially illiterate.
Hope is a thin reed to hang your hat on but it has done more to lift many spirits in the darkest of times than any bureaucrat cares about.

Yeah, and when you put your precious regulations on these businesses they cut and/or outsource jobs....
Did you know that apparently China cut 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs too in the last seven years?

It seems like ultimately they've been replaced by robots. There are some that reckon mass labour has reached the end of its history, and that there'll be much less jobs around in a few years, with still the same or more output being produced.

So either we'll have a very small working class, and many people who live it up, or we'll all work only a few hours a week in the future.
Then we'll kinda have to rethink our entire system anyways.

That's nice, but doesn't say anything about "unlimited capitalism", because it wasn't.

So--got any counterexamples?

Meh? By 'unlimited capitalism,' you mean capitalism in which no regulations are placed on businesses, correct? That's laissez-faire (French for 'hands off', the system in which these abuses took place. Some better resources: The British Textile Industry, 19th century (The http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Textiles.htm). Scroll down to "Life in a Textile Factory." Notable links: Accidents (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRaccidents.htm), Factory Food (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRfood.factory.htm), Deformities (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRdeformities.htm), Working Hours (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRtime.htm). Those all came about under laissez-faire, which you- unknowingly or otherwise- are advocating.

As opposed to when there were entire families--including children--working from before dawn till after dusk on a farm, or children starving because they had no food?

Farm life, while unpleasant (in my opinion), is still far more pleasant and healthier than working from dawn till dusk in a hot, windowless, dust-filled factory all day, every day, for a few pence per hour. And the whole 'starving' thing is what I'm trying to prevent.

Evidence? [that early IR conditions would reoccur]

Because it happened then, and is happening now in several poor countries, where workers are paid pennies to produce a $120 pair of shoes. That's another problem with unrestrained capitalism: It doesn't help the consumers in the least. I would be amazed if the aforementioned shoes cost $20 per pair to produce, market, and ship. Regulation is necessary to prevent companies from unanimously jacking up their prices, such as the recent skyrocketing of gas prices combined with tax breaks for major gas companies that have given said gas companies record profits.

It [governements taking money in the form of taxes] is [stealing].

No, it isn't; it's payment for services. Police officers need to be paid, their equipment has to be bought, construction workers have to be paid to make roads, those roads have to be maintained, the legislators that you vote for have to be paid, judges and othe court officials have to be paid, the equipment in criminal labs has to be bought, the people who work at the DMV and the post office have to be paid, and on and on and on. The choice is pay your taxes, or never drive on a road again, never send a letter again, and go completely without any police presence. I know which one I choose.

The ends do not ever justify the means.

Debatable, and inapplicable in this discussion.

So you're jealous. Gotcha.

Of the ridiculously wealthy? No, I'm not, and snarky little comments like this serve no purpose other than to be insulting. I will probably be able to afford my own health care, my own food, and my own shelter when my trust fund runs out. Unlike most Americans, I'm not so blind as to assume that all other people can, nor am I so apathetic as to think that they don't deserve the most basic elements of life. Since when do laziness, bad luck, or bad decisions merit the death penalty by starvation or nasty diseases?

"When I feed the poor, I am called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I am called a communist." -Dom Helder Pessoa Camara

Meh? By 'unlimited capitalism,' you mean capitalism in which no regulations are placed on businesses, correct?
Oh, now you've done it :D

BAAWA is what they call an "Anarcho-Capitalist" - which pretty much means that there is no government whatsoever, and private enterprise takes care of everything and everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Oh, now you've done it :D

BAAWA is what they call an "Anarcho-Capitalist" - which pretty much means that there is no government whatsoever, and private enterprise takes care of everything and everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Oh, bloody hell. So not only am I trying to argue that taxes aren't evil, but I'm trying to convince a fanatic that governments are necessary? I may have bit off more than I can chew; it kind of reminds me of a revolutionary Marxist I know on another forum.

I've looked at history, and there are no counterexamples. Perhaps you'd be so good as to provide the board with some? Oh, and you'd better be able to demonstrate that they are counterexamples, rather than just claiming they are and being done with it.

I mean, do you really think everything was perfect before income tax?

Meh? By 'unlimited capitalism,' you mean capitalism in which no regulations are placed on businesses, correct? That's laissez-faire (French for 'hands off', the system in which these abuses took place.
There were regulations. Sorry.

[snip things that happened while regulated]


Farm life, while unpleasant (in my opinion), is still far more pleasant and healthier than working from dawn till dusk in a hot, windowless, dust-filled factory all day, every day, for a few pence per hour. And the whole 'starving' thing is what I'm trying to prevent.
1. What you prefer is your preference. Don't force it on others.
2. The starvation was happening BEFORE the industrial revolution. The IR *saved* a lot of people from that horrible fate.


Because it happened then,
That means nothing.


and is happening now in several poor countries, where workers are paid pennies to produce a $120 pair of shoes.
Amazingly enough, what they are paid allows them to live. Fancy that!


That's another problem with unrestrained capitalism: It doesn't help the consumers in the least.
Sure it does.


I would be amazed if the aforementioned shoes cost $20 per pair to produce, market, and ship.
So what? Do you have any idea of subjective value preference, supply/demand, and marginal utility?


Regulation is necessary to prevent companies from unanimously jacking up their prices,
Regulation is the CAUSE of the raising of prices.



No, it isn't; it's payment for services.
Then there's no such thing as "extortion" by the mafia. You are paying them to protect you from them.

Don't like it? Tough. That's the logical extension of your belief.


The choice is pay your taxes, or never drive on a road again, never send a letter again, and go completely without any police presence.
False dichotomy. Try again.


Debatable,[ends/means]
No, it is not.


and inapplicable in this discussion.
Damned well is! If you want to base your system on theft, then you'd damned well better back up why you want to do that.


Of the ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Or else you wouldn't be calling for them to be brought down by heavy taxation.

Since when does having a lot of money merit having much of that stolen by the government?

I mean, do you really think everything was perfect before income tax?
Could you create a larger strawman?

Dammit BAAWA you scared him off. Next time just let me do the talking :p

Because the word libertarianism is misused in the U.S.?
Damn it, I forgot. I want Liberal back. It's damn confusing talking about politics when one nation misues words.

Could you create a larger strawman?

What? I'm just saying, income tax is hardly the root of all evil.

What? I'm just saying, income tax is hardly the root of all evil.
I thought money was the root of all evil or Jesus or something?

What? I'm just saying, income tax is hardly the root of all evil.
I wasn't the one saying it is, dearie.

I thought money was the root of all evil or Jesus or something?
Hmmm....

"Money is the root of all Jesus"

That's got some potential.

Hmmm....

"Money is the root of all Jesus"

That's got some potential.
True to.
Money is our evil, so we should give it to Jesus so that he may bare the evil of all mankind.

Melkor: I was eating, so nyeh. :p

There were regulations. Sorry.

[snip things that happened while regulated]

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you were trying to say.

1. What you prefer is your preference. Don't force it on others.

It's a fact that working on the farm was healthier than working in the factories; check that page I gave you on factory-caused deformities if you don't believe me.

You claimed that working 12+ hour days on a farm is exactly like working 12+ hours in a factory. It isn't; the conditions are far more unpleasant (by almost unanimous agreement), and the health effects are far worse.

2. The starvation was happening BEFORE the industrial revolution. The IR *saved* a lot of people from that horrible fate.

Speaking of strawmen...

I don't deny that. I don't want to move backward; I want to move forward. We have industry that allows each person to produce many times more than one person could before industry. We have the capacity to feed, clothe, shelter, and care for everyone, if food wasn't subject to the demands of capitalism. Harvests are destroyed because prices aren't high enough to make it worth selling; luxury crops like sugar are planted more heavily than staple crops like wheat and rice; food is sold in overwhelming amounts to the middle and upper classes, who throw much of it away ("Urp, I'm full." *scoops food into trash can*). I advocate policies that will get the food to them, not policies that will futily attempt to turn back the clock of technological progress.

That [that horrible conditions occured in the early 19th century] means nothing.

Wrong. Human nature doesn't change much. Business owners then didn't care what happened to their workers, so long as it didn't hurt their profit margins too much; why should they now?

Amazingly enough, what they [3rd-world factory workers paid pennies] are paid allows them to live. Fancy that!

Barely, and only with the help of multiple jobs for many of them. "You're alive- skin and bones, yes, but alive. What're you complaining about?" Wonderful.

Sure it [laissez-faire] does [help consumers].

Looking around at the current economic BS, I'd say not.

So what? Do you have any idea of subjective value preference, supply/demand, and marginal utility?

Alright, so the shoes are a bad example. Going back to gas- major gas companies were given a major tax cut recently, and the sources are recovering- no problem with supply. By your logic, this means that the prices should fall. They're not; in fact, they're rising- and the extra money is going directly into the owners' pockets. These companies have been reporting record profits; the consumers, meanwhile, are SOL.

Regulation is the CAUSE of the raising of prices.

Not if there are regulations specifically barring companies from charging too much more than what their product is worth.

Then there's no such thing as "extortion" by the mafia. You are paying them to protect you from them.

Don't like it? Tough. That's the logical extension of your belief.

No, it isn't. Protection rackets aren't services. Police, roads, mail, social services, etc. are services. There's a difference.

False dichotomy. Try again.

How so? If there are no taxes paid, then the government can't afford to pay for roads, police, and mail services. Without public finance, road coverage will be sketchy at best (what company will pay for the type of road system modern society requires?), mail services will be decidedly more expensive (UPS's rates are a lot higher than those of the USPS), and a police force would be pretty much nonexistent (who would pay for it?). There would also be nothing resembling the DMV and similar government programs- and if you don't like the idea of the DMV, think of how much you'd like untrained children at the wheel of the multi-ton boxes of self-propelled metal we call automobiles. My statement stands: Without taxation, these vital services would not be provided.

Damned well is! If you want to base your system on theft, then you'd damned well better back up why you want to do that.

Again, it's not theft- it's payment of services for all of society. By paying taxes, you're pitching in for the vital services mentioned above, as well as several others; you're pitching in for the defense of the country, in the form of the military (although, again, I think that far too much money is going here); and you're making sure that a kid whose mother is dead and whose father has come down with an illness that prevents him from working doesn't starve.

Yes [Penterra is jealous of the rich]. Or else you wouldn't be calling for them to be brought down by heavy taxation.

Since when does having a lot of money merit having much of that stolen by the government?

Let's take the example of a star athlete who earns $40 million per year. If the government taxes them at a rate of 90% (much higher than current tax rates, especially after Bush came into office), they still earn $4 million a year for themselves- many times more than the vast majority of Americans. Meanwhile, someone who earns $16,000 a year and isn't taxes earns $16,000 a year- barely enough for one person to live, let alone a family. Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic if the athlete whines about so much of their money being taken away.

Again, the government isn't stealing it. All of that money goes back into the economy, as the US government is one of the biggest consumers in the world. I think the money that that athlete is earning is far better spent paying for food for the hungry, shelter for the cold, and medical care for the sick, rather than going toward a huge, luxurious mansion. If that's jealousy, then so be it- it's socially responsible jealousy.

It seems like ultimately they've been replaced by robots. There are some that reckon mass labour has reached the end of its history, and that there'll be much less jobs around in a few years, with still the same or more output being produced.

Wrong! It only means that there will be less MANUFACTURING jobs. Those aren't the only jobs out there. Service and Information jobs are rising rapidly. Plus there are always those willing to shell out the bucks for custom made items. One needs only to go learn the skills necessary to get one of these types of jobs. Given that there are private scholarships out that for simply breathing (or so it seems nowadays with hundreds of thousands of diffrent scholarships) paying for that education is not out of reach DISPITE the risging tuition costs.

Because it happened then, and is happening now in several poor countries, where workers are paid pennies to produce a $120 pair of shoes. That's another problem with unrestrained capitalism: It doesn't help the consumers in the least. I would be amazed if the aforementioned shoes cost $20 per pair to produce, market, and ship. Regulation is necessary to prevent companies from unanimously jacking up their prices, such as the recent skyrocketing of gas prices combined with tax breaks for major gas companies that have given said gas companies record profits.

That company that is producing the $120 shoe with the brand name on it is also producing the $20 genertic shoe. Where do you think a lot of these cheaper alternatives are coming from? In addition if I can make an item for say $5 and someone is willing to pay me $40 for it, why shouldn't I let them. If they believe it to be worth $40 then it is to them even if it is not to you. But it that is the only person who is willing to buy it that high then I need to set my prices lower till I have it as high as I can make it and still sell the items. If noone bought the $120 shoe then they would be forced to lower it's cost till people would start buying it again, or to end the line altogether.

The choice is pay your taxes, or never drive on a road again, never send a letter again, and go completely without any police presence.

FedEx and UPS do a pretty bang up job of mail and package delivery and at a price that has forced the USPS to really watch their budget or be foreced to jack their postage prices up way high. Private security forces have done better jobs then gov't forces in many cases. Finally, but more unlikely, Road use fees, privately(company) owned roads with private construction contractors, or other similar set up could probably maintain the roads for a lot less than the gov'ts are doing now, although we'd feel the cost a lot more directly.

Since when do laziness, bad luck, or bad decisions merit the death penalty by starvation or nasty diseases?

Laziness, every time. Laziness is a decision. If you decide not to work then you deserve to starve. With bad luck, a lack of laziness will work you out of it eventually and there are many NPO's that will aid you along the way. Bad decisions: If you make a bad decision you live with the consequences of your decision and actions. I was taught this growing up. For some reason today, kids are being taught that you don't have to live with the consequences of their actions and decisions.


Regulation is necessary to prevent companies from unanimously jacking up their prices,
Regulation is the CAUSE of the raising of prices.

Because something is regulated money must be spent in order to comply and to show compliance with the regulation. The only thing regulation might lower is levels of polutants or the quantity or quality of the product being produced.

Wrong! It only means that there will be less MANUFACTURING jobs. Those aren't the only jobs out there. Service and Information jobs are rising rapidly...
And have you considered Moore's Law of Computer Power at all?
How long will it take until plenty of the traditional high-skilled knowledge jobs will be done by computers too?

I agree that there will always be some jobs that will have to be done by humans, but common sense suggests that those will not be enough to employ 8 billion people or however we'll be then.
Does it scare you so much that eventually we could resolve the problem of scarcity and be "set free of the market" to coin a phrase?

Alright, so the shoes are a bad example. Going back to gas- major gas companies were given a major tax cut recently, and the sources are recovering- no problem with supply. By your logic, this means that the prices should fall. They're not; in fact, they're rising- and the extra money is going directly into the owners' pockets. These companies have been reporting record profits; the consumers, meanwhile, are SOL.

Where have you been?!!? Right now I have gas at $2.23 a gallon here. That's pretty much where it was before Katrina. FALLING!!!!

Also what do you think companies do with those profits. Speaking specifically of the oil companies: they plug those right back into exploration, refineries (assuming enviromentalist wackos and "not in my backyard"ers don't hold them back) as well as developing new technologies. It doesn't ALL go in to the big wigs' pockets. Also please don't confuse enviromentalist wackos with enviromentalists; there is a big diffrence

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you were trying to say.
The fact that you were trying to say something happened, when it didn't.


It's a fact that working on the farm was healthier than working in the factories;
It's also a fact that prior to the IR, people mostly worked on farms, had huge families, infant mortality was much higher than post-IR (check the stats), and a lot of kids worked because they would starve otherwise.


You claimed that working 12+ hour days on a farm is exactly like working 12+ hours in a factory.
Liar. I never claimed that.


It isn't; the conditions are far more unpleasant (by almost unanimous agreement), and the health effects are far worse.
Great. So let's get rid of the factories, then, right?


Speaking of strawmen...

I don't deny that [before the IR, there was a lot of starvation]. I don't want to move backward; I want to move forward.
Then why do you endorse ideas that would move us backward?


We have industry that allows each person to produce many times more than one person could before industry. We have the capacity to feed, clothe, shelter, and care for everyone, if food wasn't subject to the demands of capitalism.
That's like thinking that you can erase the laws of economics with a handwave. FOOD IS SCARCE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST DROPS FROM THE SKY, LIKE MANA. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.


Harvests are destroyed because prices aren't high enough to make it worth selling;
Crops are destroyed because people are paid by a government to do that.


luxury crops like sugar are planted more heavily than staple crops like wheat and rice;
What planet are you living on? Ever seen the nigh-endless expanses of corn and wheatfields in the midwest of the US?


food is sold in overwhelming amounts to the middle and upper classes, who throw much of it away ("Urp, I'm full." *scoops food into trash can*). I advocate policies that will get the food to them, not policies that will futily attempt to turn back the clock of technological progress.
Actually, you are doing precisely that.



Wrong. Human nature doesn't change much.
Wrong.


Business owners then didn't care what happened to their workers, so long as it didn't hurt their profit margins too much; why should they now?
They did care. Whatever makes you think they didn't?



Barely, and only with the help of multiple jobs for many of them.
No, most of them live quite well as compared to others in their countries, and they only have the one job.

You've been reading too many neo-marxist rags.


Looking around at the current economic BS, I'd say not.
We don't have laissez-faire right now. So what's your point?


Alright, so the shoes are a bad example. Going back to gas- major gas companies were given a major tax cut recently, and the sources are recovering- no problem with supply.
Yes there is. There's a huge backlog in terms of the unrefined vs the refined. Mostly it has to do with people like you not wanting to have refineries built.


Not if there are regulations specifically barring companies from charging too much more than what their product is worth.
That assumes that "worth" is objective. It's not.

Let's say that I figure it would be worth to me to paint my house for $100. You come over, and we chit-chat for a while, and I mention that I want to have my house painted. You offer to do it for me for $80. I think it's worth $100, but I will of course pay the $80.

So tell me--what's the job really worth? Think you can? Or do you understand a little bit now regarding subjective value preference?


No, it isn't. Protection rackets aren't services.
Yes it is, unless you're using a definition of "service" that is different from every other one on the planet, i.e. special pleading.

How so? If there are no taxes paid, then the government can't afford to pay for roads, police, and mail services.
Those shouldn't be government funded.


Without public finance, road coverage will be sketchy at best (what company will pay for the type of road system modern society requires?),
Many.


mail services will be decidedly more expensive (UPS's rates are a lot higher than those of the USPS),
Think it might be due to the government-mandated subsidy and monopoly that is the USPS?

Nah--that would be way too much like having to think. You don't want to do that.


and a police force would be pretty much nonexistent (who would pay for it?).
A lot of people.


There would also be nothing resembling the DMV
The DMV is not necessary.

Prove the services you want are vital.


Again, it's not theft- it's payment of services for all of society.
Then when the mafia says to pay or else bad things will happen, that's not extortion.


Let's take the example of a star athlete who earns $40 million per year. If the government taxes them at a rate of 90% (much higher than current tax rates, especially after Bush came into office), they still earn $4 million a year for themselves- many times more than the vast majority of Americans.
So what?


Again, the government isn't stealing it.
Nor then is the mafia extorting it.

It doesn't matter how you couch your terms--you're still advocating theft.

And have you considered Moore's Law of Computer Power at all?
How long will it take until plenty of the traditional high-skilled knowledge jobs will be done by computers too?

I agree that there will always be some jobs that will have to be done by humans, but common sense suggests that those will not be enough to employ 8 billion people or however we'll be then.
Does it scare you so much that eventually we could resolve the problem of scarcity and be "set free of the market" to coin a phrase?

For every type of job that goes away a new type fills the void. When the steam engine locomotives went away to make room for the new electric trains, the coal shoveler lost his job, but several new jobs with the maintenance of the new type of engine. I have no worries for the future.

What, counterexamples saying that unlimited capitalism won't solve all (or any) of our problems? Well, that's bloody simple- you need but look at the conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_problems). Entire families- including children- working from before dawn till after dusk. No education for children whose parents couldn't afford it. Horribly unpleasant and dangerous working conditions. The absolute inability to do anything about it, because unions were illegal and if you tried to strike, you were fired and the company just grabbed another poor sap to fill your spot. Take away regulations on businesses, and this will only happen again.

For some reason, Americans resist taxes more than anyone else. We see it as the government stealing our money. Americans, more than anyone else, simply don't grasp that tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame. Tax money goes to police forces, road construction, social welfare, military forces (although I would have less go there than to social welfare), schools, and so on.

I support the income tax, and favor an 'inverted triangle' policy- those at the bottom who can't afford taxes don't get taxed, while those at the top who can afford to have the vast majority of their yearly income removed and still make more than a dozen wage-workers should be taxed heavily. The money should go to make sure that everyone in the United States has food, health care, and shelter. It is absolutely unforgivable to do otherwise.

I am liberal, hear me roar!


What she said!!

Bravo!!

My thoughts exactly!

Let the goddamn rich people pay taxes. They only got their money by dishonest and indecent means, anyway...usually by stabbing people in the back. Screw 'em.

I'm all in favor of having the minimum requirements for survival being free. Any luxuries, yes, you should have to work. but basic survival should be free. And I don't care how much tax it takes to make that happen.

We can't claim to be the greatest country in the world, when we let some people starve in the street, all because they got a bad break in life.

You know instead of working harder to make more money, I'm just going to laze about, do the minimum I need to keep a minimum wage job and then sponge off the those who do work hard to earn more money.



You know if they were doing at least SOME job I might be willing to allot them this. But when I look at all the jobs that go unfullfilled then I say screw them. If you aren't working you deserve no help. If no one will hire you because you dropped out of school, you have only yourself to blame.

How about if no one will hire you because the ecponomy just plain sucks...and how about if no one will hire you just because you are a transsexual, and thus, are unprotected against unfair discrimination?

I fall into the second category. I finished high school and went on to college, but never finished. I have a 160 IQ. I am willing, able, and WANT to work. But no one will hire me. Should I just be pushed into the gutter to die? I did nothing to deserve the treatment I am getting in the job market.

For every type of job that goes away a new type fills the void. When the steam engine locomotives went away to make room for the new electric trains, the coal shoveler lost his job, but several new jobs with the maintenance of the new type of engine. I have no worries for the future.
And yet every business will tell you that if a worker is replaced by a machine, the maintenance will be done by less people than there were workers.

For the time being, we'll see the same thing go on, but remember that before the Industrial Revolution, no one could possibly have imagined that one day agricultural jobs will disappear...

1. The advances brought to us by the Industrial Revolution far outweigh the problems they caused for a minority of people a hundred years ago.

2. It's not that we think the "tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame," we know what's being done with it but cant help but notice the private sector handles many of these issues cheaper and more efficiently than the government does.
3. Bad things are happening to us and we need to be responsible with what little money we can afford to spend. With Asian markets closing in on us with alarming speed, we need to give our consumers more confidence and more spending power to compete--which means less taxes.


1. How about we ask those who were negatively impacted by it a hundred years ago. How about we ask what THEY think.
How about if we ask them aren't they glad their very lives were sucked away from them so that we, in the future, could have a better life, while theirs was miserable?

2. Yeah? The private sector does such a wonderful job with helping out poor, needy people, don't they? (can you smell the sarcasm?)

3. something we agree on, at least, the bolded part...but we come to different conclusions based on the same observances.
I say the way to give consumers more confidence is to hire more people, see less people unemployed, and see wages go up, and buying power go up...which means MORE WAGES. Less for dividends going to asshole wastrel lazy fucking white-collar stockholders who never DO a goddamn thing.

Also, in response to this:


Yeah, and when you put your precious regulations on these businesses they cut and/or outsource jobs. Job outsourcing has traditionally been one of the more ambiguous issues I've ever seen when dealing with the left; they protest it whenever it happens, but whenever I ask why they support the legislative framework that made said outsourcing a necessity, they shrug it off, saying outsourcing is 'largely a myth' and that it's not a major problem affecting our workforce.

I'm not kidding, I've seen both arguments from the same side. Complain about it when it happens, and then pretend it's not a big deal once someone points out that it was your fault to begin with. Companies will always have cheap labor somewhere whether you regulate them or not.

Then they should be penalized for it. HUGE taxes for companies that DARE to outsource jobs to get around regulations and paying fair decent wages to Americans.
If our corporations refuse to behave like good citizens, then we should punish them.

Unlike most Americans, I'm not so blind as to assume that all other people can, nor am I so apathetic as to think that they don't deserve the most basic elements of life. Since when do laziness, bad luck, or bad decisions merit the death penalty by starvation or nasty diseases?


I totally agree with the part of the statement above that I bolded. You will note that I did NOT bold "laziness."

But bad luck and bad decisions should not merit a de-facto death penalty, as they currently do in America.

Oh, now you've done it :D

BAAWA is what they call an "Anarcho-Capitalist" - which pretty much means that there is no government whatsoever, and private enterprise takes care of everything and everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I'm no friend of government, especially not the current American government...but if you gave me a choice which one I'd rather have take care of me, governemnt or corporations, I think I trust government a bit more than corporations. No, wait, I trust government A LOT MORE than I trust corporations.

Let the goddamn rich people pay taxes. They only got their money by dishonest and indecent means, anyway
Thus proving that you're just jealous.


I'm all in favor of having the minimum requirements for survival being free.
Thus, you're in favor of theft.


Any luxuries, yes, you should have to work. but basic survival should be free. And I don't care how much tax it takes to make that happen.
Thus, you don't care how much suffering you will inflict.


We can't claim to be the greatest country in the world, when we let some people starve in the street, all because they got a bad break in life.
Non sequitur.

Then they should be penalized for it. HUGE taxes for companies that DARE to outsource jobs to get around regulations and paying fair decent wages to Americans.
Please do be quiet on economics; you have no clue as to what you speak.


If our corporations refuse to behave like good citizens, then we should punish them.
Spoken like a true dictator.

Let's take the example of a star athlete who earns $40 million per year. If the government taxes them at a rate of 90% (much higher than current tax rates, especially after Bush came into office), they still earn $4 million a year for themselves- many times more than the vast majority of Americans. Meanwhile, someone who earns $16,000 a year and isn't taxes earns $16,000 a year- barely enough for one person to live, let alone a family. Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic if the athlete whines about so much of their money being taken away.

Again, the government isn't stealing it. All of that money goes back into the economy, as the US government is one of the biggest consumers in the world. I think the money that that athlete is earning is far better spent paying for food for the hungry, shelter for the cold, and medical care for the sick, rather than going toward a huge, luxurious mansion. If that's jealousy, then so be it- it's socially responsible jealousy.

A-Fucking-Men!!
Couldn't have said it better myself!!
Pennterra, you rock!!

Laziness, every time. Laziness is a decision. If you decide not to work then you deserve to starve. With bad luck, a lack of laziness will work you out of it eventually and there are many NPO's that will aid you along the way. Bad decisions: If you make a bad decision you live with the consequences of your decision and actions.

fine and dandy. But the consequence of a bad decision should not be a fucking de-facto DEATH PENALTY!!!

Jesus, Mary, and Joesph on a fuicking popsicle stick...how fucking heartless ARE you?

fine and dandy. But the consequence of a bad decision should not be a fucking de-facto DEATH PENALTY!!!
It isn't.

Do you have anything other than emotive hyperbolae?

A-Fucking-Men!!
Couldn't have said it better myself!!
Pennterra, you rock!!

Thank you. I'm male, by the way. I should probably add that to the sig, as it's not readily apparent online.

However, I think I will be abandoning this thread. BAAWA has a distinct flare for severely warping one's words to fit his/her own needs. If taxes are theft, then withholding one's funds while others starve is murder. Sorry, but that's the logical conclusion of your statements.

There is no point in arguing if the person you are arguing with hears only what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by Pennterra
Business owners then didn't care what happened to their workers, so long as it didn't hurt their profit margins too much; why should they now?


They did care. Whatever makes you think they didn't?
To use your own favorite catchphrase back on you...
PROVE IT!!!!

They DON'T give a damn. And don't try telling me they do. If they gave a damn about their workers, they would make sure their workers earned enough to have a decent living, and had adequate health insurance, at the very least.

Oh, and P.S. You don't downsize or layoff people you give a damn about. You do not outsource the jobs of people you care about, and then leave them to starve!

YOU prove companies CARE about their workers.

Spoken like a true dictator.

Only dictators punish bad citizens?

Or did you mean that punishing bad corporations makes you a dictator?

Or did you mean that corporations are infallible and could never commit a wrong?

Any opinion on Enron? WorldCom?

However, I think I will be abandoning this thread. BAAWA has a distinct flare for severely warping one's words to fit his/her own needs.
Except that I don't.


If taxes are theft, then withholding one's funds while others starve is murder.
Taxes are theft, but withholding one's funds while others starve isn't murder.


Sorry, but that's the logical conclusion of your statements.
Sorry, but it isn't.


There is no point in arguing if the person you are arguing with hears only what they want to hear.
Much like you only want to hear that capitalists are evil.

Only dictators punish bad citizens?
Only dictators think that outsourcing jobs needs to be punished.


Any opinion on Enron? WorldCom?
They only did what the federal government has been doing for years, and the feds didn't like it.

To use your own favorite catchphrase back on you...
PROVE IT!!!!
Already have.


They DON'T give a damn.
Prove it.


Oh, and P.S. You don't downsize or layoff people you give a damn about.
Non sequitur.

Look: caring does not mean giving people jobs when you can't support them. Caring does not mean forcing others to do your bidding. Caring does not mean punishing people for taking jobs elsewhere. Caring certainly doesn't mean taxing people to death.

Only dictators think that outsourcing jobs needs to be punished.


Meh, that's fair. But you see how one-liners are easily misinterpreted and can't be taken seriously.

They only did what the federal government has been doing for years, and the feds didn't like it.

Now I'm curious. Please explain.

Thank you. I'm male, by the way. I should probably add that to the sig, as it's not readily apparent online.

However, I think I will be abandoning this thread. BAAWA has a distinct flare for severely warping one's words to fit his/her own needs. If taxes are theft, then withholding one's funds while others starve is murder. Sorry, but that's the logical conclusion of your statements.

There is no point in arguing if the person you are arguing with hears only what they want to hear.

Sorry about the gender mistake. I made the mistake of assuming you were female because your nation's name ends in "a." In American, at least...generally, someone whose name ends in "a" is female. My bad.

Thank you. Now, BAAWA, you understand why I have you on ignore. Not because you don't agree with me, and not because I am childish, as you assert...but because you have a distinct flair for warping other people's words to suit your needs, and I refuse to argue like that.

You will notice Economic Associates and I do not agree, either...yet, I do not have him on ignore!! Why? Because at least he treats me with respect and engages in legitimate debate. YOU, on the other hand, BAAWA...exist merely to piss people off.

And I fully agree with Pennterra. If you, as a rich man...withhold funds that could save the life of someone who is starving, then, you, sir, are guilty of murder.

Only dictators punish bad citizens?

Or did you mean that punishing bad corporations makes you a dictator?

Or did you mean that corporations are infallible and could never commit a wrong?

Any opinion on Enron? WorldCom?

He means corporations are infallible and could never, WOULD never...do anything wrong or underhanded.
He's completely brainwashed into believing corporations have the best interest of anyone other than their own damn greedy selves in mind.

Meh, that's fair. But you see how one-liners are easily misinterpreted and can't be taken seriously.
No, I do not.


Now I'm curious. Please explain.
The accounting practices of Enron and Worldcom were the same as the federal government's accounting practices. Misreporting here. Using gains in one area to offset losses in another and hiding it. Why do you think, other than the drop in the # of births, that social security will go bankrupt? It's because of the creative accounting to hide the true numbers of the deficit. Enron and Worldcom did the same thing.

But people who knew what was going on, like Warren Buffet, warned people against buying Enron and Worldcom stock.

1. How about we ask those who were negatively impacted by it a hundred years ago. How about we ask what THEY think.
How about if we ask them aren't they glad their very lives were sucked away from them so that we, in the future, could have a better life, while theirs was miserable?

We don't ask them because they're dead, silly.

Then they should be penalized for it. HUGE taxes for companies that DARE to outsource jobs to get around regulations and paying fair decent wages to Americans.
If our corporations refuse to behave like good citizens, then we should punish them.

But that would then put the third world workers those firms employ out of work and cause them to starve. You wouldn't impose your defacto death penalty on them, would you?

I'm no friend of government, especially not the current American government...but if you gave me a choice which one I'd rather have take care of me, governemnt or corporations, I think I trust government a bit more than corporations. No, wait, I trust government A LOT MORE than I trust corporations.

The question of whether or not you trust the government is irrelevant because even if you didn't trust them there wouldn't be much you could do about it. Oh, sure you could vote, but voting only happens once every few years and you usually only get the choice between two evils. On the other hand, if you don't trust a corporation, all you have to do is say "thank you, but I'm not interested in doing business with you" and they'll never bother you again. I don't trust corporations any more than I trust government but I really like the fact that if I ignore a corporation they will leave me alone.

To use your own favorite catchphrase back on you...
PROVE IT!!!!

That's not really a catchphrase. And what makes you think some company owner sitting in an office somewhere surrounded by his wealth is any less caring than some government official sitting in an office somewhere surrounded by his wealth?

He means corporations are infallible and could never, WOULD never...do anything wrong or underhanded.
What a nice statement. Think you can back it up with some facts? Or is that just another of your screams about reality because you don't have the nice car that you saw on TV and now you want to throw a tantrum?

1. Already have.

2. Look: caring does not mean giving people jobs when you can't support them. Caring does not mean forcing others to do your bidding. Caring does not mean punishing people for taking jobs elsewhere. Caring certainly doesn't mean taxing people to death.

1. Where. I see no proof that corporations care about their workers. where have you "proven" this? I'm going to be as motherfucking annoying as you are with this "provce it" shit until I drive you as batshit as you drive ME. YOU PROVE IT.

I have seen you prove nothing of the sort.

2. CARING also does not include forcing employees to yield to give-backs while management gets raises. CARING does not include downsizing and laying off people while giving your top executives RAISES.
CARING certianly doesn't mean DOWNSIZING PEOPLE TO DEATH AND OUTSOURCING THEIR JOBS!!!

Thank you. Now, BAAWA, you understand why I have you on ignore.
If you have me on ignore, why do you respond to me?

You will notice that you "have me on ignore" because I do disagree with you and I ask you to back your claims.

Here's how our "debate" went:

You: Capitalists are evil and heartless. They don't care about the workers. They would let the workers starve or die.
Me: Prove it.
You: Fuck you, asshole. If you don't believe my blatant assertion, then I'm going to ignore you.
Me: Whatever.

You lack knowledge of basic economics. You parrot neo-marxist crap. You scream and refuse to back up your conclusions and claims. Why should I take you seriously?

The accounting practices of Enron and Worldcom were the same as the federal government's accounting practices. Misreporting here. Using gains in one area to offset losses in another and hiding it. Why do you think, other than the drop in the # of births, that social security will go bankrupt? It's because of the creative accounting to hide the true numbers of the deficit. Enron and Worldcom did the same thing.


Furthermore the accounting scheme of Enron was actually helped by the federal government's Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is a government monopoly. If a private, independent auditor were in charge, Worldcom and Enron would have been portrayed just as they were--financially transparent.

It doesn't help that the ridiculous government tax codes lent themselves easily to the capital structure Enron used to exploit them.

But that would then put the third world workers those firms employ out of work and cause them to starve. You wouldn't impose your defacto death penalty on them, would you?

Make what you will of this, but I say BETTER THEM THAN ME!!!

1. Where. I see no proof that corporations care about their workers.
Of course you do.


2. CARING also does not include forcing employees to yield to give-backs while management gets raises.
Caring does not include forcing employers to pay more for employees than they can afford.


CARING does not include downsizing and laying off people while giving your top executives RAISES.
Ah yes--that old lie.


CARING certianly doesn't mean DOWNSIZING PEOPLE TO DEATH AND OUTSOURCING THEIR JOBS!!!
Emotive hyperbole. You have nothing else.

Furthermore the accounting scheme of Enron was actually helped by the federal government's Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is a government monopoly. If a private, independent auditor were in charge, Worldcom and Enron would have been portrayed just as they were--financially transparent.

It doesn't help that the ridiculous government tax codes lent themselves easily to the capital structure Enron used to exploit them.
Oh, but you can't say such a thing; you will be accused of being a heartless capitalist who just wants to kill all the workers.

Truth, you see, is the bane of their kind.

Make what you will of this, but I say BETTER THEM THAN ME!!!

Your caring side is really showing through right now.

Your caring side is really showing through right now.
Of course. When it comes to caring, you can only go so far before the hypocrisy shines through.

The accounting practices of Enron and Worldcom were the same as the federal government's accounting practices. Misreporting here. Using gains in one area to offset losses in another and hiding it. Why do you think, other than the drop in the # of births, that social security will go bankrupt? It's because of the creative accounting to hide the true numbers of the deficit. Enron and Worldcom did the same thing.

But people who knew what was going on, like Warren Buffet, warned people against buying Enron and Worldcom stock.

Ah, the whole social security thing. Sure, that's a problem. But then isn't that public knowledge? Also, the government is a non-for-profit. You could say that our representatives have an incentive to cook the books to get elected. I suppose that's a pretty good argument to make the cases analogous.

However, the lying in the corporate scandals was done out of the public's scrutiny and it immediately endangered the welfare of investors whereas the government's bad accounting will only maybe do so in a few decades.

It's true they are similar. The deception involved in Enron,etc seems to be more culpable to me, but you are right both are wrongful acts.

But that would then put the third world workers those firms employ out of work and cause them to starve. You wouldn't impose your defacto death penalty on them, would you?

So if Nike doesn't build sweatshops the indigenous people will die.

How did they live before Nike?

Make what you will of this, but I say BETTER THEM THAN ME!!!

So it wrong for people in other countries to get the jobs that might have gone to you and the end result is that you die.

But on the other side its alright to keep the jobs in this country thereby denying the jobs to the people in the third world country and causing them to die.

Does anyone else see a problem with this logic?

Ah, the whole social security thing. Sure, that's a problem. But then isn't that public knowledge? Also, the government is a non-for-profit.
No, it isn't.


You could say that our representatives have an incentive to cook the books to get elected. I suppose that's a pretty good argument to make the cases analogous.
The government officials have the incentive to make it not look as bad as it is.


However, the lying in the corporate scandals was done out of the public's scrutiny and it immediately endangered the welfare of investors whereas the government's bad accounting will only maybe do so in a few decades.
But it will endanger the whole country. And the reason the corporate "scandals" happened outside of the public scrutiny is...that they didn't. People knew. Not many. But people did. Why else did Warren Buffet not advocate for their stocks? HE KNEW!

So if Nike doesn't build sweatshops the indigenous people will die.

How did they live before Nike?

By doing work that was crappier than being in a Nike sweatshop. How do I know this? Because if the work they had been doing before Nike showed up had been better than working in a sweatshop they would never have taken the jobs at the sweatshops.

But my point was that if it is immoral for corporations to put people out of work then it must be immoral for governments to force corporations to shut down their sweatshops.

Furthermore the accounting scheme of Enron was actually helped by the federal government's Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is a government monopoly. If a private, independent auditor were in charge, Worldcom and Enron would have been portrayed just as they were--financially transparent.

Alright, I'll buy that. I'm not out to defend the government at every turn.

It doesn't help that the ridiculous government tax codes lent themselves easily to the capital structure Enron used to exploit them.

So... but for the government's poor regulation Enron would be a compassionate corporate citizen? You think that argument has merit?

If I leave a knife out on my kitchen table and a crook breaks in, takes the knife, and kills someone with it am I responcible? Is the criminal less morally culpable? Of course not.

The government's poor regulation hardly caused the scandals. It facilitated the scandals. Reform is necessary. But I can't see putting much emphasis on it; especially if doing so functions to excuse the crimes committed.

1. Where. I see no proof that corporations care about their workers. where have you "proven" this? I'm going to be as motherfucking annoying as you are with this "provce it" shit until I drive you as batshit as you drive ME. YOU PROVE IT.


This is irrelevent. Capitalism doesn't revolve around corporations caring about their workers, but rather market forces assuring an efficient result. Without government interference there would be a much higher standard of living and less unemployment. In fact market forces ARE the laws preventing corporate mayhem. Much of the outsourcing that you so loathe is caused by excessive regulation at home. Corporations would much rather stay close to the worker base, rather than go abroad. Hopefully that's something you'd think about.

2. CARING also does not include forcing employees to yield to give-backs while management gets raises. CARING does not include downsizing and laying off people while giving your top executives RAISES.
CARING certianly doesn't mean DOWNSIZING PEOPLE TO DEATH AND OUTSOURCING THEIR JOBS!!!

Let me give you a list of things the government does that causes corporations to cut wages, workers, and outsourcing: Subsidies, corporate welfare, minimum wage laws, tax breaks & poor tax codes, corporate taxation, government monopolies, unions, the list goes on.

The government is the root of much of the issues you have with corporations.

Your last post was very vague. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with my points or not. But anyway, I don't really care.

But it will endanger the whole country. And the reason the corporate "scandals" happened outside of the public scrutiny is...that they didn't. People knew. Not many. But people did. Why else did Warren Buffet not advocate for their stocks? HE KNEW!

Sure it's a problem, I'm not denying that nor am I totally defending the government. But do you really consider a handful of people in the know, after quite some time of deception, as public scrutiny? Seems to me your streching there.

By doing work that was crappier than being in a Nike sweatshop. How do I know this? Because if the work they had been doing before Nike showed up had been better than working in a sweatshop they would never have taken the jobs at the sweatshops.

Yeah, I expected that argument. Heard it a hundred times. Not really impressed anymore. On a theoretically level you are correct, that people would leave their farms to work in the factory is an indication that they prefer the factory work.

However, are you considering the demographics of those working the sweatshops? In my limited experience it is rare for a father to quit his farm and go to work in the factory. Instead, children and wives go to work. They do so because the father could keep the farm up (albeit with much less help) while they earn extra income through the work. Daughters in SE Asia are especially likely to take such work so that they can contribute to their dowry.

People working in the factories can be an indication of preference; however it isn't necessarily so.

But my point was that if it is immoral for corporations to put people out of work then it must be immoral for governments to force corporations to shut down their sweatshops.

Two wrong do not make a right (mmm... the corny goodness). That corporations might be immoral in opening sweatshops does not make the government immoral in taking away those jobs.

I do not want to push this "government knows best" mentality too far, I truly detest it.

However, the line between coercion and cooperation gets blurry at the fringe. And sometimes governments have to take a stand and choose between the lesser of two evils.

Sure it's a problem, I'm not denying that nor am I totally defending the government. But do you really consider a handful of people in the know, after quite some time of deception, as public scrutiny? Seems to me your streching there.
You made it sound as if no one knew. But people did know.

So... but for the government's poor regulation Enron would be a compassionate corporate citizen? You think that argument has merit?

If I leave a knife out on my kitchen table and a crook breaks in, takes the knife, and kills someone with it am I responcible? Is the criminal less morally culpable? Of course not.

The government's poor regulation hardly caused the scandals. It facilitated the scandals. Reform is necessary. But I can't see putting much emphasis on it; especially if doing so functions to excuse the crimes committed.

My apologies for not being clear. You are correct in saying that the poor tax codes FACILITATED the scandals. I completely agree, and this is my point. It is the same argument against subsidies (which facilitate cutting costs and jobs), minimum wage laws (which facilitates cutting jobs because it is no longer economically feasible to hire as many workers), the list goes on.

My point is that government does more harm than good in the market, not that it is soley responsible for every "bad" thing.

You made it sound as if no one knew. But people did know.

It shocked the hell out of me. Then again, to be honest, I'm a poor student with little income with which to invest.

I'm really not trying to make this out to be the greatest cover up of all time. But saying "people did know" isn't clear. How many knew before the fact? Who knew?

A handful of investment moguls isn't the public by anyone's imagination.

How about if no one will hire you because the ecponomy just plain sucks...and how about if no one will hire you just because you are a transsexual, and thus, are unprotected against unfair discrimination?

I fall into the second category. I finished high school and went on to college, but never finished. I have a 160 IQ. I am willing, able, and WANT to work. But no one will hire me. Should I just be pushed into the gutter to die? I did nothing to deserve the treatment I am getting in the job market.

World Unemployment rates. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2129.html)
AS you can see world wide we're doing pretty good. No the US isn't on the top of the heap, but we do bloody well.

Move to Isle of Man or Jersey(doubt that's the state) where the unemployeement rate is .6% and.9% respectively.

What are you doing to market yourself? Are you making any effort to go back and get your degree? What job skills do you have on your resume'? Are you properly dressed (i.e. neatly, well grommed, professional looking) for interviews? Are you flaunting your status of being transexual? If you can't find work where you are you move to somewhere you can get a job. That's what our forefathers did. If you can't get the job that pays what you want, get a couple at lower pay. Do what you have to in order to survive so long as you are not robing others of their properties or rights. There are plenty of people out there that really don't give a rat's @$$ about your sexual preferances or status as long as you don't try to shove it in their face.

And yet every business will tell you that if a worker is replaced by a machine, the maintenance will be done by less people than there were workers.

For the time being, we'll see the same thing go on, but remember that before the Industrial Revolution, no one could possibly have imagined that one day agricultural jobs will disappear...

They're still there. They may not be what you traditionally think of as agriculrural jobs but they are still there. Those tractors don't run themselves yet. Trnasportation is still needed. There are scientists that specialize in agricultural applications.

Yeah, I expected that argument. Heard it a hundred times. Not really impressed anymore. On a theoretically level you are correct, that people would leave their farms to work in the factory is an indication that they prefer the factory work.

However, are you considering the demographics of those working the sweatshops? In my limited experience it is rare for a father to quit his farm and go to work in the factory. Instead, children and wives go to work. They do so because the father could keep the farm up (albeit with much less help) while they earn extra income through the work. Daughters in SE Asia are especially likely to take such work so that they can contribute to their dowry.

People working in the factories can be an indication of preference; however it isn't necessarily so.

It still looks to me like the people are choosing to work at the sweatshops and that it is benefitting them. What difference does it make that it's farmer's daughters working in the sweatshops? Forcing the sweatshops to close would still be bad for them.

I do not want to push this "government knows best" mentality too far, I truly detest it.

Well, anyone who detests that mentality is a friend of mine. I still say that no one knows best is the right mentality.

My apologies for not being clear. You are correct in saying that the poor tax codes FACILITATED the scandals. I completely agree, and this is my point. It is the same argument against subsidies (which facilitate cutting costs and jobs), minimum wage laws (which facilitates cutting jobs because it is no longer economically feasible to hire as many workers), the list goes on.

My point is that government does more harm than good in the market, not that it is soley responsible for every "bad" thing.

That's fair, I won't argue with that. And except for some rare situations (which we would argue about so I won't bring them up :D ), I agree that the government probably will do more harm than good by actively participating in the market.

It shocked the hell out of me.
That's because you're not a normal stock trader.


I'm really not trying to make this out to be the greatest cover up of all time. But saying "people did know" isn't clear. How many knew before the fact? Who knew?
I don't have the numbers, but it's more than 0.


A handful of investment moguls isn't the public by anyone's imagination.
Nor is it no one.

It shocked the hell out of me. Then again, to be honest, I'm a poor student with little income with which to invest.

I'm really not trying to make this out to be the greatest cover up of all time. But saying "people did know" isn't clear. How many knew before the fact? Who knew?

A handful of investment moguls isn't the public by anyone's imagination.

The government, or certain departments of it at least, certainly knew something was up. But did you hear anything from them? Of course not. Again, this paper-thin corporation would have been exposed if the government didn't interfere so much and give them leverage over their competitors with tax breaks, loopholes and such.

Oh, and one more thing. The government laws that really frustrates me that no one has brought up are bankruptcy laws. If one declares bankruptcy one does not have to give up any of one's assests, just one's company. Arthur Anderson and his ilk should have been thrown in jail, and made to liquidate all of their assets (or as much as possible). People should be responsibility for their choices. Why do you think credit card debt in the U.S. is so high? Because the government doesn't make individuals liable for their overspending! Making top execs not immune to bankruptcy makes them responsible for their choices, and therefore less likely to make ridiculously risky market choices.

It still looks to me like the people are choosing to work at the sweatshops and that it is benefitting them. What difference does it make that it's farmer's daughters working in the sweatshops? Forcing the sweatshops to close would still be bad for them.


You are right, there is a loss of income, simply no doubt about it.

But your original point was that employment at the factories was a statement of preference. I'm just stating that that isn't necessarily true. It does matter who works at the factory if people want to argue that working at the sweatshops is better than working at the farm, which is often the case though you may not be doing it here.

3. something we agree on, at least, the bolded part...but we come to different conclusions based on the same observances.
I say the way to give consumers more confidence is to hire more people, see less people unemployed, and see wages go up, and buying power go up...which means MORE WAGES. Less for dividends going to asshole wastrel lazy fucking white-collar stockholders who never DO a goddamn thing.

They employ the workers, from the minimum wage earner worker on up.

Saying that all the excutives are setting themselves up to be rich at the expense of the workers and the poor is like saying that everyone on welfare is a lazy do nothing who pop out babies when they want a "raise".

All these statements do is highlight the MINORITY of the groups who make themselves the most visible. COme on. What news station is going to report on the company that is taking care of their employees when they can focus on a corporate scandel?

Heck look at Google as a real good example. Everyone over there is doing real good especially the owners. But they're plugging back a lot of the profits into their employees. Most businesses are like that. The profits don't just go in to thier pockets, they go into expanding the business which in turns employess more people. If you punish them for succeeding then there is less capital/profit and less incentive to expand.

You are right, there is a loss of income, simply no doubt about it.

But your original point was that employment at the factories was a statement of preference. I'm just stating that that isn't necessarily true. It does matter who works at the factory if people want to argue that working at the sweatshops is better than working at the farm, which is often the case though you may not be doing it here.

I'm really not following you. Are you saying that many factory workers are only there because their fathers (or husbands) are forcing them to work at the factories? Sorry to be so slow on the uptake, but I think I missed something in our conversation.

Then they should be penalized for it. HUGE taxes for companies that DARE to outsource jobs to get around regulations and paying fair decent wages to Americans.
If our corporations refuse to behave like good citizens, then we should punish them.

Hugh taxes are the REASON they're outsourcing and incorproating off shore to begin with. You raise the taxes and even more of them will leave. Why stay here in the US and pay high taxes when I can move my business outside it to a country that has a better tax system. You want to bring them back, lower their taxes. They only pass those taxes on to you in their prices anyhow. You raise taxes, they raise prices, lower wages/benifits, pay out less dividend, or hire less people or some combination.

plus if we kept all of our manufactuing here then the prices of the products would go up to compensate and our companies would not be able to compete with the foreign products. You all demand inexpensive products then demand that our manufactures act in way the would raise prices.

I don't have the numbers, but it's more than 0.

Alright. I'll have to check my prior posts, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that no one knew. More than zero isn't public. That's all that I have been getting at.

The government, or certain departments of it at least, certainly knew something was up. But did you hear anything from them? Of course not. Again, this paper-thin corporation would have been exposed if the government didn't interfere so much and give them leverage over their competitors with tax breaks, loopholes and such.

But even if the government knew I wouldn't call that public knowledge. It makes for more of a case for serious reform. And if Enron was the government's monster then clearly it should take some of the responcibility for it. Specifically speaking, those officials who turned a blind eye should be at the very least fired and, generally speaking, government reform needs to take place.

Still though, I am only concerned that such arguments are proposed to redirect responcibility from those directly involved with Enron. As long no one is doing that, then I do not feel the need to defend the government.

Oh, and one more thing. The government laws that really frustrates me that no one has brought up are bankruptcy laws. If one declares bankruptcy one does not have to give up any of one's assests, just one's company. Arthur Anderson and his ilk should have been thrown in jail, and made to liquidate all of their assets (or as much as possible). People should be responsibility for their choices. Why do you think credit card debt in the U.S. is so high? Because the government doesn't make individuals liable for their overspending! Making top execs not immune to bankruptcy makes them responsible for their choices, and therefore less likely to make ridiculously risky market choices.

Making executives finanically responcible for the actions of their corporations is pretty radical. It would totally change the basis of corporate law. I'm not opposed to this on principle, but clearly it's calling for a whole new system of economic organization.

fine and dandy. But the consequence of a bad decision should not be a fucking de-facto DEATH PENALTY!!!

Jesus, Mary, and Joesph on a fuicking popsicle stick...how fucking heartless ARE you?

You stick your head in wood chipper....it gets shredded off. That was a bad decision and wow de-facto death penalty!

However the kind of bad decision you are refering to do not instantly result in a death penalty. Yes you will suffer from them, there is no right to be free from suffering. But you DO have the chance to work you way out from it. And you have plenty of help if you are willing to work to find it. When was the last time you heard a news report of someone dying of starvation in this country? Do not count the stories of someone held prisoner and starved somewhere as that is abuse and another thread altogether.

Oh, and P.S. You don't downsize or layoff people you give a damn about. You do not outsource the jobs of people you care about, and then leave them to starve!

YOU prove companies CARE about their workers.

Hmmm...I can either downsize and lay off 10,000 or my 100,000 workers thus allowing the remaining 90,000 to keep jobs or I can continue to run this company as is at it's loss and eventually shut down putting all 100,000 out of work

They're still there. They may not be what you traditionally think of as agriculrural jobs but they are still there. Those tractors don't run themselves yet. Trnasportation is still needed. There are scientists that specialize in agricultural applications.
And I would bet with you that there are a lot of people who left agriculture for good.
The same will happen with Manufacturing. And then Services. And then "Knowledge Jobs".
And in the end you're left with a hard core of jobs that aboslutely and totally require Human creativity as opposed to computers that calcluate faster than the brain and can do pretty much everything a human can do (ie talk etc).

You're not honestly proposing that there will be 8 billion full time jobs in those positions, are you? Especially if you consider the efficiency with which even those jobs will be done in the future.

Are you saying that many factory workers are only there because their fathers (or husbands) are forcing them to work at the factories?

I don't think I have ever heard of such a case, but it is within the realm of possibility.

Basically what I am saying is that full employment at the factories is not an indication that people prefer this work to other work available. Some starved before Nike, some continue to starve after Nike. Before Nike people farmed/fished/hunted/gathered. After Nikie people continue to do the same thing.

The point of the demographics is that people are not abandoning their old mode of life, they are not signaling a preference for sweatshop work, they are making an economic decision to add to family income.

We don't know that they consider their previous mode of life "crappy", all we know is that they consider there is some reward to the sweatshops despite the horrible conditions. The only thing we can say about the sweatshops is that they pay enough for people to suffer the bad conditions. We can't say that they are happy about their new situation.

If you, as a rich man...withhold funds that could save the life of someone who is starving, then, you, sir, are guilty of murder.
This would only be applicable if the single rich man was the only source of funds for the starving person. You could easily turn this around that if EVERY person who was working didn't give one penny to each person who wasn't then they would be gulity of murdering someone.

The starving person can still go to someone else to try to get employment of some sort somewhere. Only if the single rich person was holding them against their will to the point that they couldn't get access to food would the rich person be gulity of murdering the starving person.

I'm no friend of government, especially not the current American government...but if you gave me a choice which one I'd rather have take care of me, governemnt or corporations, I think I trust government a bit more than corporations. No, wait, I trust government A LOT MORE than I trust corporations.
Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikitas
Only dictators punish bad citizens?

Or did you mean that punishing bad corporations makes you a dictator?

Or did you mean that corporations are infallible and could never commit a wrong?

Any opinion on Enron? WorldCom?

He means corporations are infallible and could never, WOULD never...do anything wrong or underhanded.
He's completely brainwashed into believing corporations have the best interest of anyone other than their own damn greedy selves in mind.

He means that most corporations do try to do what's right as a whole. Enron and WorldCom are only a couple of companies among hundreds of thousands. Most of them go about their business and no one looks twice at them.

I don't think I have ever heard of such a case, but it is within the realm of possibility.

Basically what I am saying is that full employment at the factories is not an indication that people prefer this work to other work available. Some starved before Nike, some continue to starve after Nike. Before Nike people farmed/fished/hunted/gathered. After Nikie people continue to do the same thing.

Well, then Nike is doing nothing wrong by setting up factories in third world countries, right?

The point of the demographics is that people are not abandoning their old mode of life, they are not signaling a preference for sweatshop work, they are making an economic decision to add to family income.

Which still seems to indicate that Nike's factories are improving the economic situation of families living in third world nations.

We don't know that they consider their previous mode of life "crappy", all we know is that they consider there is some reward to the sweatshops despite the horrible conditions. The only thing we can say about the sweatshops is that they pay enough for people to suffer the bad conditions. We can't say that they are happy about their new situation.

But can't we say that they are happier with the new situation than with the old, since, if they wanted to, they could choose not to work in the factories and instead live exactly the way they did before?

EDIT: I'm off to bed now. I have classes tomorrow and I've stayed up way too late already. I hate to abandon this thread, as I was having a good time, but I really have to get going.

And I would bet with you that there are a lot of people who left agriculture for good.
The same will happen with Manufacturing. And then Services. And then "Knowledge Jobs".
And in the end you're left with a hard core of jobs that aboslutely and totally require Human creativity as opposed to computers that calcluate faster than the brain and can do pretty much everything a human can do (ie talk etc).

They'll leave those jobs and move in to new jobs that will open as technology progresses and creates more oppurtunities. Real and true AI technology is still more than a century off. Yeah we can fake it a lot, but SOMEONE has to program it. Besides where are you going to find a computer to landscape for you? Perform surgery? actually deliver your package to your house? Or to design a house for you? CAD can only do so much. It can't inteact with you like a trained CAD Operator can to produce what you want.

[/QUOTE]You're not honestly proposing that there will be 8 billion full time jobs in those positions, are you? Especially if you consider the efficiency with which even those jobs will be done in the future.[/QUOTE]

Are you asking if I think there will be 0% unemployment? Hell no! Some people won't even bother to work since they can sluff of the gov't. But even as technology progresses it will open up new jobs and oppurtunities to compensate for those that go away. Only those unwilling to change or learn with the times will be left behind

Well, then Nike is doing nothing wrong by setting up factories in third world countries, right?

Merely increasing suffering is blameworthy. It's wrong to shoot someone with a terminal illness. It's wrong to torture a homeless person.

Granted, that people are accepting the sweatshop conditions somewhat relieves corporations of moral responcibility. But anyway, I am not talking about right and wrong here, this was about economic choice.

Which still seems to indicate that Nike's factories are improving the economic situation of families living in third world nations.

Oh sure, that's true. Giving someone a dollar a day, though it is a hard earned dollar, is enriching him/her.

But can't we say that they are happier with the new situation than with the old, since, if they wanted to, they could choose not to work in the factories and instead live exactly the way they did before?

Suppose that to support your family you take a job as a contract killer. Suppose that you really, really hate killing. You made an economic choice because contract killing is the most finanically rewarding work available all things considered. Technically, your moral objections are compensated by your wage/salary/commission. But, are you happy? No. You are being paid to be unhappy.

That is what is going on. Factory workers do not like their jobs. They are being paid to be unhappy. Furthermore, they haven't given up their previous work because they disliked it or because it didn't provide for them. If you take away the child and female labor, those factories would be empty indeed. They would be empty because the past and current mode of life, farming, etc, is better than factory work. Sweatshops are not a new mode of living. They aren't replacing traditional work. They aren't necessarily providing more than traditional work; they are merely being used to supplement traditional work.

They'll leave those jobs and move in to new jobs that will open as technology progresses and creates more oppurtunities. Real and true AI technology is still more than a century off. Yeah we can fake it a lot, but SOMEONE has to program it.
But how many someone's can possibly be needed?

Besides where are you going to find a computer to landscape for you?
http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/robomow/

Perform surgery?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Robotic_Surgeons.html
Who says a computer with the relevant expert system couldn't control these things?

actually deliver your package to your house?
http://carsguide.news.com.au/news/story_page/0,8269,16899795%255E21822,00.html

Or to design a house for you? CAD can only do so much. It can't inteact with you like a trained CAD Operator can to produce what you want.
There is one of those knowledge jobs that would require a person. So are we going to have billions of Architects? We don't need that many architects, especially if that worker works with a complete Virtual Reality and Simulation Environment.

Are you asking if I think there will be 0% unemployment? Hell no! Some people won't even bother to work since they can sluff of the gov't. But even as technology progresses it will open up new jobs and oppurtunities to compensate for those that go away. Only those unwilling to change or learn with the times will be left behind
The question is what happens once the demand for human labour becomes so small that most of us won't have to work anymore. Robots would do the maintenance of robots, and only a select few would still work on improving them.
I believe that we will be able to solve the problem of scarcity eventually, and once that happens, we'll have to dump our understanding of capitalism too, like it or not.

*rubs eyes* Lyric, please stop. You're being hysterical, casting allegations far and wide that have no basis in fact. You add nothing to the discussion, and you make those of us arguing for government controls on businesses look ridiculous.

I'm a tad conflicted on outsourcing. On the one hand, I think the people of Asia, Africa, etc. have the same right to prosperity as Americans. On the other hand, those people are working in horrible conditions (and saying that it's better than what came before isn't persuasive- a shot to the head is better than starving to death, but you don't necessarily want either), and Americans also need jobs.

Ideally, Indian/Vietnamese/Chinese/whatever companies would employ their countrymen; it's quite possible, especially in a country with such a huge population and relatively good education (publicly funded, incidentally) as India. I think the reason that it isn't happening is that companies from other countries, notably the US, are filling up the business space. The best way to deal with this would be for India to bar or limit the presence of foreign companies; Indian entrepeneurs would then fill in the business vaccuum.

I do think that globalization is inevitable, and that the best way to ensure world peace and prosperity is to make every nation economically dependent on the rest. However, I don't think that allowing American and European companies to form world hegemonies is the way to go about accomplishing this.

In the meantime... Well, I don't know. I'd say that the main thing the US should do to improve employment at home is to encourage growth throughout the world. One of the best ways to accomplish this is by having experts go to these countries and work with them to increase infrastructure and industry; many of these countries have no native engineering talent yet, so they need outside help.

Anyway: One of the programs that I approve spending taxes on is universal health care. I support this for more than mere moral reasons- I think that giving everyone access to health care will result in a net increase in productivity. By reducing or eliminating the concerns of employees about health care costs, these employees will be able and willing to go to a doctor for a check-up, to get a treatment for the sniffles; this is one afternoon at work missed, at most, with no immediate cost to the employee. Without universal health care, though, said employee may be too worried about the cost and not get a check-up. Said sniffles may develop into the flu or pneumonia, which may result in several days or multiple weeks of work missed, or (in very rare cases) even a death; obviously, this results in much more productivity lost than the afternoon taken off to get a free check-up. In addition, live or die, the employee probably has several thousand dollars in health care costs they need to pay of. I'm willing to bet that those costs are greater than the price in taxes for a health-care system.

As for debt: I would say that the greater cause of that is that there are so many things Americans have to buy as a part of basic life. Aside from food (which can cost a huge amount, especially for families that have children), clothing (same as above), house payments or rent (the cost of which is rising every day), and health insurance (there's $500 a month, right there), families are also almost required to own a car, which involves the price of the car itself, plus gas, car insurance, and maintenance. The reason that you need a car is that, with the exception of a few very large cities, most of the United States is not covered by public transportation. There is no economic reason to do so in many areas; for example, I live out in the foothills of California, and if you don't have a car here, you walk. The only way to provide public transportation in areas like mine- so scattered and poor that private-run bus lines have no reason to come here- is through government funding- through taxes.

Taxes are necessary to keep the government running, and to allow the government to do all that is necessary to ensure personal freedoms and economic growth. The government, in turn, is necessary to keep so complex a society as ours running smoothly, with no one being cast aside due to personal inability.

Anyway: One of the programs that I approve spending taxes on is universal health care. I support this for more than mere moral reasons- I think that giving everyone access to health care will result in a net increase in productivity.
That's nice, but you're going to then be forcing some people to pay for the healthcare of others. That's immoral, because you're advocating theft.



As for debt: I would say that the greater cause of that is that there are so many things Americans have to buy as a part of basic life.
Perhaps the cost might go down if there weren't so many regulations?


The reason that you need a car is that, with the exception of a few very large cities, most of the United States is not covered by public transportation. There is no economic reason to do so in many areas; for example, I live out in the foothills of California, and if you don't have a car here, you walk.
Actually, a lot of cities would rather not have any competition with their public systems, so private alternatives are discouraged in numerous ways.


Taxes are necessary to keep the government running, and to allow the government to do all that is necessary to ensure personal freedoms and economic growth. The government, in turn, is necessary to keep so complex a society as ours running smoothly, with no one being cast aside due to personal inability.
Governments aren't necessary--they are an imposition and have as much philosophical justification as the notion of "god".

That's nice, but you're going to then be forcing some people to pay for the healthcare of others. That's immoral, because you're advocating theft.
Its not theft if you agree to pay taxes in the social contract.


Governments aren't necessary--they are an imposition and have as much philosophical justification as the notion of "god".
Government is a result of the social contract created by people. Its that or the state of nature.

1. How about we ask those who were negatively impacted by it a hundred years ago. How about we ask what THEY think.
How about if we ask them aren't they glad their very lives were sucked away from them so that we, in the future, could have a better life, while theirs was miserable?
Try this one on someone who cares next time. Telling me that the results of the Industrial Revolution are invalid because a certain group of people got shafted a century ago is like telling me America should be dismantled because of what we did to the Indians, or telling me that the Germans should be wholly responsible for maintaining and protecting Israel for the remainder of human history. This generation [and, by extension, me] does not inherit the shortcomings of the previous ones, no matter how bad they did fuck up.

Did some bad things happen to people during the Industrial Revolution? Sure. Have bad things historically happened to certain people during the entirety of human history? Again, yes. Life on this planet is often short, brutish, and sometimes downright crappy; it has been not since the Industrial Revolution but since the beginning of recorded history.

2. Yeah? The private sector does such a wonderful job with helping out poor, needy people, don't they? (can you smell the sarcasm?)
Actually, yes. Private charities are widley credited with being more efficient with the money the do end up getting.

3. something we agree on, at least, the bolded part...but we come to different conclusions based on the same observances.
I say the way to give consumers more confidence is to hire more people, see less people unemployed, and see wages go up, and buying power go up...which means MORE WAGES. Less for dividends going to asshole wastrel lazy fucking white-collar stockholders who never DO a goddamn thing.
Next time you think about bitching about the "fucking white-collar stockholders who never DO a goddamn thing" take a moment to consider what amount of productivity [hopefully] landed him in that position in the first place. Consider that by way of his investments, he is [generally] creating jobs for other people while earning a living for himself and staying off the streets.

For all the complaining the Left does about the Market, they fail to understand that it's come a lot closer to Marx's vision of the worker owning the means of production than Communism ever did: If you'd take a moment to examine the purpose and function of the stock market, it allows citizens to purchase a portion of a company, i.e., the means of production. It allows him to invest in order to create opportunities for himself, and [more importantly to you] others.

Then they should be penalized for it. HUGE taxes for companies that DARE to outsource jobs to get around regulations and paying fair decent wages to Americans.
If our corporations refuse to behave like good citizens, then we should punish them.
I don't think you understand the economic [not to mention moral]rammifications of these policies. On a very basic level, it forces your corporations into a losing situation, since these policies obviously prevent them from getting the labor they need to move $PRODUCT on an international level. $5 an hour might be cutting it a little close in this country, but it's kind of expensive for the unskilled labor you'd find overseas. In the end, economic "policy" like this will ultimately force business owners overseas to start businesses to contravene your laws and, depending on your trade policy, ignore your markets altogether.

Also, I really love that last part. I can see Authoritarianism is still alive in the Left. It's good to know you guys still know what a Good Citizen should behave like.

I hope I'm not one of them.

Its not theft if you agree to pay taxes in the social contract.
IFF, and if that contract is "imposed" on you, then you didn't agree to it.


Government is a result of the social contract created by people. Its that or the state of nature.
False dichotomy.

What, counterexamples saying that unlimited capitalism won't solve all (or any) of our problems? Well, that's bloody simple- you need but look at the conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_problems). Entire families- including children- working from before dawn till after dusk. No education for children whose parents couldn't afford it. Horribly unpleasant and dangerous working conditions. The absolute inability to do anything about it, because unions were illegal and if you tried to strike, you were fired and the company just grabbed another poor sap to fill your spot. Take away regulations on businesses, and this will only happen again.
Don't you know? Suffering is freedom!

For some reason, Americans resist taxes more than anyone else. We see it as the government stealing our money. Americans, more than anyone else, simply don't grasp that tax money is not raked into a huge pile and set aflame. Tax money goes to police forces, road construction, social welfare, military forces (although I would have less go there than to social welfare), schools, and so on.
It's because Americans still believe in the veneer of individualism. They think that the world doesn't really exist beyond their line of sight.

Also, I really love that last part. I can see Authoritarianism is still alive in the Left. It's good to know you guys still know what a Good Citizen should behave like.

I hope I'm not one of them.
Yeah! Not that I agree with Letila's crude proposals, but just rememberthat any type of government is authoritarian. All of them enforce "good citizenship". Only Letila actually comes out and says it.

(Oddly enough, Letila claims to be against government, so why does he favour a tax?)

In conclusion, fight tha powa!

IFF, and if that contract is "imposed" on you, then you didn't agree to it.
Its been awhile since I've dealt with hobbs and locke so I don't recall the two different types of dealing with the social contract. But answer me this. Do you follow the laws, vote for the leaders, and reap the benefits from the government of the country you live in?



False dichotomy.
If there is no government then what else is there? Can you tell me what else there is other then the state of nature if governments cease to exist?

Yeah! Not that I agree with Letila's crude proposals, but just rememberthat any type of government is authoritarian. All of them enforce "good citizenship". Only Letila actually comes out and says it.

(Oddly enough, Letila claims to be against government, so why does he favour a tax?)

In conclusion, fight tha powa!
It's Lyric, not Letila. Also, I thought morals were subjective? If they are, by what measure does one determine whether a citizen is 'good' or not? Surely you don't think in terms of black and white do you?

These companies are doing what they're doing because the demand for their product has either forced them to, or the market for their product is so lucrative that they need mass labor. Anticapitalists fail to understand that you make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.

It's Lyric, not Letila. Also, I thought morals were subjective? If they are, by what measure does one determine whether a citizen is 'good' or not? Surely you don't think in terms of black and white do you?

These companies are doing what they're doing because the demand for their product has either forced them to, or the market for their product is so lucrative that they need mass labor. Anticapitalists fail to understand that you make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.

Well said as always, Melkor. Here, have a beer.

*Tossed an ice-cold can of his favorite brand of beer to him*

1. Where. I see no proof that corporations care about their workers.


Of course you do.
HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I SEE AND WHAT I DON'T SEE?? WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF?!!?!
Goddammnit, this is why you are on my ignore list. You fucking ram your view on everyone else, and insist everyone sees what you see...but when someone else sees something different, you will not accept it. You are doing nothing but pissing me the fuck off. AND YOU ARE PROVING NOTHING, EXCEPT MAYBE HOW FUCKING ANNOYING YOU ARE!!



2. CARING also does not include forcing employees to yield to give-backs while management gets raises.


Caring does not include forcing employers to pay more for employees than they can afford.

If they can AFFORD raises for MANAGEMENT...then they can afford raises for workers. They just don't want to because they are evil bastards.


CARING does not include downsizing and laying off people while giving your top executives RAISES.


Ah yes--that old lie.

Lie, my ass!! The airline industry is NOTORIOUS for it!!
And if you CARE about your workers, you don't throw them to the wolves, just so that you can pay your top execs, and your white collar stockholders more money.

You have proven nothing, BAAWA, except, of course, what an annoying person you really are. And exactly why you are on my ignore list. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I SEE AND WHAT I DON'T SEE?!?!
Besides, I don't see it...and you have yet to show me any PROOF of your words.

YOU FUCKING PROVE IT, GODDAMN YOU!!!

Your caring side is really showing through right now.

I care about others, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF MY ABILITY TO EARN A LIVELIHOOD!!

Sorry, but if it is ME or THEM that get to earn a livelihood, then tough cheese for them. I am an AMERICAN, damnit!! And these are AMERICAN companies. They should be hiring AMERICANS FIRST AND FOREMOST!!

Of course. When it comes to caring, you can only go so far before the hypocrisy shines through.

At least I DO care. Just not to the point where my caring about others KILLS me!!
You, on the other hand, obviously give a shit about no one but your own damn self. You are obviously a rich person who has no heart.

So if Nike doesn't build sweatshops the indigenous people will die.

How did they live before Nike?

Thank you. My point exactly. They survived and lived long before the sweatshops. They know how to survive, without a formal job...in the area of the world they live in.

I have no idea how to survive without a formal job. I have never known any other way of life. They have.

So it wrong for people in other countries to get the jobs that might have gone to you and the end result is that you die.

But on the other side its alright to keep the jobs in this country thereby denying the jobs to the people in the third world country and causing them to die.

Does anyone else see a problem with this logic?

THEY won't die. They survived before the sweatshops and formal jobs. They know how to survive without a formal job. I do not. I have never known any other way except working at a formal job.

THEY will not die. THEY know how to survive without the sweatshops.

By doing work that was crappier than being in a Nike sweatshop. How do I know this? Because if the work they had been doing before Nike showed up had been better than working in a sweatshop they would never have taken the jobs at the sweatshops.

But my point was that if it is immoral for corporations to put people out of work then it must be immoral for governments to force corporations to shut down their sweatshops.

It is immoral for corporations to put AMERICANS out of work, and go over to the Third World and exploit the natives, by paying them shit wages...all to get around regulations set up in this country. They are practicing, over there, the same bullshit they used to practice here, back in The Gilded Age, before our government MADE them stop.

THEY won't die. They survived before the sweatshops and formal jobs. They know how to survive without a formal job. I do not. I have never known any other way except working at a formal job.

THEY will not die. THEY know how to survive without the sweatshops.

Wow I guess all people in third world countries automatically know how to farm and live off the land. God and I thought there was some sort of food problems in these countries I must have been mistaken. You say your for workers rights and that the companies are evil but when we really get down to it your for


Sorry, but if it is ME or THEM that get to earn a livelihood, then tough cheese for them. I am an AMERICAN, damnit!! And these are AMERICAN companies. They should be hiring AMERICANS FIRST AND FOREMOST!!

This is irrelevent. Capitalism doesn't revolve around corporations caring about their workers, but rather market forces assuring an efficient result. Without government interference there would be a much higher standard of living and less unemployment. In fact market forces ARE the laws preventing corporate mayhem. Much of the outsourcing that you so loathe is caused by excessive regulation at home. Corporations would much rather stay close to the worker base, rather than go abroad. Hopefully that's something you'd think about.



Let me give you a list of things the government does that causes corporations to cut wages, workers, and outsourcing: Subsidies, corporate welfare, minimum wage laws, tax breaks & poor tax codes, corporate taxation, government monopolies, unions, the list goes on.

The government is the root of much of the issues you have with corporations.


MY ASS!!! Do you mean to tell me that if the government did not set a minimum wage, that corporations, out of the goodness of their hearts, would pay more money to people? I seriously fucking doubt it!!

And I am against corporate welfare, anyway. Why the fuck should wealthy companies get welfare and no one bitches about it...but a poor, needy person gets welfare and everyone is up in arms over it? HORSE-SHIT!!!

I thought money was the root of all evil or Jesus or something?

