What is it with the stay home and not work generation?
Here in the UK we do have medical care (and not very good care) but it's free.
Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.
Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.
How do you know it's not as bad there?
have you ever jumped the pond and came here to the USA?
Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses
and get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad
here.
How do you know it's not as bad there?
have you ever jumped the pond and came here to the USA?
yeah you pretty much have to work or fuck someone who has a job in the usa. it's not like EVERYONE has a free ride.
if they go on ssi or something they barely have enough to survive. it's no way to live.
Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and get bac
to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.
Some people just want to lay around drinking beer watching TV and getting fat at the expense of all of us that work our asses off to pay for their lazy fat asses.
I know some are disabled and can't work but for the ones who can work but wont, those are the people that need to get a job.
Tom Barnes wrote to All <=-
@MSGID: <61E54C43.1244.dove-general@threeblindmice.synchronetbbs.org>
What is it with the stay home and not work generation?
It's happening on both sides of the big pond. You Americans want $15 an hour to do nothing jobs in the name of "a living wage"
Here in the UK we do have medical care (and not very good care) but
it's free.
Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and
get back to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.
$15 an hour isn't that much.
$15 an hour isn't that much.
In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.
I get why people give up.
Some people just want to lay around drinking beer watching TV and
getting fat at the expense of all of us that work our asses off to pay
for their lazy fat asses.
I know some are disabled and can't work but for the ones who can work
but wont, those are the people that need to get a job.
i think disability is the only way to do that but still, that's a shitty way to live. i like having money.
I still have good enough health to get up and work every day.
Right now I have to work 7 day's a week but we get a total of $3 per hour raise by march.
that will put me in the 70 to 75k per year range.
$15 an hour isn't that much.
In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a
million.
I get why people give up.
in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is. i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out. then i found a better job right away.
I still have good enough health to get up and work every day.
Right now I have to work 7 day's a week but we get a total of $3 per
hour raise by march.
that will put me in the 70 to 75k per year range.
7 days a week is a bit much. i've been doing 50-60 hr weeks since last june and i had no life.
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33:00
$15 an hour isn't that much.
The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perceptio Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift up the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage level representing w it means to be poverty level, when you raise the minimum wage that new highe wage becomes the new poverty level. When commerce sees that people have mor money, and they have to pay more for their employees, they will reciprocate raising the prices of their goods and services to compensate.
In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33 am
$15 an hour isn't that much.
In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.
I get why people give up.
in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is. i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out then i found a better job right away.
it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
Because of the Bidenomics (INFLATION) a lot of people quit or were lured away for better pay, So my company is responding by increasing the wages by $3 per hour.
But until we hire and train enough people were all stuck working 7 days a week.
So you are saying that people who work on production floors, should be
earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop" sign at roadworks,
cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they should be earning above minimum wage?
I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here. That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to earn more than minimum wage.
Boraxman wrote to MRO <=-
it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
So you are saying that people who work on production floors,
should be earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop"
sign at roadworks, cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they
should be earning above minimum wage?
I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here.
That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to
earn more than minimum wage.
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Tom Barnes on Tue Jan 18 2022 10:33 am
$15 an hour isn't that much.
In Australia, cheap homes are well over half a million. Median is a million.
I get why people give up.
in america an adult shouldnt be making minimum wage, no matter what it is. i've been in the workfoce 26 years and only made min when i was starting out
it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61E9A8ED.7974.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61E94D39.54599.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:53 pm
So you are saying that people who work on production floors, should be
what do you mean by production floors? you mean factories?
manufacturing is hard work. i've been in mfg for 26 years. i have made good money.
earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop" sign at roadworks,
holding a stopsign is obviously not 40 hrs a week and it's an unskilled job and should be a side job. i dont think it should pay well
cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they should be earning above minimum wage?
cleaning is NOT an unskilled job. you have to have good time managment skills and and eye for detail. also doing floors takes a skill that
you have to learn. i've seen some dudes that are amazing at it. most people who turn their noses up at cleaning people couldn't hack it. i used to run a cleaning crew and i did floors for side money.
I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here. That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to earn more than minimum wage.
i'm saying people above 18 should have better jobs. in the usa minimum wage jobs are starter jobs. they require no skill, little brainpower,
or if they do, the employer is just a cheap ass. ---
Gamgee wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61E9B5C5.26755.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61E94D39.54599.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to MRO <=-
it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
So you are saying that people who work on production floors,
should be earning above minimum wage? People who hold the "Stop"
sign at roadworks, cleaners, all the other unskilled jobs, they
should be earning above minimum wage?
I'm OK with that, but that is what you are insinuating here.
That anyone above 18 or so, no matter what they do, deserves to
earn more than minimum wage.
I thought you commies believed everyone should make the exact same
thing, no matter how much they contribute to society, and that the almighty government would be the sole decider on how much that would
be.
Right?
it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
Minimum wage's name used to have meaning. Cost of living used to be tied with it, but instead, cost of living has leapt well above it.
The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient use of human labour.
Because of the Bidenomics (INFLATION) a lot of people quit or were
lured away for better pay, So my company is responding by increasing
the wages by $3 per hour.
But until we hire and train enough people were all stuck working 7
days a week.
that's a good way to lose even more people. these are tough times and people need personal time. your company probably needed to raise wages anyways.
right now i'm working on getting a tech job. i've already interviewed with them 3 fucking times over a month period. 'they wan't the right person' . i don't know who would wait that long when the job market is so hot.
Denn wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61EA4989.26041.dove-general@outwestbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61E94C43.54598.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Sys 64738 on
Thu Jan 20 2022 10:49 pm
The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient use of human labour.
Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the
youth entering into the working world and college kids people like
that.
I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school, in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved onto
better paying jobs.
The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient
use of human labour.
Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the
youth entering into the working world and college kids people like
that.
I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school,
in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved
onto better paying jobs.
Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between this two is false.
Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.
Marx was explicit about an objective labour theory of value, but Capitalism tries to deny this, while simultaneously trying to find the value of labour. Both systems in this respect is wrong, both are muddle headed about wage labour.
Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.
Denn wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61EBB997.26048.dove-general@outwestbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61EB42B5.54614.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Denn on
Sat Jan 22 2022 10:22 am
The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient
use of human labour.
Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for the
youth entering into the working world and college kids people like
that.
I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school,
in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved
onto better paying jobs.
Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between this two is false.
Capitalism = poeple have to work to survive.
Socialism = People depend on government to provide their survival, and
is funded by taxes.
In reality those are the two economic systems that usually emerge.
Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.
Try selling that pile of crap to the people of Cuba and other socialist countries.
Marx was explicit about an objective labour theory of value, but Capitalism tries to deny this, while simultaneously trying to find the value of labour. Both systems in this respect is wrong, both are muddle headed about wage labour.
There is NO perfect economic system, but Capitalism sure beats the hell out of Socialism.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61EC1D1F.26769.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61EB42B5.54614.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Denn on
Sat Jan 22 2022 10:22 am
Both systems are similar in many ways, in particular, they both subscribe to some degree to this idea that there is an objective value of labour.
In Capitalism there is not an objective value for anything. Everybody appraises the worth of a given good of service regarding their own subjective metrics, which is the reason why stuff is more vauable to
Jack than it is to Frank.
The whole point is that if Frank thinks something is important and Jack thinks it is not, Frank will outprice Jack and the person who has a
better use for whatever is being bought will be the one getting it.
It is interventive governments which try to guess what the value of
things are in order to manipulate or outright set prices of things to their acceptable objective value. There are two varians: they set a
price low enough that Jack considers it worthwhile (which usually means scarcity ensues, since nobody wants to produce the thing anymore for
the low price); the other variant is when they give a bonus to
consumers of the good (which means its price automatically increases,
and if the bonus is offered to only a set of customers, scarcity
ensues, because customers with no boon won't be served the good).
This is the reason why business models which offer dynamic prices are
so groundbreaking. Prime example is entertainment services which allow customers to spend as much on the platform as they like (see F2P videogames). People who values the service lowly will spend low. People who values the service highy will spend high. So much win for
everybody without having to resort to a standard target price for the service.
The problem is this idea that we implement as "system". That is a matter of ideology. That is the poison of the 20th century, and of major conflicts, competing ideologies.
Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.
president, i'm happy with the usa and capitalism. i wouldnt want to go to a country with communism or socialism.
these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.
you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.
not only THAT, but we have masters. there is no way things will change no matter what we want.
you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.
From what I've heard, Switzerland is actually a capitalist country. And I've heard some say Switzerland is even more capitalist than the US.
Ok so what's your solution?The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perceptio Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift up
the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage
Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.
My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Capital and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because both sy share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The reas these two system share that belief is because they share, to some degree, similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.
these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.
you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things
and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.
The failure is squarely on the Capitalist system to make efficient
use of human labour.
Capitalism is a much sounder solution than socialism.
1st off min wage is not meant to be a career wage, it's more for
the youth entering into the working world and college kids people
like that.
I started out at min wage living at home and going to high school,
in less than a year I was making above that and I steadily moved
onto better paying jobs.
Why do you think there are only two systems? Capitalism or
Communism? This beleif that there is one economic continuum between
this two is false.
Capitalism = poeple have to work to survive.
Socialism = People depend on government to provide their survival,
and is funded by taxes.
In reality those are the two economic systems that usually emerge.
That is not the difference. The difference is that Capitalism rents people under a model of private ownership, Communism rents people under a model of public ownership.
Modern Capitalists want to hold on to the horse manure, not because of freed or individual rights, or dignitiy, or any of these ideals which make Capital good, but becuase they DON'T want people to have the true individual propert rights and freedom that logically extend from the ideals of democracy and self-ownership.
From what I've heard, Switzerland is actually a capitalist country. And I'v heard some say Switzerland is even more capitalist than the US.
Sure crony capitalism is bad. Everyone would agree with that (except the cronies). And unregulated capitalism that exploits workers (like in China) i bad. Regulated working conditions (to a point) is good.
[...] Spain should sit on a sausage and spin. Fuck this
place.
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
It goes against human nature.
it's the person's fault if they are in a min wage job.
Minimum wage's name used to have meaning. Cost of living
used to be tied with it, but instead, cost of living has
leapt well above it.
well i'm OLD, and it never meant that you get a minimum
wage job and you lived off of it as an adult. I never
heard anything about that from my mother or grandmother.
