Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 211

Thread: Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

  1. Top | #161
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,058
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,810
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Ok, so, you keep asking for proof value extraction is a thing, and we keep pointing out the fact that people who do no work are taking the surplus labor from people who do work. It happens. We don't accept the paradigm wherein the people who made a decision of who gets resources may be said to "own" both the resources and the value of things made by them.

    We are human. ALL these rules about ownership and what "belongs" to whom are made up. They didn't exist until someone decided to try doing things that way and it kind-of-worked for some of them.

    What do you not get about "workers have a right to be part of the conversation as to the meaning, implications, and permanence of ownership"?
    Then go fairly starve to death.

    The problem with your approach is that there needs to be some reason for people to allocate resources to creating the means of production. (Note that having the state do so has a very bad track record.) Remove the benefit of doing so and virtually none of it will happen and everyone will starve.
    Straw-man. I am not saying to remove it. I am saying to force those who benefit from doing it to continue working to continue seeing benefits. Else they can. Go fairly starve to death.
    You misunderstand.

    I'm saying that if you remove the incentive to invest there will be almost no investment--and that will bring down civilization.

  2. Top | #162
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,058
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,810
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post

    If person A wants to accept a wage from person B to do certain work, why do you get to interfere in their relationship?
    PersonB is sitting on all the food and guns. Person A does not want to die. He takes whatever bargain that Person B offers, knowing his choices are work for Person B's offered wage, die of starvation, or die of bloodloss.
    If it were only A and B you would be right. You're describing the company town, not a competitive marketplace.

  3. Top | #163
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,076
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    When you were last hired to a permanent position, would you say that you had control over what sort of work you would be doing and what constituted fair compensation for that work? Not complete control, but effectively equal to that of your employer?
    Equal to the employer? No, and I don't see why I should have. From where did you get the idea that they should?

    Workers generally get certain rights and responsibilities, and employers get certain other rights and responsibilities, and as long as there's reasonableness to the contract between them, I don't see why employers and workers should be put on an equal footing, unless a particular company or institution wants to do it that way. I was an employee for most of my working life and now I run my own business. There are definitely pros and cons to both.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 08-14-2019 at 10:34 AM.

  4. Top | #164
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,076
    Rep Power
    16
    A whopping 96% of businesses in the UK employ less than 10 people. In the USA, 90% employ less than 20. Typically, business owners work, for example, longer hours, significantly so during the early years of establishing the business, and often afterwards. They also take the greater financial risks if the business goes pear-shaped. The idea that employers or owners are generally lazy, entitled fat cats who simply sit back on their haunches and watch the money earned by exploiting others flowing in, as per the socialist stereotype, is just not correct.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 08-14-2019 at 11:36 AM.

  5. Top | #165
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,595
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Workers generally get certain rights and responsibilities, and employers get certain other rights and responsibilities, and as long as there's reasonableness to the contract between them
    What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?

  6. Top | #166
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Attributing outcomes to individual actors vs. attributing outcomes to societal roles is the majority of what separates shallow analysis from correct and sophisticated analysis.

  7. Top | #167
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,076
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?
    You are citing a particular type of example. I myself do not know of any examples of it, to be honest, though they surely exist. I do not think they are the norm in business. If they are in your country, I'm surprised. They aren't here. There are many protections for workers here. There are in your country too as far as I know, though I believe they are lesser. They are also lesser here than they used to be. I think they are still more prevalent in other parts of Western Europe.

  8. Top | #168
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,595
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?
    You are citing a particular type of example. I myself do not know of any examples of it, to be honest, though they surely exist. I do not think they are the norm in business.
    Then you've never been lower class in America. That was every entry level job available to me during the recession. Question a company policy? Fired. Talk to a union organizer? Fired. Want to contest the firing? Binding arbitration with a company-hired lawyer. No rights.

  9. Top | #169
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,076
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Attributing outcomes to individual actors vs. attributing outcomes to societal roles is the majority of what separates shallow analysis from correct and sophisticated analysis.
    What's that meant to mean? Should we analyse Scandinavia? We might find that some of the best, most equitable societies ever known are not socialist.

  10. Top | #170
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,076
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?
    You are citing a particular type of example. I myself do not know of any examples of it, to be honest, though they surely exist. I do not think they are the norm in business.
    Then you've never been lower class in America. That was every entry level job available to me during the recession. Question a company policy? Fired. Talk to a union organizer? Fired. Want to contest the firing? Binding arbitration with a company-hired lawyer. No rights.
    Sure, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking specifically about whether things should go as far as saying that workers in general should be equal to employers in general. The implication is owners/employers = exploitative baddies and workers = exploited goodies. To me that doesn't wash, even, from what I understand, in relation to the USA, where things do seem to be more stacked against workers (by which I mean employees specifically, given that most business owners appear to work very hard) than here or in Western Europe generally.

    And if you think many bosses are tough to deal with, the business owner's customers and clients are too. If, as often happens, a big invoice is either not paid or is contested or delayed, an employer still generally has to pay the wages of his workforce in the meantime.

    Imo there is nothing wrong in principle with employers and owners 'extracting profit' from workers. It's only a problem imo if it goes too far.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •