Zookeeper wrote:

fnord wrote:

If the boards elected by the shareholders weren’t focused on reducing the workers to a subsistence level of compensation, these fights to the death wouldn’t occur.

Why is it that it's OK for consumers to always look for the best deal on the commodities they buy but if an employer applies the same principal when looking for employees they are evil?

Because it destroys the community silly.  So... when the boss comes in, and tells you the new immigrant will work for 1/2-1/3 of what you do, you'll race to the bottom to please Massa?

Zookeeper wrote:

fnord wrote:

If the boards elected by the shareholders weren’t focused on reducing the workers to a subsistence level of compensation, these fights to the death wouldn’t occur.

Why is it that it's OK for consumers to always look for the best deal on the commodities they buy but if an employer applies the same principal when looking for employees they are evil?

Not so much evil as retarded. Mistreated workers pose many hazards. Theft, crappy morale, safety hazards (from doing a crappy job), poor attendance due to untreated illnesses, disgruntled employee rampages, etc.....

It's bad for the bottom line to not treat the people making you money like human beings that deserve to earn a minimal standard of living. It costs SO FUCKING MUCH to find and train good employees, it doesn't make sense to treat them like disposable garbage. High turnover rates can cripple productivity and lose you business.

But most high-level management and board members of huge corporations could really give two shits about these issues, because they're getting theirs regardless of the bottom line. Smaller businesses like mine can't avoid considering these things, because we have no open line of government credit and can't fill the gaping holes with other people's money.

Last edited by sofaking (2008-12-14 00:20:47)

Zookeeper wrote:

fnord wrote:

If the boards elected by the shareholders weren’t focused on reducing the workers to a subsistence level of compensation, these fights to the death wouldn’t occur.

Why is it that it's OK for consumers to always look for the best deal on the commodities they buy but if an employer applies the same principal when looking for employees they are evil?

By that logic, I should only pay whatever price I feel like paying for a product, despite its quality, because that's the best deal for me.

DMTDust wrote:

Because it destroys the community silly.  So... when the boss comes in, and tells you the new immigrant will work for 1/2-1/3 of what you do, you'll race to the bottom to please Massa?

So you hate immigrants, is that it?  Seriously, I'll have to find another line of work if an unskilled immigrant can do as good a job or better for less.  That's the way the world works - same as if you can do a better job than me for less. 

orangeplus wrote:

If capital has the right to cross borders looking for the best deals, labor should be afforded the same right.

Capital has "rights"?

sofaking wrote:

Not so much evil as retarded. Mistreated workers pose many hazards. Theft, crappy morale, safety hazards (from doing a crappy job), poor attendance due to untreated illnesses, disgruntled employee rampages, etc.....

Yep.  Companies can make retarded decisions and suffer the consequences. 

sofaking wrote:

But most high-level management and board members of huge corporations could really give two shits about these issues, because they're getting theirs regardless of the bottom line.

And the companies suffer the consequences and/or workers can organize and/or go work for someone smarter like you.

fnord wrote:

Corporations no longer have any loyalty to their employees.

So?  What loyalty are you willing to demand of employees for corporations?  An employee can quit any time for any reason with zero notice no matter how badly it screws their employer or former coworkers.  They can do it in the middle of their work shift if they want.  They can do it in the middle of an important and expensive project and really screw over their employer (I've seen it more than once).   Do you give a shit about that?

Taint wrote:

By that logic, I should only pay whatever price I feel like paying for a product, despite its quality, because that's the best deal for me.

Well, sure if the person selling it will take the offer.  If you really want to be a stupid consumer and buy shit knock yourself out.  Will that make you an "evil" consumer somehow?  When I said "best deal" I wasn't suggesting that means a shitty worker.  That would be a "bad deal" for the employer.  But if employers really want to make bad deals for themselves by employing shitty workers let 'em.

sofa wrote:

(Funny YouTube vid)

Damn it!  I specifically logged back on tonight to post that very same video!

Zookeeper wrote:

DMTDust wrote:

Because it destroys the community silly.  So... when the boss comes in, and tells you the new immigrant will work for 1/2-1/3 of what you do, you'll race to the bottom to please Massa?

So you hate immigrants, is that it?  Seriously, I'll have to find another line of work if an unskilled immigrant can do as good a job or better for less.  That's the way the world works - same as if you can do a better job than me for less. 

orangeplus wrote:

If capital has the right to cross borders looking for the best deals, labor should be afforded the same right.

Capital has "rights"?

sofaking wrote:

Not so much evil as retarded. Mistreated workers pose many hazards. Theft, crappy morale, safety hazards (from doing a crappy job), poor attendance due to untreated illnesses, disgruntled employee rampages, etc.....

Yep.  Companies can make retarded decisions and suffer the consequences. 

sofaking wrote:

But most high-level management and board members of huge corporations could really give two shits about these issues, because they're getting theirs regardless of the bottom line.

And the companies suffer the consequences and/or workers can organize and/or go work for someone smarter like you.

fnord wrote:

Corporations no longer have any loyalty to their employees.

So?  What loyalty are you willing to demand of employees for corporations?  An employee can quit any time for any reason with zero notice no matter how badly it screws their employer or former coworkers.  They can do it in the middle of their work shift if they want.  They can do it in the middle of an important and expensive project and really screw over their employer (I've seen it more than once).   Do you give a shit about that?

Taint wrote:

By that logic, I should only pay whatever price I feel like paying for a product, despite its quality, because that's the best deal for me.

Well, sure if the person selling it will take the offer.  If you really want to be a stupid consumer and buy shit knock yourself out.  Will that make you an "evil" consumer somehow?  When I said "best deal" I wasn't suggesting that means a shitty worker.  That would be a "bad deal" for the employer.  But if employers really want to make bad deals for themselves by employing shitty workers let 'em.

Wow, Zookie. I'd respond to these individually but as a whole it's so full of contradictions, it would be pointless. You're an even bigger tool than Ptah.

Taint wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

DMTDust wrote:

Because it destroys the community silly.  So... when the boss comes in, and tells you the new immigrant will work for 1/2-1/3 of what you do, you'll race to the bottom to please Massa?

So you hate immigrants, is that it?  Seriously, I'll have to find another line of work if an unskilled immigrant can do as good a job or better for less.  That's the way the world works - same as if you can do a better job than me for less. 

orangeplus wrote:

If capital has the right to cross borders looking for the best deals, labor should be afforded the same right.

Capital has "rights"?

sofaking wrote:

Not so much evil as retarded. Mistreated workers pose many hazards. Theft, crappy morale, safety hazards (from doing a crappy job), poor attendance due to untreated illnesses, disgruntled employee rampages, etc.....

Yep.  Companies can make retarded decisions and suffer the consequences. 

sofaking wrote:

But most high-level management and board members of huge corporations could really give two shits about these issues, because they're getting theirs regardless of the bottom line.

And the companies suffer the consequences and/or workers can organize and/or go work for someone smarter like you.

fnord wrote:

Corporations no longer have any loyalty to their employees.

So?  What loyalty are you willing to demand of employees for corporations?  An employee can quit any time for any reason with zero notice no matter how badly it screws their employer or former coworkers.  They can do it in the middle of their work shift if they want.  They can do it in the middle of an important and expensive project and really screw over their employer (I've seen it more than once).   Do you give a shit about that?

Taint wrote:

By that logic, I should only pay whatever price I feel like paying for a product, despite its quality, because that's the best deal for me.

Well, sure if the person selling it will take the offer.  If you really want to be a stupid consumer and buy shit knock yourself out.  Will that make you an "evil" consumer somehow?  When I said "best deal" I wasn't suggesting that means a shitty worker.  That would be a "bad deal" for the employer.  But if employers really want to make bad deals for themselves by employing shitty workers let 'em.

Wow, Zookie. I'd respond to these individually but as a whole it's so full of contradictions, it would be pointless. You're an even bigger tool than Ptah.

Way to phone it in there Taint.  You can't be troubled to state how exactly anything I said was wrong (that would actually take some thought on your part) so you just engage in name-calling.  After all, only a tool would hold a different view than yours.

Zookeeper wrote:

[

orangeplus wrote:

If capital has the right to cross borders looking for the best deals, labor should be afforded the same right.

Capital has "rights"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

why yes, yes it does.

orangeplus wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

[

orangeplus wrote:

If capital has the right to cross borders looking for the best deals, labor should be afforded the same right.

Capital has "rights"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

why yes, yes it does.

Why no, no it doesn't.  Try looking up the definitions of capital.  "Capital" ≠ "Corparation".

Because he's continuing the tradition of Americans who will happily see others - including themselves - screwed over in the belief that they might, someday, too be fabulously wealthy and will want to make sure they don't have to be accountable to anyone for it.

Dmtdust wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

So do you own a company, or are you employed by anyone?  just askin'

I'm a sole proprietor - I run a small software business.  Before that I worked in cubicles for 9 years coding for corporate America.  The 13 years before that I worked in various jobs such as working in a mail room, cooking & busing tables in restaurants, keeping insurance rates down for companies (in other words I was a night security guard).  I've also worked fast food and worked on a truck loading dock.  Just answerin'

Well, I have run small businesses off and on since the 70's.  I spent time in 2 corporations, during the mid 80's and then in the early 90's.  I love the model that I inhabit business wise.  Still, when I do employ people, I pay top dollar.  I train, and I encourage them to open their own business so they are beholden to no one, even me.

Good for you.  Really.  What's your problem with what I said?  Did I say you shouldn't be doing that? 

Dmtdust wrote:

As a small business owner, I don't understand how you can side with the large corporations that absolutely hate and loathe you, let alone those who organize to protect themselves and the greater community.

I'm "siding" with them by saying they aren't evil for wanting to get the best deal possible when looking for talent?  As for them "hating and loathing me", what have those bastards been saying about me behind my back?  I had no idea!

Dmtdust wrote:

We are in this together, locally, right?  Why would you side with multi-nationals that woudl prefer you and their workers crushed?

Yes, of course.  They all think that their best interests lie in "crushing" their workers.  You understand it all so well.  I'm a one-man operation.  If the evil multi-billion dollar corporations really wanted to crush me I'd have been a red smear on the ground long ago. 

As it stands I made a pretty good living working for a couple of them.  They paid me in accordance with what the market indicated for my profession and took into account my talent and contributions.  The last one I worked for laid me off after almost seven years.  And what did I get in return for those seven years?  Well, let's see: a decent income for seven years.  Plus health benefits.  Plus paid vacations.  Plus a 401k.  Plus six week's pay (severance pay) for which I wasn't expected to give them anything in return.  Oh, and of course they paid the unemployment compensation that the government mandates.  Lots of people would look at that and call them heartless bastards.  I look back and call them an employer who paid me for my work.  That's pretty much what employers are supposed to do.  They aren't our parents.  They aren't our social workers.  They aren't our guardian angels.  They are our employers.  All they owe us is the going rate for the services we provide them.  A radical view, I know.

You operate in a niche unknown to most people, bub.

Zookeeper wrote:

As it stands I made a pretty good living working for a couple of them.  They paid me in accordance with what the market indicated for my profession and took into account my talent and contributions.  The last one I worked for laid me off after almost seven years.  And what did I get in return for those seven years?  Well, let's see: a decent income for seven years.  Plus health benefits.  Plus paid vacations.  Plus a 401k.  Plus six week's pay (severance pay) for which I wasn't expected to give them anything in return.  Oh, and of course they paid the unemployment compensation that the government mandates.  Lots of people would look at that and call them heartless bastards.  I look back and call them an employer who paid me for my work.  That's pretty much what employers are supposed to do.  They aren't our parents.  They aren't our social workers.  They aren't our guardian angels.  They are our employers.  All they owe us is the going rate for the services we provide them.  A radical view, I know.

They don't sound like bastards.  They sound like a decent company to work for.  It would be extremely naive, however, to make policy decisions based on the assumption that everyone is treated so well.

Case in point.  I was brought in to a redesign team to help facilitate the stream lining of a Mortgage Divisions Business.  With mine and others efforts, we took their flow from 189 steps to some 97.  This of course pleased all of the upper management, who promptly sold off the division, making millions off of it in bonus, and fucked 3000 some employees in the process.  In 60 days after the sales, people who'd been with the organization for 30 years doing honest good work, had their benefits taken, their retirement raped, and for what, the benefit of a few in upper management?

And you wonder why I don't trust the mother fuckers?  Nigga, Please.

Zookeeper wrote:

Taint wrote:

Because he's continuing the tradition of Americans who will happily see others - including themselves - screwed over in the belief that they might, someday, too be fabulously wealthy and will want to make sure they don't have to be accountable to anyone for it.

Since you seem to have some magical insight into how I've personally been screwed over by the evil bogey-man "Corporate America" please elaborate.  Tell me exactly how I've been screwed over.

I didn't say that - what I did do, however, was accuse you of happily siding with big business in the belief that you will benefit from their largesse despite the rampant greed and mismanagement much of corporate America has continually displayed, and your apparent belief that they would never, ever screw you over if they saw an opportunity to make a buck from it.  I have worked for some very good corporations; I have also sued a multinational company over unlawful dismissal due to health issues. We settled. That same year, they were sued by many other former employees over sexual harassment and discrimination.

I am fortunate to work now for a small business owner who is bending over backward to help his employees weather the current economic malaise while still taking good stock of his own financial needs. My boss seems to have the weird idea that if we all - including he - make some sacrifices, we'll come through intact.

I don't believe you base your political affiliations on anything other than your own immediate perceptions and are, as a result, naive.

