Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Hey. [reads thread]

I try not to argue online much anymore, because it's really a no win situation no matter what you're arguing. That said, two points, because I have somehow been name dropped:

a.) Independent contractor and/or temp work won't save the legal profession, or other professions. They do pay terribly for legal work in any case. They have leverage; you don't. Personally, I agree with the article. As pertains to professionals, you get good at something by repeatedly doing it. Doing one shot jobs doesn't provide that. There's a reason military equipment built by the lowest bidder often fails in the field....

b.) I do not understand this notion that businesses are not there to support people. It is. Good businesses used to care about the product they sold and the people they hired--trying to get the best from both. "The customer is always right," is all but dead. Companies don't care if you have to wait an hour or more on customer service lines while hearing your call is important to the company. Said company will not hire anybody to take your call. They will sell you increasingly crappy products with no support, at higher prices while hoarding money and complaining they never have enough.

We are in a race to the bottom. Giving corporations money when they are sitting on mountains of it will not help. If it would help, then how much cash do they need before they finally start spending some of it? Companies will not hire until sales improve. Sales will not improve until people can afford to buy things. We've tried throwing money at companies; not working.

c.) As for when societal change solves those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_movement
40 hour work weeks, overtime, weekends off, paid vacations, sick leave, 8 hour days, and everything else labor got by incredibly hard work was that societal change. Tragically, it's past tense or quickly becoming that. Keep in mind, none of these things hurt the economy back then, not one bit. Rather, this lead to one of the largest economic expansions in American History.

[SalmonGod]

On the point of whether or not businesses exist to support people:

I understand that currently they don't.  I don't think many people dispute that.  The argument is that they should.

Businesses and the general societal structures they are founded on are social constructs designed and supported by human beings, with the theory and intention that they will facilitate a higher quality of life for the general population.  The business is a structure that provides goods and services to people in exchange for money, which in turn distributes that money among the people who work within the business to provide that good/service so that they can afford a decent quality of life through the purchase of other goods/services.

As others have pointed out, it's a cyclical formula for the distribution of resources among the population, and the problem is that a certain class of operators within the cycle has succeeded in subverting it to their exclusive advantage.  Instead of participating in the distribution of resources and elevation of the quality of life for society, they have made the entire system work to elevate their own quality of life at the majority's expense.

So saying that businesses don't exist to support us is kind of missing the point.  They're supposed to and that's why they exist.  The fact that they currently don't is something that there should be broad cultural concern, discussion, and action to address, not acceptance.  Frankly, it should be understood universally and without question that no one should agree to work for a business that doesn't participate honestly in the cycle as it's intended to operate (to support people), and that we need to support each other in order to survive in the process of starving bad business out of existence.  That or tax the hell out of them to directly cancel out the effects of their treasonous greed.

[Moghjubar]

So..... anyone in Florida? Because if you are reading this you had better turn yourself in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/florida-banned-computers_n_3561701.html

One of the guys is fighting back:
"The owner, Consuelo Zapata, is now suing the state after her legal team found that the ban was so hastily worded that it can be applied to any computer or device connected to the Internet"

[XXSockXX]

Frankly, it should be understood universally and without question that no one should agree to work for a business that doesn't participate honestly in the cycle as it's intended to operate (to support people), and that we need to support each other in order to survive in the process of starving bad business out of existence.  That or tax the hell out of them to directly cancel out the effects of their treasonous greed.

Overtaxing can be crippling for businesses, especially small/medium sized ones. Hoping the population will ignore bad business isn't gonna work, people will often choose to buy the cheapest goods for economical reasons and will take bad jobs over no job.
The solution is more regulation. If unions have a strong influence in society and businesses are forced to implement Works councils, there is a very decent chance bad businesses will be forced to change their ways or quit. Labour regulations were one of the main reasons Wal-Mart failed in Germany (besides strong competition).

[Descan]

... I need to move to Germany.

[XXSockXX]

... I need to move to Germany.

Eh, there is a lot of shady stuff in the business world going on too here. But at least unions and regulations are not seen as sceptical as in the US since the anti-communist panic.
In the case of Wal-Mart - they couldn't compete with local food discounters and their business practices were completely incompatible with labour regulations, which led to lots of law suits.

[SalmonGod]

Overtaxing can be crippling for businesses, especially small/medium sized ones.

Small/medium-sized businesses aren't generally the problem, and I didn't suggest overtaxing anyone.  Many megacorporations could withstand and definitely deserve some pretty severe taxation, at least for a period until they're no longer wasting the majority of the world's resources.

Hoping the population will ignore bad business isn't gonna work, people will often choose to buy the cheapest goods for economical reasons and will take bad jobs over no job.

I also didn't say it was realistic or that I expected it.  Just that it's the ideal, and it's not to humanity's credit that we're so easily divided and conquered by forces that rely completely on our investment in them.

Regulation is important, but vulnerable to subversion.  Its influence and operation in good faith can only be maintained by the vigilance of the people, which is a cultural issue, not a policy issue.  One must precede the other, and the necessary culture simply isn't present in America.  If it were, the business world here would be in a lot more trouble for its behavior.

[XXSockXX]

Small/medium-sized businesses aren't generally the problem, and I didn't suggest overtaxing anyone.  Many megacorporations could withstand and definitely deserve some pretty severe taxation, at least for a period until they're no longer wasting the majority of the world's resources.

I interpreted "tax the hell out of them" as overtaxing. Generally it seems to be difficult to find a balance in taxation, where only the megacorporations are taxed severely. There are always too many loopholes (like megacorporations consisting of many smaller ones) that allow the big ones to get away while the smaller ones have to bleed.

Regulation is important, but vulnerable to subversion.  Its influence and operation in good faith can only be maintained by the vigilance of the people, which is a cultural issue, not a policy issue.  One must precede the other, and the necessary culture simply isn't present in America.  If it were, the business world here would be in a lot more trouble for its behavior.

The cultural thing is an important point. In the US specifically worker friendly policies and institutions seem to be weirdly discredited, since I guess the McCarthy era.
There are huge cultural differences within Europe too, France and Germany for example both have strong unions, but France has a very strong strike culture, to the point that it's almost crippling, while Germany has implemented a sort of forced dialogue between employers and workers that seems to lead to more negotiation instead of strikes.
Which system ultimately is the best I cannot say, but I tend to think that regulations can further growth of a culture where people are less willing to take shit from corporations.

Hoping the population will ignore bad business isn't gonna work, people will often choose to buy the cheapest goods for economical reasons and will take bad jobs over no job.

I also didn't say it was realistic or that I expected it.  Just that it's the ideal, and it's not to humanity's credit that we're so easily divided and conquered by forces that rely completely on our investment in them.

This is something that comes up in the media here a lot lately. The elites and the media blame the population for not buying more fair trade food or supporting clothing chains that produce in Bangladesh under inhumane conditions. My point of view is that a lot of people simply can't afford to not buy the cheapest goods available and cannot be blamed for making a choice that seems the most reasonable for them in their situation. You don't see a lot of poor people wearing old tattered clothing anymore or cheap jogging suits, but you shouldn't expect them to do so when corporations are allowed to offer semi-fashionable clothing at low prices (that are sustained by exploiting third world country workers).

[scriver]

So..... anyone in Florida? Because if you are reading this you had better turn yourself in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/florida-banned-computers_n_3561701.html

One of the guys is fighting back:
"The owner, Consuelo Zapata, is now suing the state after her legal team found that the ban was so hastily worded that it can be applied to any computer or device connected to the Internet"

That is both horribly hilarious and hilariously horrible.

[Sheb]

I'd rather exploit third-world countries' workers by making them toil away 16 hours a day in a flammable factory than let them starve. Such exploitation may be harsh, but for a state with a good industrial policy (see China, or Korea, Japan and Taiwain before them), it is a necessary step toward further development.

[Loud Whispers]

I'd rather exploit third-world countries' workers by making them toil away 16 hours a day in a flammable factory than let them starve. Such exploitation may be harsh, but for a state with a good industrial policy (see China, or Korea, Japan and Taiwain before them), it is a necessary step toward further development.

It is not a necessary avenue for development in one that requires people to sleep in cages like common animals where they would have been better off as subsistence farmers.

[Sheb]

First of all, being a subsistence farmer sucks. Sure, your sixteen hours of back-breaking labor are outside, so at least you get fresh air, but that's about it. The pay sucks, and you often don't even have enough to eat, while your factory labor at least buy you food. There is a reason most of the undernourished people globally are peasants and not workers, and why hundreds of millions of Chinese migrated to the cities.

Second, not only is it a necessary avenue for development, it's the only one. The north-east Asians states that now have developed status all did it. Basically, a developing country doesn't have the technological know-how to support a developed economy. The only way to get it is to use your competitive advantage (plenty of dirt-poor farmer ready to do anything for a sucky wage to get out of the field) to buy, beg and steal your way up the technological ladder. Japan did it twice, Taiwan did it, Korea did it. Now China is doing it, and it's starting to pay off: wages and conditions are rising, so much so that Chinese companies are now delocalizing some of their own operations.

[scriver]

They don't get enough pay to feed themselves. That's why their children are working as well instead of going to school.

[Sheb]

I'm not saying that being a third-world worker is cool. It sucks. My point is that a): It's better than being a subsistence farmer (children in rural housholds are much more likely to go hungry or not to attend school) and b) If you happen to live in a developing country, it's often a necessary step to get the technological know-how necessary for your children to have a better life later on.

[scriver]

In the western world, we only gained that knowledge because our wages were high enough to afford to pet our children go to school and get an education. If companies paid their workers better, they would be able to go directly to that "step". So no, paying developing world worker the kind of pitiful wages (without any other "benefits" like basic workplace safety at that) they currently are being paid is not a "necessary step". It is, in fact, counterproductive to the development of the country, and the only people profiting from it is the companies, and their customers in the western world.