The love of money is the root of all evil.

I think I nailed my objection to Libertarianism down right there.

World Unemployment rates. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2129.html)
AS you can see world wide we're doing pretty good. No the US isn't on the top of the heap, but we do bloody well.

Move to Isle of Man or Jersey(doubt that's the state) where the unemployeement rate is .6% and.9% respectively.

What are you doing to market yourself? Are you making any effort to go back and get your degree? What job skills do you have on your resume'? Are you properly dressed (i.e. neatly, well grommed, professional looking) for interviews? Are you flaunting your status of being transexual? If you can't find work where you are you move to somewhere you can get a job. That's what our forefathers did. If you can't get the job that pays what you want, get a couple at lower pay. Do what you have to in order to survive so long as you are not robing others of their properties or rights. There are plenty of people out there that really don't give a rat's @$$ about your sexual preferances or status as long as you don't try to shove it in their face.


Yeah, I could really go back and get my degree if I'm working TWO jobs just to survive! Why don't you use your BRAINS??
Yes, I am properly dressed and groomed for interviews. My only problem is a rather deep voice that tends to give me away.
And I can't move somewhere else. I live with my mom now, because I cannot manage to care for myself anymore, thanks to a long string of unemployment. In short...I DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES WITH WHICH TO MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

And, in my experience, yes...generally people DON'T care. But a few rotten apples exist at every company, and they make it a grand-royal bitch for you to stay employed.
AND, in my experience, physically attractive people have an advantage in the workforce.
FURTHERMORE...it is my experience that, in bad economic times, the social "undesireables" are always first thrown on the shit heap...and always the last to be taken off during good economic times.

If you take two people, one being me...and one being any non-transsexual, non-gay person you want, black, white, Asian, I don't give a shit...and put us up for the same one job. Assuming that we both have equal skills, I am willing to lay a bet with you that 99 44/100 percent of the time, the other person gets the job and not me. Why? Because I am NOT physically attractive...and because I am a social "undesireable." Not that they will ever cop to that, of course.
They will always CLAIM something else, but in the end, I know what it really is.

It's no accident that 70 percent of transgender people are un- and or under-employed!

Just because you refuse to see it or acknowledge it, does not mean discrimination does not exist.

Alright, who set Lyric off this time?

They employ the workers, from the minimum wage earner worker on up.

Saying that all the excutives are setting themselves up to be rich at the expense of the workers and the poor is like saying that everyone on welfare is a lazy do nothing who pop out babies when they want a "raise".

All these statements do is highlight the MINORITY of the groups who make themselves the most visible. COme on. What news station is going to report on the company that is taking care of their employees when they can focus on a corporate scandel?

Heck look at Google as a real good example. Everyone over there is doing real good especially the owners. But they're plugging back a lot of the profits into their employees. Most businesses are like that. The profits don't just go in to thier pockets, they go into expanding the business which in turns employess more people. If you punish them for succeeding then there is less capital/profit and less incentive to expand.


PROVE to me that Google is REALLY doing good for their employees. PROVE that Google is doing the absolute best it could for it's employees.

You stick your head in wood chipper....it gets shredded off. That was a bad decision and wow de-facto death penalty!

However the kind of bad decision you are refering to do not instantly result in a death penalty. Yes you will suffer from them, there is no right to be free from suffering. But you DO have the chance to work you way out from it. And you have plenty of help if you are willing to work to find it. When was the last time you heard a news report of someone dying of starvation in this country? Do not count the stories of someone held prisoner and starved somewhere as that is abuse and another thread altogether.

You know DAMN well that isn't the kind of bad decision I meant!!

And, if all this help is out there, THEN WHERE THE FUCK IS IT?? WHERE'S MY HELP?!!?

Hmmm...I can either downsize and lay off 10,000 or my 100,000 workers thus allowing the remaining 90,000 to keep jobs or I can continue to run this company as is at it's loss and eventually shut down putting all 100,000 out of work

OR...you could cut the executive salaries enough to be able to maintain the whole 100,000 employees!!

Imagine that! Totally new concept!! Let the rich executive assholes take it on the chin for once!!

PROVE to me that Google is REALLY doing good for their employees. PROVE that Google is doing the absolute best it could for it's employees.

Prove to me that that Google's employees are doing the best for Google. Show me proof, that were Google to do the absolute best for its employees that the employees would work as hard as possible.

Which still seems to indicate that Nike's factories are improving the economic situation of families living in third world nations.

FUCK THEM!!! Nike is an AMERICAN corporation...they should be improving the economic situation of AMERICAN FAMILIES FIRST!!!

If they refuse to be good corporate citizens, then they should be hugely penalized for it. And that doesn't just go for Nike, it goes for ALL American corporations.

Far as I am concerned, if you close your factories over here, and put people over here out of work, your product should no longer be welcome here in the United States, and you should be taxed out the wazoo as a penalty, on top of it.

*rubs eyes* Lyric, please stop. You're being hysterical, casting allegations far and wide that have no basis in fact. You add nothing to the discussion, and you make those of us arguing for government controls on businesses look ridiculous.

I'm a tad conflicted on outsourcing. On the one hand, I think the people of Asia, Africa, etc. have the same right to prosperity as Americans. On the other hand, those people are working in horrible conditions (and saying that it's better than what came before isn't persuasive- a shot to the head is better than starving to death, but you don't necessarily want either), and Americans also need jobs.

Ideally, Indian/Vietnamese/Chinese/whatever companies would employ their countrymen; it's quite possible, especially in a country with such a huge population and relatively good education (publicly funded, incidentally) as India. I think the reason that it isn't happening is that companies from other countries, notably the US, are filling up the business space. The best way to deal with this would be for India to bar or limit the presence of foreign companies; Indian entrepeneurs would then fill in the business vaccuum.

I do think that globalization is inevitable, and that the best way to ensure world peace and prosperity is to make every nation economically dependent on the rest. However, I don't think that allowing American and European companies to form world hegemonies is the way to go about accomplishing this.

In the meantime... Well, I don't know. I'd say that the main thing the US should do to improve employment at home is to encourage growth throughout the world. One of the best ways to accomplish this is by having experts go to these countries and work with them to increase infrastructure and industry; many of these countries have no native engineering talent yet, so they need outside help.

Anyway: One of the programs that I approve spending taxes on is universal health care. I support this for more than mere moral reasons- I think that giving everyone access to health care will result in a net increase in productivity. By reducing or eliminating the concerns of employees about health care costs, these employees will be able and willing to go to a doctor for a check-up, to get a treatment for the sniffles; this is one afternoon at work missed, at most, with no immediate cost to the employee. Without universal health care, though, said employee may be too worried about the cost and not get a check-up. Said sniffles may develop into the flu or pneumonia, which may result in several days or multiple weeks of work missed, or (in very rare cases) even a death; obviously, this results in much more productivity lost than the afternoon taken off to get a free check-up. In addition, live or die, the employee probably has several thousand dollars in health care costs they need to pay of. I'm willing to bet that those costs are greater than the price in taxes for a health-care system.

As for debt: I would say that the greater cause of that is that there are so many things Americans have to buy as a part of basic life. Aside from food (which can cost a huge amount, especially for families that have children), clothing (same as above), house payments or rent (the cost of which is rising every day), and health insurance (there's $500 a month, right there), families are also almost required to own a car, which involves the price of the car itself, plus gas, car insurance, and maintenance. The reason that you need a car is that, with the exception of a few very large cities, most of the United States is not covered by public transportation. There is no economic reason to do so in many areas; for example, I live out in the foothills of California, and if you don't have a car here, you walk. The only way to provide public transportation in areas like mine- so scattered and poor that private-run bus lines have no reason to come here- is through government funding- through taxes.

Taxes are necessary to keep the government running, and to allow the government to do all that is necessary to ensure personal freedoms and economic growth. The government, in turn, is necessary to keep so complex a society as ours running smoothly, with no one being cast aside due to personal inability.


I'm sorry, Penterra, but these heartless capitalist bastards really piss me off. Badly.

FUCK THEM!!! Nike is an AMERICAN corporation...they should be improving the economic situation of AMERICAN FAMILIES FIRST!!!
Its a free market baby they don't have to do a damn thing you say as long as they play withing the rules. And if Nike feels the need to want to open factories in third world countries then they can.

If they refuse to be good corporate citizens, then they should be hugely penalized for it. And that doesn't just go for Nike, it goes for ALL American corporations.
Its a GLOBAL FUCKING ECONOMY now. The isolationist view of keep american companies in america and let the other places have companies from their countries is outdated. You won't make money if you can't go global when your a corporation. And who the hell are you to say where I can start a buisness or not. Its a free market and I'll put a factory where ever I feel like it. If you don't like it don't buy the product but you have no right to tell a buisness person where they can operate.

Far as I am concerned, if you close your factories over here, and put people over here out of work, your product should no longer be welcome here in the United States, and you should be taxed out the wazoo as a penalty, on top of it.
As far as I'm concerned if a company closes a factory over here and moves it to another place if you don't like it don't buy their products. But don't think for one damn second that you can penalize a buisness just because it doesn't go where you want it to. Its called capitalism and its the system we operate with. So as far as I'm concerend your out of luck if the company decides to move else where. As you so eleoquently put it

tough cheese for them

I'm sorry, Penterra, but these heartless capitalist bastards really piss me off. Badly.

Heartless capitalist bastards??? Your the one going FUCK THEM!!! to the third world country workers.

Alright, who set Lyric off this time?

You really want to know??

BAAWA...that's who!

Biggest grand-royal piss-off artist I have encountered in quite some time!

Prove to me that that Google's employees are doing the best for Google. Show me proof, that were Google to do the absolute best for its employees that the employees would work as hard as possible.

That doesn't matter. It comes as a given. You do your job as well as you possibly can, or you don't KEEP your job. most people want to keep their jobs, and so they DO do the best they can.

That doesn't matter. It comes as a given. You do your job as well as you possibly can, or you don't KEEP your job. most people want to keep their jobs, and so they DO do the best they can.

I would tend to disagree with you there. I, personally, have slacked off on many jobs.

That doesn't matter. It comes as a given. You do your job as well as you possibly can, or you don't KEEP your job. most people want to keep their jobs, and so they DO do the best they can.

I have never had a job that I did as well a I possibly could. Workers work just hard enough so that they don't lose their job, which, due to the cost and time of the hiring process and inefficiencies of managers, is not that difficult to do.

Heartless capitalist bastards??? Your the one going to the third world country workers.

Yeah? Well, damnit, I don't want others to do well AT MY EXPENSE!!!

Does that make me evil?

I fucking deserve a job more than they do. I have 15 years of experience working.

these are AMERICAN companies going over there...they should be employing AMERICANS FIRST!!!

Fuck the rest of the world...when AMERICA is doing well...THEN, American companies can go over to the rest of the world. WE NEED THOSE FUCKING JOBS IN AMERICA, GODDAMNIT!!

I would tend to disagree with you there. I, personally, have slacked off on many jobs.

Office Space :D

I would tend to disagree with you there. I, personally, have slacked off on many jobs.

Well, I never fucking have!!
I have an incredible work ethic. I ALWAYS believe in doing my best.

In fact, I am forever in competition with my own self on every job...I always want to do better than I did the day before...I am always trying to break my own records.

Maybe I'm not like everyone else. But I would assume everyone tries to do their best, because you want to keep your job.

Being as I am a transsexual, I am given less rope with which to hang myself, on a job, than are other people. Therefore, it behooves ME to be faster, brighter, quicker, smarter than everybody else.

It is no accident that I am often the top producer wherever I work. It is because I drive myself THAT HARD...out of fear of losing my job.

Yeah? Well, damnit, I don't want others to do well AT MY EXPENSE!!!

Which explains your socialist views.

I fucking deserve a job more than they do. I have 15 years of experience working.

Have you been working since birth?

Yeah? Well, damnit, I don't want others to do well AT MY EXPENSE!!!

Does that make me evil?
So if they get jobs and get paid because a company moves there its at your expense? Well then if a company goes to america and gives you a job isn't that at the expense of the third world worker? Why should you not have others do well at your expense and these people let you do well at your expense?

I fucking deserve a job more than they do. I have 15 years of experience working.
You deserve nothing when it comes to a job. You get what you get if the company hires you not because you have some sort of sense of entitlment.

these are AMERICAN companies going over there...they should be employing AMERICANS FIRST!!!
Its a global economy so guess what American companies can go where ever they damn please. There is nothing in the constitution, bill of rights, etc that garuntees you a job or requires a company that is started in America to remain here.

Fuck the rest of the world...when AMERICA is doing well...THEN, American companies can go over to the rest of the world. WE NEED THOSE FUCKING JOBS IN AMERICA, GODDAMNIT!!
America is doing well. Granted we aren't as prosperous as we once were but we are still up there and doing much better then the third world countries. Oh and saying fuck the rest of the world isn't a good way to make friends.

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I SEE AND WHAT I DON'T SEE?? WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF?!!?!
Goddammnit, this is why you are on my ignore list. You fucking ram your view on everyone else, and insist everyone sees what you see...but when someone else sees something different, you will not accept it. You are doing nothing but pissing me the fuck off. AND YOU ARE PROVING NOTHING, EXCEPT MAYBE HOW FUCKING ANNOYING YOU ARE!!






If they can AFFORD raises for MANAGEMENT...then they can afford raises for workers. They just don't want to because they are evil bastards.





Lie, my ass!! The airline industry is NOTORIOUS for it!!
And if you CARE about your workers, you don't throw them to the wolves, just so that you can pay your top execs, and your white collar stockholders more money.

You have proven nothing, BAAWA, except, of course, what an annoying person you really are. And exactly why you are on my ignore list. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I SEE AND WHAT I DON'T SEE?!?!
Besides, I don't see it...and you have yet to show me any PROOF of your words.

YOU FUCKING PROVE IT, GODDAMN YOU!!!

You calm down NOW, or else risk the possibility of receiving official action. You're borderline flaming, Lyric, so I suggest you take a breather immediately.

http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp

This article is way too long to copy and paste, so I'll just provide the link. For those who haven't heard from him, Frank Chodorov was a libertarian greatly influenced by anarcho-capitalist Albert Jay Nock. Anyway, this article is good stuff. Post your thoughts.

I sympathize with some aspects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism) of political libertarianism, and I think other aspects to be entirely insane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). I'm not inclined to read this article because of it's title. There appears to be an increasing tendency in American society to reduce very complex issues to "battles" between "good and evil." This mentality is especially common in the current Presidential Administration, and it has produced nothing good; it encourages rash action without thought or consideration of those being effected, whether citizens of foreign nations (like, say, Iraq) or our own citizens.

Since I'm not an anarchist, I believe that some amount of government is necessary - indeed, inevitable. Government functions are expensive and require funding, and thus require taxes. Income taxes that take a larger percentage from higher incomes than lower incomes are immoral; a genuine public good, the necessary and just function of government, protects everyone equally, thus no one should have to pay a higher percentage simply because he "can afford it." Thus, my preference for a flat tax.

I wonder, however, if taxes on corporations should be much higher. A corporation, after all, recieves special treatments and rights that a sole proprietorship (that is, actual individuals) do not recieve. If a group of people want to recieve extra services from the state, above and beyond the genuine public goods that the state provides real individuals, then surely these extra services should come at a higher price? Then again, with the elimination of crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and other anti-free market measures that corporations enjoy, one could probably lower corporate taxes and still take in more tax revenue than before.

Yeah? Well, damnit, I don't want others to do well AT MY EXPENSE!!!


Which explains your socialist views.

Oh come on now Vittos Ordination, that isn't just a socialist proposition. Would you want someone doing well at your expense, say by stealing your property or enslaving you?

No, I think every reasonable person is concerned about unfair advancement. The real difference is where each ideology draws the line at exactly what is mine, what is due to me.

You deserve nothing when it comes to a job. You get what you get if the company hires you not because you have some sort of sense of entitlment.

I'm curious about something here, let's try a brief thought experiment.

Replace "deserve" with "more qualified". Certainly with 15 years of job experience, Lyric is more qualified than a third world employee with no such experience. It is, however, this qualification, and a higher standard of living in the U.S., which makes Lyric unemployable.

OK, that's all obvious, here is the real question of the experiment (and it is a little off topic). What happens to our vaunted meritocracy when the rewardable merits are determined by those with the most economic power? It doesn't matter what you know or how well you work because right now we are interested in cheap labor and it would have been better for you to be totally unskilled and dirt poor.

When the rewardable merits change at the whim of those in power, do we really have an economy that truly rewards the most productive?

I'm curious about something here, let's try a brief thought experiment.
Whatever you want.

Replace "deserve" with "more qualified". Certainly with 15 years of job experience, Lyric is more qualified than a third world employee with no such experience. It is, however, this qualification, and a higher standard of living in the U.S., which makes Lyric unemployable.
Your point being. As long as an employer does not discriminate it is up to that employer to choose who to employ. The fact that Lyric is more qualified for a field of which we do not know has no bearing on the discussion about should companies be allowed to outsource.

When the rewardable merits change at the whim of those in power, do we really have an economy that truly rewards the most productive?
The economy does not reward people soley on who is more productive. There are numerous reasons a company will make money and being productive is just one of them.

Its been awhile since I've dealt with hobbs and locke so I don't recall the two different types of dealing with the social contract. But answer me this. Do you follow the laws, vote for the leaders, and reap the benefits from the government of the country you live in?
I don't vote, I follow the laws that should be followed because the coincide properly with morality, and whether or not I "reap benefits" has nothing to do with it.



If there is no government then what else is there? Can you tell me what else there is other then the state of nature if governments cease to exist?
Anarchy.

No, anarchy is not chaos.

No, anarchy is not chaos.

No, anarchy is not chaos.

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I SEE AND WHAT I DON'T SEE?? WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF?!!?!
From the fact that you see it, but deny it. You're so wrapped up in your hatred of anyone who is successful that you're just willfully disregarding the facts.


Goddammnit, this is why you are on my ignore list.
If I am, why do you respond to me?



If they can AFFORD raises for MANAGEMENT...then they can afford raises for workers. They just don't want to because they are evil bastards.
I'd like to see all of your evidence, please.



Lie, my ass!! The airline industry is NOTORIOUS for it!!
No it isn't.


Note: the tantrum Lyric threw is indicative of the infantile mentality of the socialist. It's all "gimmegimmegimmeGIMMEGIMMEGIMME." No regard for how things get produced. Just gimmeNOW. No regard for profit/loss. Just GIMMENOW. No regard for human action. No regard for consequences. Just immediate gratification of GIMMENOW.

At least I DO care.
Only for yourself.


Just not to the point where my caring about others KILLS me!!
Oddly enough, your stance would kill you.


You, on the other hand, obviously give a shit about no one but your own damn self. You are obviously a rich person who has no heart.
I've never made more than $27k/year.

Wanna tell me again that I'm a rich person? I dare you. C'mon--show everyone here just how far off the deep end you are. Demonstrate your insanity to everyone. Show how deep your hatred runs. Ignore reality and tell me again that I'm a rich person.

Lyric and BAAWA, knock it off.

BAAWA, you're not really arguing, you're just posting one sentence replies and asking for data without providing any noticable ethical backup or challenges yourself. While I seem to be in agreement with you on many points, your rather terse replies are understandably infuriating under the circumstances. I don't think there's a debate instructor in the world that would give you any points for just about anything you've said here.

Lyric, you're letting your emotions get the better of you. No one looks good when they type "FUCK $thing" in all caps while whining about 'heartless capitalists' and so forth. The lack of sympathy, pity, or other emotion does not render the argument itself invalid. You seem to know this on some basic level and are responding with an undue amount of hostility on account, though as mentioned above BAAWA's tactics aren't very conducive to constructive debate. If you'd like to debate with a heartless capitalist, debate with me. If not, you should probably avoid these threads.

You'll do well to avoid such remarks in the future, and especially in this thread. Same goes for BAAWA: I don't want to see you two goading each other anymore. I won't hand out any warnings yet, unless someone complains about it.

Lyric and BAAWA, knock it off.

BAAWA, you're not really arguing, you're just posting one sentence replies and asking for data without providing any noticable ethical backup or challenges yourself.
I don't need to. When someone makes a claim without backing it up, it is perfect and PROPER debate form to ASK for that backing material. If I say that an elf replaced my spark plugs, you'd ask for evidence. And you wouldn't have to provide anything in return, right? You'd just ask for evidence to back my blatant assertion.

My tactics are perfectly conducive to debate because I'm ASKING for a debate. When one side just posts blatant assertions, those assertions must be accompanied by SOMETHING to back them in order to have a debate! So asking for the backing material is quite necessary in this case, otherwise, a debate cannot happen.

Unless, of course, you happen to believe that debate is just about making an assertion and not backing it. But then, no debate prof would give you points for believing that or using that tactic.

Don't argue with me over this. If you'd prefer to assume my conjectures are incorrect, so be it; but don't talk back just for the sake of talking back. All I really need to hear right now is "Alright, I'll leave Lyric alone."

Oh come on now Vittos Ordination, that isn't just a socialist proposition. Would you want someone doing well at your expense, say by stealing your property or enslaving you?

No, I think every reasonable person is concerned about unfair advancement. The real difference is where each ideology draws the line at exactly what is mine, what is due to me.

I was being facetious, as it is hypocritical to say that you don't want others to do well at your expense and then espouse so many socialist notions.

I don't need to. When someone makes a claim without backing it up, it is perfect and PROPER debate form to ASK for that backing material. If I say that an elf replaced my spark plugs, you'd ask for evidence. And you wouldn't have to provide anything in return, right? You'd just ask for evidence to back my blatant assertion.

My tactics are perfectly conducive to debate because I'm ASKING for a debate. When one side just posts blatant assertions, those assertions must be accompanied by SOMETHING to back them in order to have a debate! So asking for the backing material is quite necessary in this case, otherwise, a debate cannot happen.

Unless, of course, you happen to believe that debate is just about making an assertion and not backing it. But then, no debate prof would give you points for believing that or using that tactic.

BAAWA, getting snippy with the mod. Is debating with Lyric really worth getting the mods on your case?

You calm down NOW, or else risk the possibility of receiving official action. You're borderline flaming, Lyric, so I suggest you take a breather immediately.
I'm sorry, Euro, but I do NOT appreciate someone else telling me what I see, and what I don't see!
Especially when it is someone whose views are so diametrically opposed to my own, telling me I see THEIR "proofs" yet they deny ever seeing any of MY proofs.

This BAAWA guy is, to my view, a major piss-off artist, which is why I have him on ignore. Problem is...when someone else quotes him, I still see his stuff!

Lyric and BAAWA, knock it off.

BAAWA, you're not really arguing, you're just posting one sentence replies and asking for data without providing any noticable ethical backup or challenges yourself. While I seem to be in agreement with you on many points, your rather terse replies are understandably infuriating under the circumstances. I don't think there's a debate instructor in the world that would give you any points for just about anything you've said here.

Lyric, you're letting your emotions get the better of you. No one looks good when they type "FUCK $thing" in all caps while whining about 'heartless capitalists' and so forth. The lack of sympathy, pity, or other emotion does not render the argument itself invalid. You seem to know this on some basic level and are responding with an undue amount of hostility on account, though as mentioned above BAAWA's tactics aren't very conducive to constructive debate. If you'd like to debate with a heartless capitalist, debate with me. If not, you should probably avoid these threads.

You'll do well to avoid such remarks in the future, and especially in this thread. Same goes for BAAWA: I don't want to see you two goading each other anymore. I won't hand out any warnings yet, unless someone complains about it.

Exactly my point. BAAWA is INFURIATING me. Economic Associates, on the other hand, while we do not agree, at least is not INFURIATING me...by asking me to always provide "proof" and then pooh-poohing everything I offer up, and meanwhile, offering up nothing to PROVE his end. That is why BAAWA is infuriating me, and making me go off the deep end!

You can only bang your head against the brick wall for so long, before it really begins to piss you off. BAAWA has long reached beyone my ability to tolerate.

I don't need to. When someone makes a claim without backing it up, it is perfect and PROPER debate form to ASK for that backing material. If I say that an elf replaced my spark plugs, you'd ask for evidence. And you wouldn't have to provide anything in return, right? You'd just ask for evidence to back my blatant assertion.

My tactics are perfectly conducive to debate because I'm ASKING for a debate. When one side just posts blatant assertions, those assertions must be accompanied by SOMETHING to back them in order to have a debate! So asking for the backing material is quite necessary in this case, otherwise, a debate cannot happen.

Unless, of course, you happen to believe that debate is just about making an assertion and not backing it. But then, no debate prof would give you points for believing that or using that tactic.

No, you are denying everything I offer up as proof...most of which, granted, is anecdotal...however, you refuse to acknowledge that these things occur. You, meanwhile, make your statements and offer nothing to back them up, and when someone asks YOU to back things up, you claim that you don't need to. And you do not see how that is INFURIATING??

YOU, BAAWA, appear to be the one who believes debate is making assertions without backing them up, for you have yet to back up a damned thing. You keep claiming you don't need to...and have the NERVE and the AUDACITY to tell ME what I see, and what I don't see!

and you do not see how THAT is infuriating??

I was being facetious, as it is hypocritical to say that you don't want others to do well at your expense and then espouse so many socialist notions.

You know, that kind of subtlety doesn't translate over text very well. :)

Your point being. As long as an employer does not discriminate it is up to that employer to choose who to employ. The fact that Lyric is more qualified for a field of which we do not know has no bearing on the discussion about should companies be allowed to outsource.


Sure it does, Lyric's qualifications have everything to do with outsourcing. I think we all know why outsourcing happens, companies seek a more optimal output to cost ratio. But that's obvious, I want to get what that means.

The economy does not reward people soley on who is more productive. There are numerous reasons a company will make money and being productive is just one of them.

In non-competative markets that is right. So that's what is going on. Fine. But I am trying to get to what that means.

If companies are not going to hire the most productive, but rather the most productive per cost that says something about our economy.

I think it says that we don't really have a true meritocracy. That the desired skills that will get you ahead change consistently and advancement is more a matter of luck than actual skill. Maybe I'm wrong, like I said I'm just bullshitting to see if we can get anywhere.

I think it says that we don't really have a true meritocracy. That the desired skills that will get you ahead change consistently and advancement is more a matter of luck than actual skill. Maybe I'm wrong, like I said I'm just bullshitting to see if we can get anywhere.

Now you're closer to hitting on the head what is REALLY infuriating me. I spent 15 years building up the kinds of skills employers said they wanted. And now, they tell me they don't want those skills anymore, they just want someone who will come cheap!
THAT is what is really pissing me off.

No, you are denying everything I offer up as proof...most of which, granted, is anecdotal...however, you refuse to acknowledge that these things occur. You, meanwhile, make your statements and offer nothing to back them up, and when someone asks YOU to back things up, you claim that you don't need to. And you do not see how that is INFURIATING??

YOU, BAAWA, appear to be the one who believes debate is making assertions without backing them up, for you have yet to back up a damned thing. You keep claiming you don't need to...and have the NERVE and the AUDACITY to tell ME what I see, and what I don't see!

and you do not see how THAT is infuriating??

Lyric, what did I just tell you?

Just leave him alone. Now.

Yeah, I could really go back and get my degree if I'm working TWO jobs just to survive! Why don't you use your BRAINS??
Yes, I am properly dressed and groomed for interviews. My only problem is a rather deep voice that tends to give me away.
And I can't move somewhere else. I live with my mom now, because I cannot manage to care for myself anymore, thanks to a long string of unemployment. In short...I DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES WITH WHICH TO MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

And, in my experience, yes...generally people DON'T care. But a few rotten apples exist at every company, and they make it a grand-royal bitch for you to stay employed.
AND, in my experience, physically attractive people have an advantage in the workforce.
FURTHERMORE...it is my experience that, in bad economic times, the social "undesireables" are always first thrown on the shit heap...and always the last to be taken off during good economic times.

If you take two people, one being me...and one being any non-transsexual, non-gay person you want, black, white, Asian, I don't give a shit...and put us up for the same one job. Assuming that we both have equal skills, I am willing to lay a bet with you that 99 44/100 percent of the time, the other person gets the job and not me. Why? Because I am NOT physically attractive...and because I am a social "undesireable." Not that they will ever cop to that, of course.
They will always CLAIM something else, but in the end, I know what it really is.

It's no accident that 70 percent of transgender people are un- and or under-employed!

Just because you refuse to see it or acknowledge it, does not mean discrimination does not exist.


All I can say is that if your interviews are anywhere near your posts, I wouldn't want to hire you either.

PROVE to me that Google is REALLY doing good for their employees. PROVE that Google is doing the absolute best it could for it's employees.

From Google's Web Site (http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=benefits.html)
Among the various benefits many Googlers enjoy:

* Health care for you and your family, plus on-site physician and dental care at our headquarters in Mountain View, California
* Vacation days and holidays, and flexible work hours
* Maternity and parental leave, plus new moms and dads are able to expense up to $500 for take-out meals during the first four weeks that they are home with their new baby
* Employee referral bonus program
* Employee assistance services for personal issues, childcare referrals, answers to financial and legal questions
* Learning opportunities and tuition reimbursement
* Adoption assistance
* Google Child Care Center, just five minutes from Google headquarters in Mountain View
* Back-up child care helps California parents when their regularly scheduled child care falls through
* Free shuttle service to several San Francisco, East Bay, and South Bay locations
* Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Incentive Program
* Employee discounts
* Onsite dry cleaning, plus a coin-free laundry room in the Mountain View office

This will have to be a start. Naturally you will claim that it's a sham because Google itself is claiming it. I am searching for independant newspaper articles. Unless you want to claim their bias or bought off status?

FUCK THEM!!! Nike is an AMERICAN corporation...they should be improving the economic situation of AMERICAN FAMILIES FIRST!!!

If they refuse to be good corporate citizens, then they should be hugely penalized for it. And that doesn't just go for Nike, it goes for ALL American corporations.

Far as I am concerned, if you close your factories over here, and put people over here out of work, your product should no longer be welcome here in the United States, and you should be taxed out the wazoo as a penalty, on top of it.

I'm sure someone has already said it, but I'm still catching up from last night. But I'm going to say it myself.

Your plan is to remove MY comsummer choices? You jumped all over someone else asking who they were to tell you what you see and don't see. How can you then turn around and tell me what I can and can't buy based on the companies choices?

That doesn't matter. It comes as a given. You do your job as well as you possibly can, or you don't KEEP your job. most people want to keep their jobs, and so they DO do the best they can.

Puh-leese. I see people at my work all the time doing only what is necessary to keep the job, not their best. We have a good core that gives 100% on a bad day, but there are still those few who don't want to do any more thatn they have to. Mostly those below the age of 25 to 30 I notice.

I'm sure someone has already said it, but I'm still catching up from last night. But I'm going to say it myself.

Your plan is to remove MY comsummer choices? You jumped all over someone else asking who they were to tell you what you see and don't see. How can you then turn around and tell me what I can and can't buy based on the companies choices?
I love you.

Puh-leese. I see people at my work all the time doing only what is necessary to keep the job, not their best. We have a good core that gives 100% on a bad day, but there are still those few who don't want to do any more thatn they have to.
And how do you make them work more? You know very well that in the majority of jobs, working more is not a guarantee to make more money or to move up. Particularly in manufacturing, or other non-knowledge jobs.
Incentive Wages don't work in practice, when an HR Department needs to keep track of it all - and often it's simply luck or experience that gets you going.
Capitalism doesn't automatically provide incentives for people to achieve more on a micro-level.

Mostly those below the age of 25 to 30 I notice.
Now you're starting to sound like one of those geriatric people yelling at them punk teenagers...

I love you.
I do hope KShaya puts that into his/her signature!

I love you.

Yeah Yeah Yeah...you just love me for my brains....Nobody appriciates my good looks anymore...

;)

I hope this link works. (http://macteens.com/more.php?id=1082_0_1_0_C)

But just in case and to spare you the searching:

One of the great benefits of attending ADHOC is the fact that you get to meet tons of smart and respectable people. Most of the attendees are active Mac developers, while others are representatives from major Mac-focused/involved organizations like Apple and Google.

That means you get real face-time with some of the guys who design and develop the stuff you use every single day. It's really interesting to hear some of the stories behind the software and just what, exactly, goes through these brilliant minds.

Aside:
By the way. Google doesn't know when Gmail will come out of beta and, despite belief to the contrary, they may actually keep it on an invitation-only basis once it is out.



For instance, there was a session titled "Get a job at Apple," given by two long-time Apple employees. They detailed, step-by-step, what's necessary when applying for a job at our favorite computer company, then started talking about what it's like to actually work there.

Aside:
Tips for those looking to work at Apple: Apple's recruiting style sucks. Most of the time, the best way for you to get a job at Apple is to A) apply online for every position you may be interested in and B) try to find someone at Apple who'd be willing to take your application and actually hand it to a hiring manager.

And did you know that Apple's cafeteria has different sections for different foods, like sushi, pizza, and pasta? That must be great.



There were two other sessions about "Working@Google," where Google employees talked about what it's like to work at one of the world's most innovative web companies.

Aside:
Here's what I learned: Google serves free breakfast, lunch, and dinner; their main campus has a pool, a gym, an on-site doctor, and a laundromat; it's company policy that, while on campus, there must be snacks (candy, cookies, fruit, drinks, etc.) within one hundred feet of every employee; employees get what they call 20% time where, for 20% of their hours working at Google, they can work on whatever they want (and many 20% projects are actually picked up and added as an official Google project, such as the soon-to-be-available Google Payments); and the employees get a $5,000 hybrid car allowance. Is that cool or what?

Want a job at Google (who wouldn't)? Well, like Apple, it's highly recommended that you find someone at Google who'd be willing to put a good word in for you; they apparently (and not surprisingly) get thousands of r�sum�s each week.



Not only were there great networking opportunities for business-related ventures; you actually had time to sit down and really converse with some of the others who were there. There were even exciting poker games among the attendees, one of which I jumped into.

Aside:
By the way. Don't ever play poker with programmers. Unless you're some sort of crazy masochist.


Still looking for more INDEPENDANT sources!

And how do you make them work more?
If anyone can answer this, you might have a future in management.

As a general rule, work habits are work habits; and most people will tranfer said habits from shift to shift or even from job to job. Wage raises are seldom used for increasing worker productivity, because it doesn't work. If it did, we would see a lot more of them. Unfortunately, employers have begun to discover that most people do not work harder if you throw more money at them, which is just another one of the many reasons why minimum wage laws are so goddamn ridiculous.

Raises are good for keeping employees who are good at what they do: they are used by employers to secure long term, productive employees. Hard work will get you noticed, but only if you do it right off the bat and keep it up. You can't just trigger a wage increase by working harder, which is an apparently widespread belief. I'm not saying you think this is the case [in fact I'm not so much challenging your point as I am elaborating on it], but many workers do and it generates a lot of frustration and even more unions.

Puh-leese. I see people at my work all the time doing only what is necessary to keep the job, not their best. We have a good core that gives 100% on a bad day, but there are still those few who don't want to do any more thatn they have to. Mostly those below the age of 25 to 30 I notice.

Okay, I'm gonna answer to TWO of your posts right here to save bandwidth.

First, okay...I'm 34...and I give my best. Perhaps some of these employees who aren't...maybe they sense the company is not doing THEIR best for their employees...or are otherwise pissed off with management, and it's their way of "getting even." I've seen that, and I'd be a liar to say I haven't. I'm personally incapable of that sort of thing, because I happen to be fiercelky competitive with my own self, seeking always to break my own production records, and do better than I did the day before. I'm not in competition with co-workers...only myself. But some co-workers can, have, and DO feel I'm competing with them, when I'm really not, I could give a rat's ass what they do. I compete with myself.

So maybe your company oughta fire one of these 25-30 year old slackers and give ME that person's job. What pisses ME off is that the slackers get hired, and the people like me, who work hard...we don't.

Second....re: your post above about Google. Well, I am not going to reject, out of hand, what you say about Google, just because it comes from Google's own web site...but I sure would give it a whole lot more creedence if it came from an independent source, or from an actual Google employee.

If what you post about Google IS true...then they are a good company. If so, then for every Google, there are a thousand asshole companies that screw their workers over every way possible. And just look at Google's profitability! In spite of how well they treat their workers (again, assuming the info you posted is true) look at how well they do as a company...I recently saw an article where Google is valued at over 100 billion dollars!

Maybe the rest of Corporate America could take a lesson from Google, then. Treat your employees right, and they, in turn, will do thier jobs better...and in the end everyone wins. No problem with that.

What I have a problem with is that, in most companies everyone EXCEPT workers win. If what you post about Google is true, and for the sake of argument, I will concede that it is...then Google has an environment where workers AND management wins! And a very good model for the rest of Corporate America.

Still, that's only ONE company you can name that does a fairly good job by it's employees. I still believe the vast majority of companies care more about their profits and their stockholders, and could give a rat's ass about their employees, and that is wrong-headed. It is penny-wise and dollar-foolish.

So, again...I will, for the sake of arguiment, go along with your statement about Google...but, again, I still would feel a lot better about it hearing it from an independent source, or, better still, an actual Google employee!

That said...Google has the right idea when it comes to how a company should be treating it's employees...and no wonder they do so well! Because their employees are motivated to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, because they have an employer who actually treats them well, and shows them that their employees MATTER to them.

My problem with Corporate America is that they seem to see workers, and labor...as expendable...as in, who gives a shit about them...it's always the workers who take it on the chin when things go bad...never management taking it on the chin.

It's high time that someone cared about the little guy. i'm sick of all the bigwigs getting ahead, by being assholes...and at the expense of the little guy.

If what you post is true, then it is proof that bigwigs CAN get ahead without being such assholes to the little guy. And more American corporations would do well to treat their employees as good as Google apparently treats theirs.

All I know is...I, personally, have never worked for a company where I felt that the company gave a rat's ass about me. I've worked for plenty of companies who have shafted the hell out of me, and one that even outright LIED to us about what our wages would be, when recruiting us.

The company that did that to us...well, they went to a piece-rate rather than an hourly rate...after acquiring the contract my former company was working on. They recruited a bunch of us to come on board with them, promising us our salaries would not be cut under the new structure. They lied. My salary went down nearly three bucks an hour! You understand my bitterness now?

And when confronted about what they had told us when we were recruited, their answer was....prove it, prove it, prove it...where is it in writing, prove we ever said that...etc.

Now do you see why you-know-who REALLY pisses me off? He reminds me of my old company. The one that lied to me and screwed me over.

Does it all make more sense for you now?

If so, then for every Google, there are a thousand asshole companies that screw their workers over every way possible...
Don't be ridiculous. If this were true, we wouldn't have a middle class [we have the world's largest]. If this were true, no employer would offer benefits [since most are not required by law] and jobs paying above minimum wage would be very scarce. Instead, we have the largest middle class in human history, benefits are plentiful, and I can make $7 an hour washing dishes.

Don't be ridiculous. If this were true, we wouldn't have a middle class [we have the world's largest]. If this were true, no employer would offer benefits [since most are not required by law] and jobs paying above minimum wage would be very scarce. Instead, we have the largest middle class in human history, benefits are plentiful, and I can make $7 an hour washing dishes.

Try looking at it from MY perspective.

I was working a fairly good job, making $10.50 an hour, processing claims for a company with a contract with Texas Medicaid.

When the contract came up for renewal, my company lost the bid.

We were informed that we had about eight months left to work.

The new company recruited a bunch of us (myself included) to come work for them, doing virtually the same job, when the current contract expired. They did say they paid on a piece-rate, rather than an hourly wage. They also said that they did not expect anybody's salary to be cut as a result...in fact, they said the average wage would work out to be between 11 and 13 bucks an hour...and the potential was there to earn up to 16 bucks an hour.

Well, that sounded pretty good to me, being as I was already an above-average worker (in fact, one of the top producers in my department.)

Well, why would I go out looking for another job, when I had one lined up and ready to go, the second the old job laid me off...and the new job would be, so I was told, paying me the same, or even more, than I was currently making?

THEN....reality!

The new company took over. The piece rates ended up so crappy that the company average was around 7 bucks an hour, and my own personal wage ended up at $7.97 an hour! So, as you can see, I was ahead of the company curve, thus it was not due to any inability on my part. But why was I suddenly worth $2.50 a hour less to do the same damned job, just because I had the misfortune of being with a company that had lost a contract?

When confronted about what they had promised us, when recruiting us...the answer was..."prove it...prove it...where's it in writing?...prove we ever said that!"

Let me break it down for you: I WAS FUCKING LIED TO!! I WAS CHEATED!!

By lying to all of us...this company, in effect, took away my ability to make an informed decision about my own career future, based upon truthful information! Had I known what the pay would actually be, I never would have applied for, nor accepted, employment with the new company...I would have had eight months, while still working, to have located better employment...and, failing that, I would have had a nice, safe layoff, and unemployment insurance.

Instead, I ended up quitting four months later, with nothing lined up, and no unemployment....because I finally decided I could no longer be pauperized, and I could no longer offer my efforts to an unethical, lying, piece of shit company.

Oh, and the kicker??

Part of the requirements of having a job with the new company was that you had to take a business ethics course, taught and administered by executives of this very corporation, that obviously knows nothing whatever about ethical and moral business practices!

For me that was the last straw!

NOW do you understand why I have the attitude towards corporations that I now do?

I have yet...in two years, been able to find a decent job...meaning one which pays at least as much as I had been making under the old company. And yet, my gasoline prices have fucking doubled!!

Everything is going up except my buying power, and my standard of living, and I'm fucking pissed about that, okay?

I was lied to and cheated by a company, and I'm still pissed off and bitter about it, even though it is two years in the past.

Piece of advice...if a company called ACS ever offers you a job....don't walk...RUN!!! These scumbags suck! They are, last I looked, by the way....number 447 on Fortune 500's list...so surely they could have afforded to do better by us employees, yet they failed to do so...worse, they lied to us!

NOW do you get it? NOW do you see the source of my antipathy towards corporate America?

And do you see the source of my irritation towards a certain player who can only say "prove it, prove it, prove it..." and offers up nothing whatever to justify his own statements?

He reminds me very much of this company who lied to me and cheated me. Nothing I could offer up was good enough to qualify as "proof" to them, either.

Not even a petition, signed by ten co-workers, who recalled being told the same thing about salaries that I recalled having been told...not even THAT was "proof" in their eyes. Do you NOW understand the source of my anger?

<snip>

So you had a bad experience with a company. You have ever right to be unhappy with that company and what it did. But you can not generalize about every other company based off of that. Melkor is right. There is a large middle class, employers offer benefits, and there are plenty of jobs that offer pay above minnimum wage. You can't condemn all buinesses because of a few shitty ones.

So you had a bad experience with a company. You have ever right to be unhappy with that company and what it did. But you can not generalize about every other company based off of that. Melkor is right. There is a large middle class, employers offer benefits, and there are plenty of jobs that offer pay above minnimum wage. You can't condemn all buinesses because of a few shitty ones.

The problem is, I am now convinced that every company would LOVE to do to it's workers, what was done to me...and would, too...if they thought they could get5 away with it.

I am convinced that companies do NOT care about their workers. It will take me finding a job with a good company, that treats it's employees right...to change my mind.

Oh, and P.S. If there REALLY are only a FEW shitty ones...then why do I always end up working for the shitty ones, and never for the good ones?

The problem is, I am now convinced that every company would LOVE to do to it's workers, what was done to me...and would, too...if they thought they could get5 away with it.
Your basing an opinion of a huge, HUGE amount of companies based on your interaction on your experiences with a very small amount of them. Generalizations like that don't lead to anything productive.

I am convinced that companies do NOT care about their workers. It will take me finding a job with a good company, that treats it's employees right...to change my mind.
Just because your conviced of something it doesn't mean your right. There are people who are convinced evolution is wrong or of other things but that doesn't mean anything. Statistics, articles, and proof is what really matters and there is no proof that the majority of companies want to screw over their workers.

Oh, and P.S. If there REALLY are only a FEW shitty ones...then why do I always end up working for the shitty ones, and never for the good ones?
Because your interaction with buisnesses is minute compared to the actual amount of them. You may think that there may be a bunch of shitty ones near you but that doesn't take into account the huge amount of buisness elsewhere and the good ones by you. Generalizations like this only hurt you rather then help you.

The problem is, I am now convinced that every company would LOVE to do to it's workers, what was done to me...and would, too...if they thought they could get5 away with it.
Based on what? Your experiences and the stories the media drops in your lap? Besides, if a corporation will automatically enslave everyone if given the chance, what's to stop a government from taking the same avenue?

I am convinced that companies do NOT care about their workers.
Yeah, because we all know how well off they'd be without them.

It will take me finding a job with a good company, that treats it's employees right...to change my mind.
For someone who paints herself as being so selfless, this is a really contrary way to approach your point. You're basically saying that your experiences alone [say nothing of anyone elses, or black and white statements of comany benefit and wage policy] are the only measure of how well the private sector treats its workers.

Oh, and P.S. If there REALLY are only a FEW shitty ones...then why do I always end up working for the shitty ones, and never for the good ones?
Answering this question would be an impossibility, and I suspect you know it. Anyone who answers obviously isn't you, so they can't account for your experiences or answer for the things that have gotten in your way. When people ask questions like this is when I get the distinct impression the speaker is grasping for some fairly enormous straws.