I never said you'd been screwed over.

Give it up, Zoo. Some folks feel they are "owed" a living and you'll never change that. It's like the video of the lady at the Dem convention celeberating the nomination of Obama by saying, "now we won't have to pay for or mortgage or cars anymore!". This is what "liberal" has come to mean, "give me something for free because you can afford it!". 

You'll never change class-envy and you'll never change the welfare mentality of these people. In their world, all businesses are some charity tool meant to serve the poor.

tojo2000 wrote:

AladdinSane wrote:

Let me know when you find a liberal who understands the concept of supply and demand...

This must be said: the U.S. automakers understood the truck and SUV audience; they cleaned the Japanese automakers' clock in that segment.  It's just in the passenger car department where they sucked.

Most of the conservatives I've met seem think that you can somehow manufacture demand by creating supply.

I knew it wouldn't be long before he broke out the old, "I know you are, but what am I" defense.

Zookeeper wrote:

Taint wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

DMTDust wrote:

Because it destroys the community silly.  So... when the boss comes in, and tells you the new immigrant will work for 1/2-1/3 of what you do, you'll race to the bottom to please Massa?

So you hate immigrants, is that it?  Seriously, I'll have to find another line of work if an unskilled immigrant can do as good a job or better for less.  That's the way the world works - same as if you can do a better job than me for less. 

orangeplus wrote:

If capital has the right to cross borders looking for the best deals, labor should be afforded the same right.

Capital has "rights"?

sofaking wrote:

Not so much evil as retarded. Mistreated workers pose many hazards. Theft, crappy morale, safety hazards (from doing a crappy job), poor attendance due to untreated illnesses, disgruntled employee rampages, etc.....

Yep.  Companies can make retarded decisions and suffer the consequences. 

sofaking wrote:

But most high-level management and board members of huge corporations could really give two shits about these issues, because they're getting theirs regardless of the bottom line.

And the companies suffer the consequences and/or workers can organize and/or go work for someone smarter like you.


So?  What loyalty are you willing to demand of employees for corporations?  An employee can quit any time for any reason with zero notice no matter how badly it screws their employer or former coworkers.  They can do it in the middle of their work shift if they want.  They can do it in the middle of an important and expensive project and really screw over their employer (I've seen it more than once).   Do you give a shit about that?


Well, sure if the person selling it will take the offer.  If you really want to be a stupid consumer and buy shit knock yourself out.  Will that make you an "evil" consumer somehow?  When I said "best deal" I wasn't suggesting that means a shitty worker.  That would be a "bad deal" for the employer.  But if employers really want to make bad deals for themselves by employing shitty workers let 'em.

Wow, Zookie. I'd respond to these individually but as a whole it's so full of contradictions, it would be pointless. You're an even bigger tool than Ptah.

Way to phone it in there Taint.  You can't be troubled to state how exactly anything I said was wrong (that would actually take some thought on your part) so you just engage in name-calling.  After all, only a tool would hold a different view than yours.

Welcome to my world.

These people will regurgitate whatever moronic catch-phrases they remember being told by "sumbody smart", until they run out. They can't think on their own so it eventually all deteriorates to, "yer as dumb as patooeey".

Consider it the highest form of flattery, being compared to me. I guess I'm the benchmark for "someone smarter than the mindless socialist cocktards of High Street".

God bless 'merica!

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-12-15 12:45:11)

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Consider it the highest form of flattery, being compared to me. I guess I'm the benchmark for "someone smarter than the mindless socialist cocktards of High Street".

Well, to be fair ptah, you are the only one here who had a chance at hitting the fabled PuckStar® and you blew the opportunity.  How smart can you be?

How do you know he didn't?  Maybe he's just being a gentleman about it and Smitty is covering her ass (so to speak).

Zookeeper wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Well, to be fair ptah, you are the only one here who had a chance at hitting the fabled PuckStar® and you blew the opportunity.  How smart can you be?

How do you know he didn't?  Maybe he's just being a gentleman about it and Smitty is covering her ass (so to speak).

As I recall he didn't decline to comment (the response of a gentleman).  He specifically said he didn't manage to grab the gold ring.

Yes, well, perhaps "gentleman" was too strong a word.  And as for the famed puckerstar, I suppose I fell into a short fantasy for a moment there.

Neumark and Wascher's analysis has been sharply criticized by some other economists for being based on biased selection and interpretation of data.  The critics report that the evidence (including evidence cited by Neumark and Wascher), actually indicates raising state minimum wages increases teen wages and has insignificant effect on employment overall.

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/316.pdf