Actually China is a weird monster.
That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
towards property, and they were around a long time before
white-man learned how to exploit them.
further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
It goes against human nature.
That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
towards property, and they were around a long time before
white-man learned how to exploit them.
Sadly, many large companies take advantage of the minimum they
need to comply for a legal wage no matter how old their
employee might be.
Not everyone has the option to pack up and move someplace where
the promise of higher wages exist.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61ECF838.7991.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61ECA075.54620.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Denn on Sun Jan 23 2022 11:16 am
The problem is this idea that we implement as "system". That is a matter of ideology. That is the poison of the 20th century, and of major conflicts, competing ideologies.
Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.
even though we have a pants shitting, braindead half corpse as a president, i'm happy with the usa and capitalism. i wouldnt want to go
to a country with communism or socialism.
these systems, implimented at their best, would not work in the usa.
you also can't take norway or switzerland's entire way of doing things
and impliment them in the usa. they wouldn't work.
not only THAT, but we have masters. there is no way things will change
no matter what we want. ---
HusTler wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61ED4F82.31193.dove-gen@pharcyde.org>
@REPLY: <61E94C43.54598.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Sys 64738 on Thu Jan 20 2022 10:49 pm
The problem with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is one of perceptio Most people who support the idea see it as a way to lift upOk so what's your solution?
the poor. Howev the reality is that instead of the current minimum wage
|07 HusTler
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61ED7390.122872.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Capitalism WAS good, but it stinks now. It absoultely must be reformed.
You see this sentiment a lot in recent years, but it just isn't true. Capitalism has lifted a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years.
Sure crony capitalism is bad. Everyone would agree with that (except
the cronies). And unregulated capitalism that exploits workers (like in China) is bad. Regulated working conditions (to a point) is good.
But in a broad statement, capitalism IS good. It is a also the natural state of humanity. Human nature leans heavily towards capitalism.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61ED7390.122873.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Capital and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because both sy share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The reas these two system share that belief is because they share, to some degree, similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61EE9278.26786.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61ECA077.54621.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Sun Jan 23 2022 11:23 am
Modern Capitalists want to hold on to the horse manure, not because of freed or individual rights, or dignitiy, or any of these ideals which make Capital good, but becuase they DON'T want people to have the true individual propert rights and freedom that logically extend from the ideals of democracy and self-ownership.
Well, that kind of happens when you mix Capitalism with ideas which are not purely related to economic principles. This is very often the case, because modern conservative parties are not pure Capitalists. They are, well, conservative parties with ideas about religion, national identity etc. They only endorse capitalist ideas up to the point they interfere with the rest of their program.
Hello Arelor!
** On Monday 24.01.22 - 06:03, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:
[...] Spain should sit on a sausage and spin. Fuck this
place.
I may have asked you this before (or I may have always wanted
to but never did) ..but if you had the means and opportinity to
live somewhere else, where would that be?
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in
you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live in
communism? that will never happen.
deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply all 258 milli
american adults with firearms to defend our land. and most of them will.
china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.
Hello Otto Reverse!
** On Sunday 23.01.22 - 07:21, Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman:
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
It goes against human nature.
That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
towards property, and they were around a long time before
white-man learned how to exploit them.
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
We need to be more precise with our terminology. Here is the problem, people attribute something like "Capitalism" to our progress, but it is far more complex than that.
Just saying "Capitalism" obfuscates the issue. This is the problem, we think its either "Capitalism" or "communism", but it is entirely
possible to have a free market economy with prices set by markets,
private property rights but have a system of universal self employment. Is such a system still "Capitalist"? I would argue it is.
Lets say we adjusted laws regarding intellectual property, or changed
our tax system so we tax based more so on holdings and speculative gain, than income. Is that still "Capitalist"?
I don't think it is "Capitalism" which did good. What did good was freeing up people so they could be creative, so that instead of digging potatoes for their fuedal lords, people were free to be entrepreneurs.
What did good was funding of science, medicine, freedom, and believe it
or not, equality. Socities with a strong middle class are better.
We are losing that because of "Capitalism", or more specifically, propaganda by those with power and money who want to dissude people from any reform.
My positoin is that "Capitalism" is still not finished. We are NOT yet Capitalist in the sense of individual self-ownership. The pre-capitalist Feudal Lords still want to lord it over us, and they have convinced us that our bastardised "Capitalism" is true Capitalist Freedom, all while pushing us further and further back to Feudalism.
My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Ca and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because bo share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The these two system share that belief is because they share, to some deg similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from th truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.
I think you don't understand Marxism. Marx tried to determine the objective labour of value. Marxists believe that when labour is put
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
It goes against human nature.
That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
towards property, and they were around a long time before
white-man learned how to exploit them.
Good question.
They keep telling me I would be very successful with Kentucky farmgirls so may
I
should try my luck there :-)
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in check.
I think China is halfway there, they flood the market with chinese goods like Pork, Electronics etc..
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F036FD.8018.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61EFC334.54641.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess in
you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live in communism? that will never happen.
deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply
all 258 million american adults with firearms to defend our land. and
most of them will.
china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.
Denn wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F04D1C.26083.dove-general@outwestbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61EFC334.54641.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue
Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am also looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
I think China is halfway there, they flood the market with chinese
goods like Pork, Electronics etc..
... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F06AF3.122900.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
No, not really. I mean yeah sure, if you want to go back hundreds of
years (and you seem to want to). But otherwise progress equals
democracy. Democracy isn't synonymous with capitalism but show me a democracy that isn't capitalist.
No. I don't hear many people conflate the two. It is democracy vs communism. I hear people on the far left conflating the two, but not
the average person.
Okay. I don't know what "universal self employment" means. Sounds like
(no offence) pie in the sky psuedo-marxism. It just isn't going to be achieved due to human nature. Not everybody is smart. Not everybody
is driven. Some people (millions) need a company to exist to employ
them. That will always be.
Yes (though it would be horrible) as taxation has nothing to do with capitalism. Scandinavian countries come to mind. Heavy tax/social
program nations that are most definitely capitalists.
In the context of the past 20 years where 1 billion were lifted out of poverty it most definitely was capitalism. "Freeing up people" is
another utopia notion that doesn't and will never exist (except in a
far distant Star Trek type future). But freeing people to be entrepreneurs is part and parcel with capitalism. I know you want to separate that from capitalism but you can't.
Yes and yes. But where does that money come from? Capitalism.
Government can't create wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.
Science, medicine etc, the bulk of that comes from democratic and capitalist nations.
No we are not. The propaganda machine running is the one that has been teaching our younger generations that "capitalism is bad". The average citizen (at least in my country and the US from what I can see) has no clue about where government spending comes from and what it means for government to go into debt. But they sure want more and more free
stuff.
I'm just not seeing it. "Individual self-ownership". It's called entrepreneurship. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. As for being pushed back to feudalism, only place I see that is the new app-based gig-economy like Uber/Lift/Door Dash (food delivery) etc. You paint a dystopian future that we just aren't headed for. Only real decline in Western democracies is the middle class are getting taxed to death due
to their respective government's over spending/borrowing.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F06AF3.122901.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
My argument was specifically about labour, the "jobs" we do. Both Ca and Communism try to determine the "value" of that labour, because bo share the fundamental belief that labour has an objective value. The these two system share that belief is because they share, to some deg similar philosophy on property rights and the individual.
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be further from th truth. They are polar opposites in that regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time. It goes against human nature.
I think you don't understand Marxism. Marx tried to determine the objective labour of value. Marxists believe that when labour is put
I understand Marxism perfectly well. I addressed property rights and
the individual, not labour.
china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.
I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.
China won't invade USA. Could they beat you in armed conflict in their region?
I've noted that the USA has been unable to recover from crisis, which is a sign of decline. In the early 20th century, the USA emerged from the depression and a World War a much strong power. You also had a pandemic too.
Not to mention the gradual demographic replacement. China doesn't have these problems, and China will still be almost all Chinese in a generation. They are not allowing their country to be treated as a carcass for
... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.
It's very simple. China is working towards buiding a future for Chinese.
Xi is actually trying to ensure that his countries power system and
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am als looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess
you mean china invaded the usa and we will all be speaking chinese and live
deep down, americans are not spineless. if we have to, we will supply all 25
china couldn't even survive going up against chicago.
That (property rights and the individual) couldn't be
further from the truth. They are polar opposites in that
regard, which is why Marxism/Communism fails every time.
It goes against human nature.
That might just be white-man's human nature. The indigenous
peoples, of say North America, did not have that "nature"
towards property, and they were around a long time before
white-man learned how to exploit them.
I would go as far as to say civilized man's human nature.
The more advanced even the native civilizations were, you start seeing more stratification. Instead of Chiefs, whose living standards were similar to the rest, you had what were more like Kings.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....pie pants."
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 07:59 pm
I think the USA will be overtaken by China, the new Superpower. I am als looking at things through the prism of time. Is Western society in the Anglosphere improving?
I think not, and it is because of our ideologies. We used to keep excess check.
China have been handed the baton by the banking elite who arranged to have a manufacturing and industry moved to the Far East to make way for the West's consumer service economy. The UK used to be an industrial powerhouse -- now only produce alcoholic drinks, biscuits along with some minor high-tech engineering. Our caricature of a government have destroyed our collective futures for short-term gain.
I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.
China doesn't have much of a navy. Sinking their cargo ships and troop transports would stop them in their tracks. They couldn't send
enough paratroopers or cargo planes over to establish a stronghold, either. Their greatest weapon is government supported hackers. they can shut down ban ks and force commerce to a grinding halt.
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
Good question.
They keep telling me I would be very successful with Kentucky farmgirls so may
I
should try my luck there :-)
Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.
* SLMR 2.1a * It is not who votes, but who counts them.
It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.
That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can eas get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom whe an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.
But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social for which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Arelor to MRO on Tue Jan 25 2022 01:17 pm
I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but makin the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.
If China's economy does surpass the US economy, perhaps China will see an increase in standard of living, and perhaps cost of labor will increase, thu driving up cost of goods from China. If that happens, companies might not b able to financially justify the cost of sending manufacturing jobs to China anymore. Perhaps that would be a motivation for companies to bring manufacturing back to the home country.
Nightfox
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or somethin similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
who thought that?
The reason I want to go back that far, is because social systems from centures ago have shaped our system today. In Feudalism, the land the
idealism. Back then, wheny owned land, you also owned the serfs on it. Similarly, when you buy a company today, you buy the people in it.
This is important because people think that our systems of land
ownership, of buying the "employees" is something that came from democratic thinking, it didn't. We still have these legacy systems, but are confused about their origin.
Universal self-employment means that people work for themselves, or in democratically run firms. It does not mean that there aren't corporations, or that they don't have managers. What it means is that labour hires capital, instead of the other way around. If we decide to start a business, and get a third person, we own what we produce, and
are responsibile for any liabilities/expenses. Widgets that are
produced are owned by the us, and we then sell them. Our current system allows someone else to claim they laboured, and that the inital
ownership of the widget produced is theres, and not the people who laboured to bring it into existence.
It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.
I find this system far more in tune with human nature. I struggle to
I would credit a lot of that to the green revolution, social change, technological advancements, advancements in human rights. People being lifted out of poverty has been a constant throughout history. There was
a time when we ALL lived as hunter gathers, subsistence living. Ancient Greece and Rome came about before Capitalism.
Also, I would not credit Capitalism with lifting China out of poverty. China was put INTO poverty. Removing the pathological political and social systems did it. China is what it is because they accepted some market basics, not because they allowed the Bezo's and their equivalent
of Wall St to run wild.
People create wealth, as does knowledge. I don't believe that
Capitalism did this. What did it was allowing people freedom, and
having a good system of property rights. You were free to spend money
to develop a product, free to sell it and profit. By the way, some
I think the current system IS bad. Housing is unaffordable here.
People are monopolising housing, creating a demographic crisis. It is
not in Capitals interest to fix this. It is not in the systems interest to fix wealth inequality. Or not to ship jobs offshore to China, and support a hostile foreign power. Big Tech is now working against us, against freedom.
Individual self-ownership is about property rights, in particular, property rights of anything created through labour. Most people are denied their rightful claim to own their own labour by means of the "employment contract", which is a fraudulent contract which claims that labour and agency is transferrable.
Self-ownership means that when you go to work for "Widgets Inc", you and the others that work there (including managers), own what you make, and are responsible for liabilities you incur (including the cost of hiring capital, buildings, payment for use of intellectual property, etc). No one rents you.
Marxism failed for these reasons
China won't invade USA. Could they beat you in armed conflict in their region?
in their region. probably. unless we went full in with a good strategy. we'd have to go ALL in.
China doesn't have much of a navy. Sinking their cargo ships and troop transports would stop them in their tracks. They couldn't send
enough paratroopers or cargo planes over to establish a stronghold, either. Their greatest weapon is government supported hackers. they
can shut down ban ks and force commerce to a grinding halt.
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or
something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be
more like us.
That was a collosal error in judgement.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
Marxism failed for these reasons
1 through 5. Can't say I disagree with any of that.
That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can easily get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom where an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.
But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social forces which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.
so it is true, if you hand Capitalists enough rope, they WILL hang themselves...
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
That was a collosal error in judgement.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F0DF18.8036.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F088CC.54657.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Denn on Wed Jan 26 2022 09:42 am
... If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you say, talk in your sleep.
It's very simple. China is working towards buiding a future for Chinese.
Xi is actually trying to ensure that his countries power system and
wouldnt it be great if our country's leaders did the same thing?
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
who thought that?
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F19DDB.26827.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F088D0.54658.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Wed Jan 26 2022 10:24 am
It is NOTHING like Marxism. Marxism still has system where you hire labour.
What you describe would be Spanish style anarcho-syndicalism (if you
don't believe in such a thing as a nation) or Spanish style
Riveralistic Phalanxism (if you think a thing such as a nation is a legitimate unit).
The first is not exactly Marxist, but anarcho-syndicalists seem to be
best pals with Marxist partisans. The second is not Marxist either but
is is widely regarded as a socialist proposition, most strongly by the Phalanx itself.
So yeah, not surprising if somebody reads your proposal and starts
finding Marxist or Socialist connections :-)
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1A225.26830.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F0FAD6.54665.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Dumas Walker on
Wed Jan 26 2022 06:40 pm
That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can eas get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom whe an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.
But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social for which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.
The anarcho-primitivists have their own explanation.
Their hipothesis is that in advanced societies, individuals are trained
to perform increasingly specialized tasks which set them appart from
the rest.
When men were little more than primates standing on two legs and
chanting "ungha-ungha" there was not much of a divide because nobody
was so ireplaceable that the tribe could not do without him. If your culture is a gatherer's one, the fact you can pick bananas from the
tree faster than the rest does not make you tremendously more valuable than the next ape and there fore it does not make you gain a disproportionate amount of power over the tribe.
Fastforward 10 000 years. There are two clinics in my province doing proper Pain Management. Training good doctors people and insurance companies are willing to trust takes decades. If a single doctor takes
15 days for holiday, the waiting queues get completely clogged because there is nobody for replacing him. A small number of people therefore
has a lot of control over the sector because they can do things nobody else can.
In short, the anarcho-primitivist gripe is that people who can do more specialized stuff ends up owning the people with less training or abilities.
THe anarcho-primitivist solution is for everybody to become hunter-gatherers again and have nobody trained in anything, ever :-P
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1E6A3.122926.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Sorry but that is a pant load. Sometimes a corporation buys another corporation or business for its "talent" (i.e. the employees),
sometimes not. In either case the employees are not beholden to the new owner nor the new owner to the employees.
Nobody thinks of our system as one of buying employees except Marxists
and students easily influenced by their college professors.
That's called a co-op and venture capital. Nothing new nor radical. Anything beyond that hasn't happened because it again goes against
human nature. You can't stand around and yell to the world "I'm labour,
I want to hire some capital" without having a sound business plan that
the "capital" will want to invest in. Don't have capital and no one
will give it to you? Work and save like everyone else.
Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers
owning the factory together.
That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But history
has proven you wrong. Capitalism is dominant because capitalism is
human nature. People (generally speaking) don't want to work hard for "stuff" and then share it with others. But they will trade the "stuff" they worked for for other "stuff" someone else has. People don't
naturally lean towards communes and co-ops.
That may be (Greece/Rome, not the green nonsense, that's all gov subsidies), but the billion people lifted out of poverty in the past quarter century was because of capitalism. This isn't my saying so, it
has been observed and reported.
China was rural, agricultural and poor long before the communists took over. The communist certainly made it worse though. But they didn't remove political and social systems. Those are still in place and Xi
is tightening them, not loosening them. They did allow "capitalist economic zones" though and through the success of a million (pulled
that number out of my ass) small, medium and now large businesses (capitalism) have created a growing middle class.
Here (and elsewhere) you seem to also equate capitalism to just the
Bezo's and other "lords". But it isn't. It is actually primarily the
mum and pop stores etc.
Freed to spend money, to develop a product, free to sell it and profit.
Boraxman, you just gave the dictionary definition of Capitalism!
Where is "here" again, I can't remember if you're in NZ or Oz? Housing affordability issues in Canada are largely due to two things. The first being a lack of regulation preventing foreigners buy housing and
keeping it empty for years (speculative real-estate). This is mostly a Vancouver region problem and it is Chinese investors. Both BC (I
think) and the federal government are finally starting to pay attention and have proposed some mild resolutions (essentially a vacancy tax).
The second is Canada is every increasingly becoming an urban country
with most living in a handful of big cities. There is no housing/affordability crisis in small town (or even small city) Canada.
Oh and we also have a third major issue which is immigration. The government has dramatically increased annual immigration over the past
5 years, almost tripling it. And immigrants tend to move to one of
three cities where there already is a lack of housing, further
compounding it.
That's just more Marxist re-branding. People are hired for labour, not owned or rented. But what you describe does exist. It is called the gig economy (Uber, Lyft, Door-Dash, Uber Eats etc). Trouble is, the market dictates what people are willing to pay for those services and turns
out it isn't much. Some are making a go of it but many are struggling
and of course the companies behind Uber etc are being accused of, wait
for it...exploiting the self-ownership non-employees.
If someone has capital to start their own business (or can get a loan, funding etc) then go for it. If they don't have the means (not just financially, but intellectually) they are NOT owed it and being an employee of someone else is not a bad thing. Living in democracies we
have labour laws to protect employees from exploitation and abuse. Ironically it is the new self-ownership/gig-economy where workers DON'T have protection from exploitation precisely because they are not
employees but self-owned.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1BA51.29786.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F0FAD6.54665.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Dumas Walker on
Wed Jan 26 2022 06:40 pm
That could be because the more advanced a civilisation, the more distant the owners are from the people they feed off. In a smaller society, you can easily get to and kill the opressors. This happens often in the animal kingdom where an Alpha male which is disliked is removed by others. In tight knit human societies, psychpaths and parasites are ejected.
But we have the parasites distant and protected, so those natural social forces which would otherwise destroy them, aren't able to do their job. A highly stratified society, a mass society with few people controlling it is a pathological state.
Interesting. I never thought of society in that way. It is absolutely
true also as the majority of people have no idea who are making the decisions in the big steering committees that are being filtered down
to government level.
---
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1BCAA.29787.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm
so it is true, if you hand Capitalists enough rope, they WILL hang themselves...
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
That was a collosal error in judgement.
Capitalism works if there is no concerted effort in the background to override the function of the free-market economy. Corporations, banks, NGOs, supra-national organisations and governments collude with one another to create outcomes that are not in the interest of the people.
It is man's own greed and intellect that corrupted our system known as "capitalism".
The Chinese elite are beholden to the same people we are. The West did
not build China up over the last thirty years only to see them conquer
the World.
They are not in control of their own destiny.
Nightfox wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <61F182DD.63994.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61F04CE1.26803.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Arelor to MRO on Tue
Jan 25 2022 01:17 pm
I don't think China's plan is sending an army against the US, but making the US so dependant of Chinese manufactures and buying so much American debt that the country will be in their hands anyway.
If China's economy does surpass the US economy, perhaps China will see
an increase in standard of living, and perhaps cost of labor will increase, thus driving up cost of goods from China. If that happens, companies might not be able to financially justify the cost of sending manufacturing jobs to China anymore. Perhaps that would be a
motivation for companies to bring manufacturing back to the home
country.
Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers owning the factory together.
No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything, and t state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.
Andeddu wrote to Denn <=-
They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should
they be so inclined.
Sorry but that is a pant load. Sometimes a corporation buys another corporation or business for its "talent" (i.e. the employees), sometimes not. In either case the employees are not beholden to the n owner nor the new owner to the employees.
They are purchased by the company. I've been through this. Sure, you
can leave, but the fact remains that when one company purchased another company (and its assets), the employees came as part of the assets.
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.
The employment contract grants the holder rights over you. That employment contract can be transferred from one entity to another.
Seems much, much more similar to a system where humans are classed as property than one where they are free, self-employed people.
That's called a co-op and venture capital. Nothing new nor radical. Anything beyond that hasn't happened because it again goes against human nature. You can't stand around and yell to the world "I'm labou I want to hire some capital" without having a sound business plan tha the "capital" will want to invest in. Don't have capital and no one will give it to you? Work and save like everyone else.
But people do that all the time! When you start a business, working for yourself, and you want capital. You go get a loan. You may rent equipment.
No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything,
and the state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.
Capitalism is dominant because it produced more. Period.
But that boon was in the past. Human history does not allow stagnation. You can't just say "This system is good, lets never change it". Systems create new conditions, and those conditions change how the system
behaves. The system changes and produced different conditions, etc, etc.
This is why the west is stagnating, and why I think China is on the
rise. China is willing to adapt. You aren't.
The mom and pop stores are dying because of Walmart, Amazon, etc. I see small businesses dying around where I live, having their economic nice taken over by larger duopolies.
But you can't pick and choose what is Capitalism. The economic system is Capitalism. That includes hyperfinancialisation, big Tech Monopolies, consolidation of markets into smaller players, cowboy Wall Street money junkies, Blackrock hoovering up residential real estate. Its all part
of your system.
And being able to rent human beings, and the idea that labour has
marginal value and that humans can be alienated from their right to property they produce with their labour. That is part of it.
If you look at the data more closely, you see a trend towards investors being a larger and larger part of the market, and home owners being smaller and smaller, including first home owners. We have low interest rates, and a lot of money pumped into the market.
Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.
My friends say that, and that my Spanish accent is charming.
I think my Spanish accent makes my ENnglish sound like an Australian with the mouth full of sausages trying to order more from the bar tender :-(
Can't quote anything for context, either, eh?
Tell your sysop his tear/origin line is (still) missing.
Are you posting from a BBS that you run, or someone else's?
I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it fa apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.
Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would to send their own jobs offshore.
We never speak to the cheifs. They never have to answer to us. The "democratic" system keeps that degree of seperation. Psychopathy (literal psychopaths) wouldn't have fared so well in a social structure where they could be knifed in their sleep, or simply sent out of the tribe by force to die alone.
As harsh as it seems, we had these systems to expel this extreme behaviour. The word "ostracism" comes from a practice in Ancient Greece were citizens and public figures considered dangerous were banished.
We are made to constantly focus on the lady on the train who did a "racist rant", in order to direct our nature impulse to ostracise towards harmless plebs instead.
I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it falls apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.
Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it can send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would vote to send their own jobs offshore.
They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should they be so inclined.
Let's hope they continue to be reliant on exports for their products...
I can agree. Capitalism as a theory works. It also works in practice too until monolithic mega corporations, the banks and the government work hand in glove to take everything away from the worker class in an attempt to own it all.
Like Communism, Capitalism works in theory. In the real world, however, where there is incredible and diabolical levels of corruption, the system cannot sustain itself and is doomed to fail. We will likely see another economic system in the next several decades when this one fails. It will be a synergy of the above two.
I don't think we will see any Western democracy go "all in" ever again. Not in any of our lifetimes anyway. We are so far from WWII (last time we went all in) and society is so comfortable that we (the collective we) simply are not capable of going all in.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
who thought that?
It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you
think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is
synonymous with renting.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F29362.26852.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm
Oh its Marxism with lipstick. Marxism is supposed to be the workers owning the factory together.
No, Marxism was never that. Under Marxism the state owned everything, and t state represented "the workers". Don't believe the Marxist lie. I've met Communists, they've explained it to me. To them, because the state is "democratic" then state ownership they say, is the same as people-ownership.
The Communist endgame is for the State to disappear.
The idea is to have a revolution which results in a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually lead to the disintegration of the State. Then all the workers would own the factory.
Lots of modern Communists have never heard what Das Kapital is so they campaign for the State owning everything in the name of the workers. A
lot of modern day communists would be beaten to a pulp by the
communists of the 40s XD
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F31C06.122950.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Well I think we're just arguing semantics then. Originally sounded like you were talking about quasi-slave trade.
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.
Disagree. When you are hired you are trading your labour for income. It
is a mutually beneficial trade.
Nope it doesn't grant "rights over you". Rights and conditions of employment are completely different things. Only if the employee were prohibited by the employer from quitting and was forced in some way
would you be correct in that assertion.
As I said, they do it with a business plan. Without one or without one
or any capital of their own then they don't.
Right. You are correct, yours is a co-op and the commies are state
owned.
Because it is human nature.
Crony capitalism is the problem. Good regulation (not an overabundance
or "bad" regulation) can solve that. It has at times in the past and easily can again but requires "good government" which is not something
as common as it should be. But capitalism doesn't need to be replaced
or radically altered. There is no wheel needing reinvention.
China is on the rise because we (the West) were fools to send all our manufacturing there to the point that practically everything one buys comes from China. The minute the West breaks from the folly (it will
be painful) China will feel the impact. Their population is actually shrinking. There will probably be a war as a result.
Yup. Consumerism of the West. We are our own worst enemies. But this
has nothing to do with capitalism being "bad" or "broken".
I'm not saying pick and choose. I'm saying capitalism doesn't have to
be unfettered, no laws, no regs etc. It can be and that is were corruption and crony capitalism takes root. But "we the people" can
fix that through elections if we wanted to make it an issue. Replacing/changing capitalism isn't necessary and will no doubt lead to great suffering. As it always does.
Nope. That's commie clap trap (I know, you're not a marxist). When you
are hired for your labour the employer owns the product of that labour. Don't like it? Become your own boss or join a co-op. You (the
employee) accepted the contract of being paid for the labour you in
turn give to the personn/company paying you.
Yes we have the investor problem, but low interest rates is the biggest driver of prices. That and of course supply/demand. Supply/demand is
the most basics of economics and indeed still is, even in Australia.
The investors bit can be solved by government, if it wants to.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F32A0E.122953.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Property rights are the domain of the political system not the economic system.
Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would to send their own jobs offshore.
No it isn't as a job is not property. Neither is the product of labour that has been contracted.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F34A61.29809.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F2601A.54694.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Thu Jan 27 2022 07:57 pm
We never speak to the cheifs. They never have to answer to us. The "democratic" system keeps that degree of seperation. Psychopathy (literal psychopaths) wouldn't have fared so well in a social structure where they could be knifed in their sleep, or simply sent out of the tribe by force to die alone.
As harsh as it seems, we had these systems to expel this extreme behaviour. The word "ostracism" comes from a practice in Ancient Greece were citizens and public figures considered dangerous were banished.
We are made to constantly focus on the lady on the train who did a "racist rant", in order to direct our nature impulse to ostracise towards harmless plebs instead.
Our owners will never take account of us. And you are right -- they are
so far from paying any attention to our opinions or wishes that they
may as well be another species.
They are psychopaths though, such as you described, which is why they
are drawn to irresistible power.
I believe the politicans, minus those who have been initiated, are
mostly plebeian themselves. They will be the focus of our ire, and will
be thrown to the bloodthirsty mob when the time arrives.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F34C73.29810.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F2601C.54695.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Thu Jan 27 2022 07:59 pm
I think by and large, the ECONOMIC system of Capitalism work. Where it falls apart is property rights. The system of property rights under capitalism exacerbate monopolies, and give greater social power to Capital instelf.
Under Capitalism, Capital (the people representing it), keep a system of property rights in which they maintain societal control. The fact that it can send jobs offshore is clear evidence of this. No worker cooperative would vote to send their own jobs offshore.
I can agree. Capitalism as a theory works. It also works in practice
too until monolithic mega corporations, the banks and the government
work hand in glove to take everything away from the worker class in an attempt to own it all.
Like Communism, Capitalism works in theory. In the real world, however, where there is incredible and diabolical levels of corruption, the
system cannot sustain itself and is doomed to fail. We will likely see another economic system in the next several decades when this one
fails. It will be a synergy of the above two.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
@MSGID: <61F34DE6.29811.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F2AF89.50360.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu
on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:57 am
They are in an excellent position to cripple the Western world should they be so inclined.
Let's hope they continue to be reliant on exports for their products...
That's the problem. They won't be for much longer. As the USA
continually prints more and more USD, devaluing their own currency into the ground, the Chinese will become more and more reluctant to exchange paper currency for actual goods. There is a reason why the Chinese are purchasing North American real estate with the currency made from their exports. We are presently in an economic war... it's just that most
people aren't awake enough to realise it.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting
people) before..
Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.
By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Thu Jan 27 2022 08:41 am
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you
think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is
synonymous with renting.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
I look at it more like we are selling a service to a company so we can both make money, the better we are at what we do the more our services cost the company.
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Amazing. The US is LITERALLY selling their land to a country they expect to go to war with (Australia is doing the same), and people STILL don't see a problem with a system which allows this.
to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.
i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.
let this soak in:
RENTING is for property; people are not property.
HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.
you just need trump with his finger on the button.
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will b more like us.
who thought that?
Disagree. When you are hired you are trading your labour for income. is a mutually beneficial trade.
This is what is claimed is occuring. But it is not possible for you
trade your labour. You can labour according to anothers instruction,
but you cannot trade it. It is not possible for you to transfer your labour or agency to another person.
What happens when you "buy labour". Someone else actually does work, using their own labour, which they control, to produce something. You never, ever, were in posession or control of the labour.
The employees are part of the purchase. They are buying the right to
use your labour.
The fact you are free to decide otherwise doesn't matter. The company
has transferred you to them. That is a fact.
If you work with your own capital, your self-employed.
This is what I struggle with. Capitalists argue black and blue about freedom, but when you propose that human beings should work for themselves, have full, unalienable property rights over their own
actions, and should never be allows to be purchated outright or rented, but remain self-employed, they change their mind.
Because it is human nature.There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
not human nature.
This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallace. People take what they
think is wrong with Capitalism, and ascribe it to a different system
"That is actually socialism", "that is actually crony capitalism"
thereby distilling the term Capitalism to all that is left, the 'good stuff'.
It's not "we", its business, in particular those who owned the means of production, who had control over it who were given economic freedom to
do so.
happen. China doesn't have this power dynamic because they won't go as "Capitalist" as us.
They learned.
Consumerism is a product of our economic system, and the power
structures. Who gets to decide what is made? Who allocates resources? Who has say? Who does the board report to?
I think the consumerism was an inevitable result. Capital is seeking a return, and capital makes decisions. Property rights over what is produces generally go to capital, because capital generally hires
labour, than the other way around.
Isn't unfettered capitalism true capitalism though? If it needs to be fettered, regulated, why? Why does the system not have the capability
to be long-term self-sustaining by its own ideology and workings?
I actually think a lot of the problems of Capitalism are not because of "free markets" or "consumerism", but property rights.
As I mentioned before, the idea that you can purchase labour is a fraud. It is outdated, and it should be considered philosophically invalid,
like how being able to "own" a slave is invalid.
No one can explain how labour is transferred from one person to another. If a contract claims that labour is transferred, and it is not, that contract is fraudulent. I have never, ever seen an employment contract which states how this occurs. Every other business contract I've seen, been involved in, is very explicit about what is transferred, and how.
If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder) is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment
contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The
hirer is responsible.
I repeat, there is no physical way possible for you to transfer your agency, your labour to another. YOU make the product. Not your 'employer'.
It is supply/demand of money, not property. There is a high supply of
But because property investors have politicians intheir hip pockets here in Australia, our government runs the country for their benefit.
Property rights are the domain of the political system not the econom system.
If property rights are the domain of the political system, then if the state abolished the rental of human beings, we would still be
Capitalist, yes? The economic system is not changed, only property
rights as recognised by the state and courts...
let this soak in:
RENTING is for property; people are not property.
HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits.
Definitions and usages of words can be slightly different depending on the country. Apparently, renting is an acceptable use in the UK for hiring an employee (whereas in the US we wouldn't say that).
Nightfox
you just need trump with his finger on the button.
You mean the only President in what, the past 6 not to bring the US into any new conflict? I think if the US were attacked in a major way he would be "all in", but barring that I don't see it.
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will b more like us.
who thought that?
It was the common thought of the West. Maybe it wasn't communicated well by US media to US citizens, but it definitely was what the West was collectively thinking at the time.
I don't think any country uses pure capitalism, and perhaps not pure communism either. I think we already have synergies of both. I don't think the system in the US could even be considered pure capitalism. Much of the system in the US is capitalist, but there are some elements which I don't think are really communist, but socialist: Programs such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance for those who lose their jobs, etc..
We need to rediscover that Western spirit of freedom, self-ownership and individual rights.
I fear we are losing this, and in the other thread I believe that "Capitalism" has changed from being a force for human liberation, to a justification for our current social structure to entrench current power structures.
It is sad that so many people who talk about "freedom" will do an about face, once the power of those who lord it over them is threatened.
I'd be more satisfied if people say "I know people control me, but I'm happy being controlled. I deserve to be controlled and told what to do by my betters".
There isn't really a "Capitalist" system as such. Capitalism describes a system which has a few particular characteristics, but there are many variations within. You can be Capitalist and have worker coops for example, or Capitalism with no taxes, or high taxes, or Capitalist, but purchase of residential property is highly regulated.
All systems will be corrupted by people, become something else. Is there an instituion or idea which HASN'T eventually transformed into something else? No.
I think the enlightenment has shown us that individual autonomy and freedom are the way to go. I believe that our system of "renting humans" denies people their God given property rights and selfhood. The problem is pretty much every Capitalist has been indoctrinated to fear true freedom.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F37EE7.8080.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F26014.54690.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
who thought that?
It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.
what time was this?
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F422DC.64046.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61F3B650.54713.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Nightfox on
Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting
people) before..
Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.
To double-check, I looked up the definition of "hire". At least
according to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of
something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a
British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in
(and grew up in) the US.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F43B8E.8093.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F3B650.54713.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 07:38 pm
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F2CB39.64022.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <61F26018.54693.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Thu Jan 27 2022 07:53 pm
When you are employed, you are literally being rented. Why do you think they say "Youre hired", or "we are hiring". Hiring is synonymous with renting.
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
Because the analogue term "hiring" is always used instead.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
i dont know what your point is, comparing renting and hiring and saying they are the same words.
let this soak in:
RENTING is for property; people are not property.
HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F497B3.122978.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
It is not what I am claiming is occurring. It is literally what is occurring. It is very possible and quite easy. It is in essence a contract. Easy. Simple. Ancient. Free (as in freedom).
More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly,
but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person
labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" product. They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.
It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that
they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwise
it would be slavery.
Of course. If you work with borrowed capital you are also
self-employed, but you owe (so it's of to work you go, hi ho hi ho
[just a little levity]).
Well no. People don't argue that at all. They argue that capitalism shouldn't be replaced with what you propose. There is no reason
whatsoever that what you propose can't co-exist with capitalism and in fact it does. We already talked about it. Co-ops. Why to do want to
take away people's freedom to exchange labour for money or money for labour? If you don't mean that then your paragraph above is incorrect.
If you do mean that then you aren't talking about freedom, you are
talking about a forced system.
Because it is human nature.There are many things about Capitalism which are modern constructs and
not human nature.
Sure. But you knew I was talking about the core of capitalism of
course. One works/labours and can exchange that with others for goods/services/money. As opposed to we all work collectively or are
forced etc.
No it's not. You're taking the throw the baby out with the bath water
(or cut off your nose to spite your face) stance on capitalism. I and others are saying no, it isn't black and white, it can be shaped and tweaked to be anything from bad to okay, good and even excellent. And further capitalism has far more good examples than bad. Socialism only
has bad examples.
No it is definitely we. We are democracies. We elect our government and
if so inclined can hold them to account. But we chose to ignore what
was happening as we became more and more consumer societies. Growing up there wasn't Walmart in Canada at all, no big box stores etc. We had 1
TV in the house and 1 phone. As I sit here typing this we have 3 TV's 4 land lines (one number) and a few cell phones. Countless other gadgets, computers etc. We live in excess because we as societies evolved that
way over the past 40/50 years as life got easier. Still, we demanded
more and most importantly we demanded cheaper. As the jobs left for overseas the unemployed protested, but the rest of us we at the mall or Walmart or whatever. We could have demanded our governments made
efforts to stop this. Hell, Trump managed to do a bit of that in his
short time mostly with just loud rhetoric that got some companies to
jump. Imagine if most of the Western democracies demanded the same?
No. They didn't learn. They're just a dictatorship holding on to said dictatorship.
It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't
known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread
lines.
Yes capital seeks a return. That is the beauty of capitalism. But no, I wholly reject your premise that labour and property rights over what is produced is any sort of issue whatsoever. First it isn't property.
Labour is not property. Second, if you want domain over the product of your labour then be self-employed or run your own company. In a
democratic capitalist society you have the freedom to do just that. And many do.
Because there isn't an ideology. It isn't this thing born of a
manifesto, complete with doctrine and ideology. It is simply the
freedom to trade. How that is implemented differs widely from region to region. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are big.
There is no "true capitalism", never has been.
Now there is what we generally refer to as the "free market" and more often than not people do not literally mean 100% free of
regulation/laws. But when they do they say terms like "true free
market". But again that isn't an ideology.
So you've said. But you also have some unconventional notions about
what property rights are. But capitalism doesn't have a lot of
problems. It isn't perfect of course (nothing is). And from time to
time certain aspects (crony/monopolies etc) need to be reigned in. But that is what democracy is for. The people just need to pay more
attention, get off their iPhones etc and also actually read news, not
just headlines scrolling past in a curated fashion. That's the real downfall there, how uninformed most people are.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as I think most people accept that it is just a mutually agreed upon exchange.
Labour isn't transferred. If you are talking employer/employee then it
is a mutually agreed upon exchange. If it is corporation buying another corporation it is still a mutually agreed upon exchange (the labour
being done for the new boss).
Both are responsible and both go to jail.
No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.
It's both. At least in Canada. The high cost of housing is in large
urban areas where there are property investors, low interest rates and scarce housing itself. May be different in Aus, but definitely not
enough physical housing in our major urban cities.
I don't know if it is quite the same in Canada, but I do know
politicians haven't done much about it. That might be because the politicians are in their pockets, but more likely it is laziness and ineptitude (something I generally attribute to Canadian politicians).
Probably because you like horses. Horse farm girls would probably like that.
My friends say that, and that my Spanish accent is charming.
I think my Spanish accent makes my ENnglish sound like an Australian with mouth full of sausages trying to order more from the bar tender :-(
I am sure your friend is right, the Kentucky horse farm girls would
probably like it. :)
* SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....bacon..."
If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.
If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from yo employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.
How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F37EE7.8080.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F26014.54690.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jan 27 2022 07:18 pm
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F1A005.8043.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F0FB65.54666.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Wed Jan 26 2022 06:42 pm
We thought that China would become another liberal democracy, or something similar. Allow them into the world stage, and they will be more like us.
who thought that?
It was the general opinion of the time, perhaps it was motivated reasoning.
what time was this?
The 70s, during the time Nixon opened up diplomatic relations.
Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it. We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.
Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never used
RENTING is for property; people are not property.
HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---
See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the
I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.
nobody would fuck with trump.
Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".
Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.
Oddly, hiring is never used in context of a house, and renting is never us context of employing people, but for cars, equipment, both terms are often used.
More nonsense I'm afraid Boraxman. I don't mean to be rude, honestly, but I think you are in a distopian funk or something. The person labouring is not a slave. They are not being robbed of "their" produc They simply agree to an exchange. It is really that simple.
Then you would be able to explain how I can transfer my labour and
agency to another person.
Argue how this is actually done, and how this is different to me working on the product myself using my own will and body. Otherwise, you will need to justify philosophically how a contract can suspend your right to the fruits of your own labour.
Maybe you do believe that, but then would put you into the awkward position of supporting a WEAKER concept of individual property rights
than I do.
It can and often is. But not in the manner you imply. The fact that they are free to decide does matter. In fact it is critical. Otherwis it would be slavery.
A contract isn't valid simply because it is voluntary. Slavery ended because a contract of slavery was no longer legally valid. You cannot consent to becoming a slave, even if you chose to. You and I could sign
a contract, wher e I am your slave, but it would be legally invalid.
Voluntariness isn't the issue, it is validity of what is being volunteered. You cannot volunteer to do something you cannot actually
do.
I kind of agree. My argument isn't that we should remove Capitalism completely, but that universal self employment co-existing with
Capitalism (which is what I support), would not be considered Capitalism by most people.
In essense, I'm arguing that the evolution to true "Capitalism" hasn't finished, and it is a fear of economic freedom and recognition of the rights that come with the labour theory of property is stopping it.
This is to maintain the power the capital has in our society.
That is true, but consider the decision making process behind all this. We as consumers, demand a lot of things, but we are also producers.
Do you realise that you get to exercise your freedom of choice as a consumer, but not as a producer? Even though you ARE a producer?
Does this begin to give you a clue as to why "we demanded" consumption leading jobs to go offshore? There is an imbalance here which leads to that.
It is a result of a free and productive society yes. The USSR wasn't known for consumerism because they were too busy standing in bread lines.
They couldn't create products worth buying and the incentive structure
was all wrong. I've known people who lived under Eastern European Communism. You went to work, but did little because they wanted
everyone employed.
If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money
from your employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.
Right. It was based on a confluence of Western ideals. The right of
man to self-govern. The right of man to own his product. The
inalienable right to freedom. The recogntion that we trade the fruits
of our labour. I support all this. But the difference is, I don't
think we need to have "exceptions" to these ideals, nor do I support the "right" of others to destroy them.
I would argue, it is you which has the unconvential view of property rights. My view is simple. You, as a self-governing human being, when you bring anything into existence through your labour, that object
begins its life as your property. The labour theory of property, the rightful owner is the creator.
Most people accept the contract. Not a single one has been able to explain it. In fact, most people are confused as all hell what they are actually selling at work to their employer.
Some say they sell what the produce, their time, their labour. All these different answers indicate they don't actually understand it. We just
do it because, well, thats just how things are.
You NEVER legally own the product you produce at work. What you produce at work begins its life as the property of your employer, not yours.
What are you exchanging? You are accepting money, but what are you
giving in return?
Both are responsible and both go to jail.
Why should the courts disregard the contract. They agreed to it, and signed it.
No need to transfer. YOU agree to make the product for money. Your employerr agrees to pay you money for making the product. This is not complicated nor sinister.
That would be true, if at some point, the product was legally yours.
But it never was. It begins as your employers property.
Otherwise, you would be entitled to cancel the employment contract, and keep what you made at work. Try that and tell me how your court case goes.
In Australia, housing is expensive pretty much everywhere, except for
the most undesirable small towns where there are no opportunities at
all. We are quite urbanised (like Canada), but there has been a boom of apartment and unit building. The problem is largely cheap money, investors (which we tax payers support), and tax concessions which
favour hoarders. Australia is a sheltered workshop for property specuvestors.
In Australia, you can overpay for a property, as an investor, and if as a result your rental yield doesn't cover your payments, the tax payer will be fleeced to make up the difference. You can deliberately overprice an asset and be rewarded with tax breaks! Then you get tax concessions on profits, interest only loans. Parasites...
I didnt say he would press it. i said his finger would be on the button.
nobody would fuck with trump.
Agreed.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm
If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the murder is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and state that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.
Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.
It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product
from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable
(ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).
The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour
and if you are selling products.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F582C2.26900.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F53A34.54741.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm
If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from yo employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.
How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not your property? Is this not fraud?
Thought experiment here:
If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am
commiting fraud against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday
party up? Because I am not selling a product. I am selling pure work.
If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who
had his face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a product. I am selling pure work.
The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the patient all throughout the deal.
The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but it eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a
legit economic system.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F5348D.29844.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F3B656.54716.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Fri Jan 28 2022 08:12 pm
Capitalism and Communism are economic ideals that arrived around the
same time. You need an antithesis to a thesis, serving as an
opposition. Both appear to have served their purpose. Lenin said that
the West would eventually collapse into the new system with an over abundance of laws. Mikhail Gorbachev also said, during the collapse of
the Soviet Union, that "slowly you will hear that Communism is dead and finished -- don't believe it, we are simply moving onto the next phase
of merging with the West."
Both systems are required to achieve the aim of standardising the world into one economic and legal system.
Freedom is the right to that which the law allows. To the vast majority
of people, THAT is the definition of "freedom".
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F53843.29845.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F3B658.54717.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Fri Jan 28 2022 08:22 pm
George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."
Rights are man-made.
"They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."
I think a lot of people have experienced in the last couple of years
that freedom is the right to do that which the law allows, nothing
more.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F5B1C8.8119.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F53A34.54740.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Sat Jan 29 2022 10:49 pm
RENTING is for property; people are not property.
HIRING is when you want to employ people for their services in exchange for money and benefits. ---
See my response to Nightfox. The terms are synonymous. Typically hiring is used in some context, and renting in others, but there are cases when both are used interchangeably. You have hire cars and rental cars, they are the
if you say so. australia isnt the center of the world.
i dont call my bbq grill the 'barbee' either.
And you don't put shrimp on them? (We don't really do that much here either, we do BBQ prawns)
If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own
By product, I mean services as well. A service is really just creating a product, in a sense.
The examples you mentioned are examples where someone is self employed, and providing a product/service.
You end up with the reconstructed face. You get the entertainment from the comedian. When they did the work, you weren't hiring them per se. You didn get them to sign an employment contract. They were self-employed. They nev became your asset. You cannot transfer them like an asset.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
You don't "transfer" anything. You agree to do work for money.
When you produce something, on your own, with
your capital on your time then the fruits of your labour are your own. When you agree to do it for pay then you have agreed to do it for pay.
You didn't "suspend your right..."
Yes, that is your argument indeed, but it seems a deeply flawed one on
the single premise of your labour property rights theory that is simply not recognized by many. First I've heard of the theory and I wholly
reject it. If you agree to "labour" for pay then the product of that labour is not your property. I agree to sell an old phone on a local classified website to some dude for $30. He comes over gives me $30
and I hand over HIS PHONE. Labour is exactly the same.
Disagree. I produce code for my employer. I have agreed to produce it
for a salary. I freely chose to do that.
Right. There was no incentive to be productive. Fred (not a very
Russian name I know) could be a little slack and make the same wage as Ivan even if Ivan worked really hard.
It is property in the sense that you can labour on your own or sell
labour to an employer. But that's it. You can't agree to exchance your labour for money and then complain that your employer has no right to
your property.
Well not everyone wants to be in a co-op and you have no right to force them into one. If Bob wants to exchange his labour for a wage that is
his right. Who are you to tell Bob that is wrong and that he should
belong to a co-op instead.
Well you can argue it, but you are simply wrong. If someone agrees,
ahead of time, to exchange their labour for money then whatever they product during that exchange belongs to the employer. The employee
agreed ahead of time to do that. Your theory of everything I produce
is mine, how can it now be, is weak. Exchanging the fruits of our
labour for other "fruits" of someone else's labour is human nature and
the root of capitalism.
No, nobody is confused and pretty much everyone can explain it. You
just aren't listening. It is very simple. Extremely simple. Person A agrees to exchange the product of their labour to person B for money. That's it. There is no "how can that happen". It happens every day by
the millions (probably billions) and is the simplest thing.
No. They understand it perfectly well.
Effort. You are exchanging effort for pay. Simple concept that doesn't need a degree in philosophy to understand. In fact philosophy is
probably why you are so confused by it. Over-thinking.
It is illegal in most countries, certainly all Western democracies, to kill and to get someone else to kill. Courts aren't disregarding the contract. It is illegal to contract someone to kill someone else. This isn't philosophy. It is law.
You know you flip flop a lot. Often in the same message.
Yes exactly, you agreed ahead of time to labour to produce something
for a wage or salary or one-time payment. As this agreement takes place before you labour then the product of the labour is never yours".
"Exchanging the fruits of our labour for other "fruits" of someone else'slabour is human nature and the root of capitalism."
Ah, not here. Rural and small town housing ranges from cheap to well
under the national average. Not a lot of new apartment buildings in the big cities as there is no room. The smaller ones, yes, as they tend to have much more land to expand into. Cheap money and investors yes, tax concessions no. But no penalties for "specuvestors" (like that term)
yet. Some promised on the way but I don't think any have come into
force yet.
Wow! Well, if I were an Australian tax payer I would be quite upset.
Any of the main political parties (with a chance of forming government) against this, promised reform?
Fair enough, in Australia, when you obtain temporary use, you rent or hire it.
We generally "rent" cars and houses, but occasionally people will refer to "hiring" a car, or "hiring" a suit, or "renting" a suit.
Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, but this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views on the accent.
Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got invited. I usually have a whole lot of trouble understanding Australians, this guy had a brittish gentleman touch which made me reconsider my views the accent.
Happy Birthday, assuming it was your party.
* SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"
ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
- under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
- this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature
This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.
"Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.
To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.
George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."
Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.
"They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."
We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.
We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F66DCC.26917.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F5EC8E.54753.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm
If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own
Well, if you are hired to shoot somebody, you do know what the deal is about, so the example is not comparable at all.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F6E64E.123015.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Our exchanges are getting longer and longer yet we continue to say the same things to each other. Allow me to sum up what I belive your
position to be and my response. You take the last reply to say "yeah, mostly" or "not at all!" lol
You:
- the product of labour is property
- the exchange of that property for money cannot be done, no one can explain how it is done
- despite that, said exchange is immoral
Me:
- the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahead of time to exchange that property for pay
- under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any
sort of issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon
some of money
- this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F74431.29877.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F5EC92.54755.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Sun Jan 30 2022 12:33 pm
This should actually be a clue. Both originated with similar fundamental assumptions.
I believe both Communism and Capitalism are systems based on a single economic spectrum... they were concieved as a vehicle to reconstruct
the World in a way it should have been constructed.
We have democracy which is a system of government that people seem to
know very little about. Either government is your master or your slave,
it cannot be both. Plato said that democracy will always lead to communitarianism which will lead to a dictatorship.
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The new system will be one run on the economic principle of necessity where no one should be born without a function to fulfil in which to serve the World State. This is the
system we read about in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
"Both systems" is incorrect. There is a greater range of possible economic arrangements than Capitalism and Communism.
To borrow an example from David Ellerman, consider slavery in Ancient Greece. There were two models, the Athenian model of public ownership of slaves, and the Spartan model of private ownership of slaves. There was debate about which was better.
<SNIP>
I agree that there are many more possible types of economic systems --
we have had many over the last seven thousand years. I believe the next system will be neither of the above; it will be the third way, the blending of Fascism and Communism.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F74846.29878.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F5EC94.54756.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Sun Jan 30 2022 12:37 pm
George Carlin said it perfectly -- "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there is no such thing as rights. They are imaginary."
Yes, they are. But they are also what makes our civilisation, what makes life in modern Western Civilisation bearable. Man made they may be, but we are doing ourselves a disservice, and potentially subjecting our future generations to horrors we thought were just in history, by treating them less than God-given rights.
The problem then is that man has allowed the intellect to rule. This mostly occurred during the Age of Enlightenment with the promulgation
of scientific Atheism. By creating man-made laws which are subjective
and malleable rather than an objective and concrete belief system,
along with an overton window that is continually moving to the Left, anything can by justified. The horrors that you speak of are just
around the corner. They will serve as both a lesson and a bridge
between two ages.
"They are nothing more than privileges. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. Temporary privileges."
We have to fight for strong rights. I feel Western Civilisation is in decline, and we are heading towards barbarism, because we don't really believe in our founding ideals, don't care they are dying.
We have to restore the idea of "rights", becaues if we relegate them to privileges, we invite fascism.
The masses have been inculcated with new beliefs and therefore cannot fight what they cannot see.
Me:
- the product of labour is property, well okay, sure but it is agreed ahea of time to exchange that property for pay
- under such an agreement property rights of the labourer isn't any sort o issue as said labourer agreed to labour and produce "something" that will belong to the "employer" once produced for an agreed upon some of money
- this is not immoral, it is normal and human nature
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of
something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a
British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in
(and grew up in) the US.
I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred
It was all well and good until the company pivoted and laid off a third of their staff. You had couples where one person was laid off, the other remained. People whose social groups were gutted, and a complete lack of morale. People who had so much stuff at work that it took them 2 days to get it all home. People who had their entire personal lives on their company computers. (this was back in the early '90s)
One of my co-workers left that company with the mantra
"THE. COMPANY. IS. NOT. YOUR. FRIEND."
Your obligation to them ends with each paycheck, as does their obligation to you.
Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian got
Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees.
Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:59 pm
If labour is not property, how can you sell it? You're taking money from employer on the basis that you are selling your labour.
How did you sign an employment contract to sell something that is not you property? Is this not fraud?
Thought experiment here:
If I am a self-employed comediant and do stand-up comedy, I am commiting fra against the guy who hired me to lighten a birthday party up? Because I am no selling a product. I am selling pure work.
If I am a plastic surgeon and do reconstructive work for somebody who had hi face splashed by acid, I am comitting fraud? Because I am not sellig a produ I am selling pure work.
The surgeon does not own the face he is fixing. The face belongs to the pati all throughout the deal.
The main problem I have with your stance is that if is product oriented but eventually leads to the idea that services have no place in a legit economic system.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm
If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the mur is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and st that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.
Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.
It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).
The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.
If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own
Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.
This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person own it.
Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
I've never heard of employment described this way (as renting people) before..
It fits. Early in my career, I saw lots of people, myself included, get sucked into a company that encouraged its workers to work long hours, spent lavishly on perks, and built a "family" mindset. We had people dating co- workers (because, how are you going to meet people when you work 80-hour weeks?), very little hiring from outside, lots of people promoted from within who shouldn't have, and other red flags (at least to me now)
Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. You job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.
Nightfox
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Arelor to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 29 2022 11:38 am
Actually, I had a digital birthday party yesterday and some Australian
What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that means it was via an online video meeting?
Nightfox
Still I had a great time.
And I won the game :-)
we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
---
sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
I will.
- The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied
to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The
I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure
Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.
I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.
Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.
Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.
Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.
What is it with the stay home and not work generation?
Other than that you Americans just need to get off your lazy arses and
get back
to work. The Brits as well, though it's not as bad here.
MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-
Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees.
Your job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.
i was at a place for 17 years and they didnt give a shit when i
quit. they were calling me up asking me questions weeks later,
though. they didnt know how to do things i did there.
In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so
The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.
Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.
With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.
What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that
means it was via an online video meeting?
There is more information at my gophersite.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 31 2022 11:01 am
Yeah, I feel like companies don't have much loyalty to their employees. You job may seem to be going great for years and then you can get laid off.
Nightfox
A mom and dad business might have that loyalty. I have worked for not-so-small companies which operate internationally which cared for their collaborators (as long as the collaborators had proven themselves trustworthy).
Anything bigger than that, and you should expect the human resources lady to grow a pinoccio-like nose each time she tells how much the firm cares for your well-being.
we need to get that antiwork reddit moderator in here. the 30 year old trans dog walker. this sounds right up sheman's alley.
---
lol, I didn't follow that closely but I know what you're talking about. Anti-work reddit. "Back in my day" we called that lazy! lol
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F82FFF.8151.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F78B8D.54781.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Mon Jan 31 2022 06:11 pm
I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure that we recoup the employment cost plus extra. Workers are paid a set hourly rate, not based on how much labour/goods are transferred
guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F80BDB.77165.dove-gen@cavebbs.homeip.net>
@REPLY: <61F5EC8E.54753.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Sun Jan 30 2022 12:13 pm
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F57E76.26899.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <61F3B652.54714.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on
Fri Jan 28 2022 08:05 pm
If I hire to to shoot someone, theoretically, I should be responsible for murder, as I purchased the labour and the product of that labour (the mur is mine. The hired hitman can point to their employment contract, and st that they sold their labour, and was hired. The hirer is responsible.
Actually the guy doing the paying would get hit with murder conspiracy charges or similar.
It also works the other way around. If somebody purchases a product from you in order to facilitate a crime you may be held accountable (ie. if you sell a brick to somebody, knowing that brick is going to be used for cracking somebody s skull, you may be regarded a crime facilitator).
The point is you are held accountable both if you are selling labour and if you are selling products.
If you hire out the car used to conduct the hit, but don't know, you're not liable. The person hiring is responsible for what the car does, not the own
Labour is financially treated the same way, so in theory, it should be the same. But it isn't.
This simple though experience is designed to show that intuitively, we understand that labour isn't transferred, but is conducted by the person own it.
Therefore, hiring a person and car is not the same, yet financially, it is considered to be the same.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
This reminds me of junk law suits the firearms manufacturers go through each year. A manufacturer assembles the firearm, sells it to a distributor, which in turn sells it to a dealer, who sells it to the
end customer. If the buyer uses that firearm to kill another person,
that person's family will attempt a civil suit against the
manufacturer, claiming they market their product as a good way to kill people. This will get thrown out of court eventually because no manufacturer would create literature claiming such a thing, however it
is done to drain that company's funds through legal action.
How is a manufacturer who is separated from the customer by at least
two degrees of vetted wholesalers and retailer possibly be responsible?
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F884CA.29899.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F786AB.54779.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Mon Jan 31 2022 05:47 pm
Communism and Capitalism are NOT opposites. They share an origin in liberalism, they share similar theories on labour.
I am pushing for an "ownership economy" where we move away from the old "masters own us" paradigm to one where we are free individuals trading, and we own ourselves and our own product.
Unfortunately. most Capitalists don't want this. They seem to fear freedom, and want masters. So they'll get Fascism.
I concur that they are not opposites and, furthermore, likely
originated from the same source. Carl Marx did not concieve of
Communism as an ideal. We can trace the ideas behind Communism before
the French Revolution in Germany. Intellectuals were aware that such a system would result in totalitarian rule by the dominant minority...
high struggles such as the French Revolution were instigated to remove
the old orders, i.e. the monarchies, and replace them with liberal and democratic political systems which could be co-opted and used to steer
the masses in a pre-determined direction.
I do not disagree with your idea of an "ownership economy" as it
appears to be a system that would offer greater protection to
individual rights. Such a system would never be used as industrialists, capitalists and bankers would find it more difficult to consolidate
their power.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F88B26.29900.dove-general@amstrad.simulant.uk>
@REPLY: <61F786AD.54780.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on
Mon Jan 31 2022 05:49 pm
Not having a grounded, solid belief system leads to nihilism. Part of why I'm pushing rights. We should have God-given rights. Rights which are fundamental, not conditional based on whether other people think they are suitable at this point in time or not.
The West no longer follows God's authority. The Age of Enlightenment
was designed such that it would set the people free. We now have
man-made laws which can be changed because they are just ink on a piece
of paper. Man's intellect chose personal freedom over divine authority. Once you subscribe to the idea of personal freedom you are cut loose
from a linear morality system. This is why we are seeing
post-modernism. The modern system during the Age of Enlightenment consisted of man-made constructs which were used to replace the
pre-modern Biblical order. Post-modernism has now arrived which is here
to deconstruct all of the laws which were brought in by a previous incarnation of itself.
Man-made laws change over time because there is no longer a divine authority.
With no objective right or wrong in the world, you can see how quickly things degenerate into pure nihilism.
Most people place "practicality" above all else. Its "practical" to give you your privacy, or just have people tell you how to live.
True. This is a hallmark of a consumer based society. People are too
busy to think for themselves... they prefer being told what to do.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F88C2F.123044.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
sorry to break this into two messages, if you don't respond in just one,
I will.
If I reply it breaks my "you have the last word" so once again, after
my reply below, you have the last word lol.
Cheers
- The employee is paid a wage, which is the rental fee. Wages are tied
to cost of living, not production. Compare this to a rental car. The
Wages shouldn't be "tied" to anything. Market dictates. If what they employee is doing is in demand they will get paid more. If not less.
I work in manufacturing, and wages are based on what it costs to keep people alive, NOT their production. Our goal as employers is to ensure
I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of
the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
guess you never heard of production bonuses or piece rate.
Bonus's are just that, and piece rate is the exception. People actually being paid per unit produced is not the norm.
I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.
With the many different religions in the world, it seems to me that even deciding which religion or god to follow would be subjective. Also, religion is a personal thing, and at least in countries like the US, there is freedom of religion, which is normally considered a good thing. As such, the government has no right to push the rule of one religion onto all if its citizens (which is what many of the North American colonists were trying to get away from in the UK in the 1700s).
Which religion's God should a government choose to enforce laws from? If God's laws are so universal and unchanging, why are there so many different religions in the world?
oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out of their pay.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm
I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.
where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in
mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage
for kids or people who want part time work. ---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
Hello Arelor!
** On Monday 31.01.22 - 16:13, Arelor wrote to Nightfox:
What is a "digital" birthday party? I'm guessing that
means it was via an online video meeting?
There is more information at my gophersite.
I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.
oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of them a
they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of people out
their pay.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Arelor on Tue Feb 01 2022 12:20 am
oh i have worked for family companies and they were the most crooked ones of the
all. they didnt care about the workers, broke many laws and stiffed a lot of
people out of their pay.
Because they're tiny entities they can operate outwith the sphere of corporate
etiquette. Big corporations have legal and HR departments so they always seem to pa
the worker what they're owed even when things go awry... smaller companies often
attempt to stiff workers or make them jump through hoops for basic entitlements.
Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-
There is more information at my gophersite.
I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.
Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a
priv with more details later (and an answer for your last
netmail, since outgoing netmail here is restricted)
Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-
There is more information at my gophersite.
I only see 6 posts. Nothing for 2022.
Oh, well, that would be my "other" gophersite. I will send you a
priv with more details later (and an answer for your last
netmail, since outgoing netmail here is restricted)
Arelor, that was an oversight on my part... should work now, give it (netmail) a try if you'd like.
... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm
I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/demand of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.
where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wage for kids or people who want part time work. ---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?
The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.
Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the other way around.
Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours than they are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work
hours. I have
also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you
with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the
current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want
to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is
fucked up hard.
Human Resources exist to defend the company against the employees,not the ot way around.
Human Resources are pushy as heck trying to get people to work more hours th they are due and trying people to absorb corporative propaganda out of work hours. I have also seen Human Resources trying to cheat people with dirty tricks (We can't pay you with money this month, so here are some chocolate coins) or pay people bellow the current Union agreement - which, by the way, happens because Unions usually just want to get the medal for achieving the agreement but they never care if a worker of two is fucked up hard.
Human Resources are like Cthulhu. THey wrap reality around them and suck the sanity out of your body.
Some family firms can get rough, but the ones I have seen which got out of h were very upfront about it for the most part. The biggest exception is construction firms, because Spanish construction firms are legendary for the douchebaggery, deceiptful smooth talk, and scammy tactics.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Feb 02 2022 07:31 pm
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <61F97DD7.8182.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <61F91000.54814.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Otto Reverse on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:45 pm
I doubt that very much. I'd wager the pay is based on supply/dema of the labour (or more specifically people with the required skills).
No, it is based on minimum wage, which is based on cost of living.
where do you get that information? is this only in your country? in mine it's just voted in. in my country minimum wage is a starter wa for kids or people who want part time work. ---
= Synchronet = ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
That is every country. Do you really honestly believe minimum wage is calculated from value of labour?
i never heard that. i also don't make minimum wage.
as i've said before, minimum wage is for kids and retirees.
being calculated based on the cost of living may be what google says, but it just somthing they increase every x amount of years here in the usa.
anyways, why are you preoccupied with this minimum wage talk? are you making minimum wage?
Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Tue Feb 01 2022 09:32 pm
The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of Go
We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MO than simple ink on a piece of paper.
Arelor wrote to MRO <=-
Oh, lol, well, sorry to hear :-) It does not match my experience. I can easily imagine a mom and dad business being dickish though.
Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-
It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part
be borne by an inanimate object.
Boraxman wrote to Andeddu <=-
The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation
of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some
revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence
and nature of God.
Andeddu wrote to Boraxman <=-
We do not necessarily require God's literal authority as I suppose man
can model a solid and unchanging constitution fit for the next million years. As long as it is protected from amendments and is considered unalterable and MORE than simple ink on a piece of paper.
Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
Half their job is conning companies into thinking all their ideas and plans and cultural change is really necessary. They command their
salary by working on problems that don't exist, or aren't really the company's business in the first place.
No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not based on objective value of what the labour produces.
No way man can do that. We can't stick with a system for a century, a million years?
The only constant is change.
Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-
It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in part be borne by an inanimate object.
In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.
There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".
... Voice your suspicions
Boraxman wrote to Andeddu <=-
The problem is that God's authority is not coming back, as most people understand a naturalistic origin of the human species and the creation of the Earth. I don't see this returning unless there is some revelations which leads people to change their mind on the existence and nature of God.
A lot of utopian science fiction references the combining of religions. I think we need someone/something to bridge the religions, re-inforce that one god has many names, and that religion is about being part of a whole and behaving in a way that promotes the greater good.
"Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change?"
--Jesus Christ
... Voice your suspicions
In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.
There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills".
I was speaking about the West, specifically, whose system is based on Christianity and the God of Abraham. The US constitution was written during Age of Enlightenment hence the reason it is such a liberal construct.
You can see where I am coming from though. With man-made laws your so called rights are relegated to mere privileges, and privileges can be taken away temporarily or permanently.
it depends on the type of job.
also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.
there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.
only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.
when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or a flat fee you consider fair?
there ya go.
By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Feb 03 2022 01:00 pm
it depends on the type of job.
also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people they increase raises. so that value of labor increases the payrate.
there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.
only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif thing you do and how much that specific thing makes.
when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or a flat fee you consider fair?
there ya go.
When you pay someone to paint your house, you don't actually employ them, in a legal sense. You buy a service. So that isn't applicable, he works for himself, but leaves the work with you. I've never gotten a tradesperson to become "my" employee in any legal sense.
Labour doesn't have value though, only the end product. The customer doesn't care if 10% of the price is labour and 90% materials, or the other way around. They only care about the product. They pay for the product.
By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?
By the way, some business may sell product at a loss. Does that mean labour has a negative value?
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Feb 03 2022 08:36 pm
No, I make comfortably more than that. The point is the demonstrate that wages are bases on the cost to acquire the use of a human being, not base on objective value of what the labour produces.
it depends on the type of job.
also if an employer needs to make a profit and they need to get more people
there's also production that has piece rate and production bonuses.
only on a small scale will you have an employer pay you based on what specif
when you pay someone to paint your house do you pay by the brush stroke, or
there ya go.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Wed Feb 02 2022 06:42 am
Boraxman wrote to Moondog <=-
It is a weird logic that people have, that "responsibility" can in p be borne by an inanimate object.
In asset forfeiture cases, when law enforcement impounds assets (usually cash) with the "suspicion" that it is evidence of illegal activity, the criminality is associated with the asset.
There are court cases named "United States versus $14,000 in small bills"
... Voice your suspicions
Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesso of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.
I've never heard of a court case like that though.
Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour.
That is just not how business works.
I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.
Live and let live I say.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am
to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary use of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that because I live in (and grew up in) the US.
renting is for objects.
renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour. That is just not how business works.
So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because potential employees with those skills are in high supply
A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
supply of potential employees with those skills?
Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the market of available labour commands.
I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large
numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.
This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour is decided by supply and demand.
I don't know if amendments are a problem, as long as it's accompanied by a well-defined process for amendment by the body adhering to it, and an apolitical judicial group that defends the constitution against attempts to skirt it and abridge the rights of people outside of the amendment process. You know, sort of like what we used to have.
That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.
I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.
Live and let live I say.
renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Digital Man to MRO on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:09 pm
renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
a horse is a vehicle object
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 28 2022 01:00 pm
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Fri Jan 28 2022 09:07 am
to Google, the first definition is to employe (someone) for wages. The second definition is to obtain the temporary u
of something for an agreed payment; rent - and Google says that's a British definition. I suppose I hadn't heard that
because I live in (and grew up in) the US.
Horses have property rights now???renting is for objects.
You can rent a horse.
Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Feb 04 2022 09:03 am
That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity
under one power.
I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that,
getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.
Live and let live I say.
It is not the goal of God either. You have to recall the Tower of Babel and the origins of the multiplicity of languages. Th
last thing the God of Abraham wants is a united Earth under one government speaking the same language. The idea behind a uni
human race is Satanistic as the Bible is clear that you cannot seek to have Heaven on Earth.
You can rent a horse.Horses have property rights now???
Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valu
le lesson. Unification of the world under one
power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should hav
so much power over so many people.
Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
few Germans believed in the last century now.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.
I've never heard of a court case like that though.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.
I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.
Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-
Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back
when they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are
dropped?
Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.
It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.
When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.
I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were dri down to the floor.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Interesting, that may be because the asset is in itself evidence, or posesson of the asset implies cooperation in the crime.
I've never heard of a court case like that though.
It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled over for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's drug money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.
When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court to retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.
... Towards the insignificant
I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm
I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. Then Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were dri down to the floor.
Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.
|07 HusTler
... Click...click...click...damn, out of taglines!
Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should have so much power over so many people.
Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.
It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.
I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the pol to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.
Nightfox
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm
I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. The Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages were down to the floor.
Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the sam for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.
|07 HusTler
Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valu
le lesson. Unification of the world under one
power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, should hav
so much power over so many people.
I agree. For some reason, many Globalists don't see that.
Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what
few Germans believed in the last century now.
It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
That is a particularly Western idea, the unification of things, or as I prefer to call it, the homogenisation of humanity under one power.
Hindu and buddhist texts both mention the one-ness of God, as well as the oneness of creation - we're part of the whole, and helping one another is ultimately helping yourself.
I don't think combining religions is an admirable goal. Almost all religious persecution is about doing exactly that, getting everyone to subscribe to the same religion.
It's about theoretically combining religions while allowing each to flourish, and admittedly the devil's in the details. We may learn that religious people are in fact not spiritual and instead have material goals.
... Think of the radio
Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Sun Feb 06 2022 01:10 pm
Although I disgree with the religiou aspect of this, it is nevertheless a valuable lesson. Unification of the world under one
power would be a horrid dystopia. No human being, or organisation, shoul have so much power over so many people.
Borders, nations, separation are good. We can stop over-compensating for what a few Germans believed in the last century now.
There are so many valuable lessons in the Bible which are relevant today eve to those who believe it to be nothing more than a collection of fictitious fables.
If one person was to raised to a grandiose height and handed the crown of or to become the patriarch of the World... we'd be living in a despotic dystopi
Power can never be fully consolidated.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 06:47 am
It's starting to make the news. People travel with cash, get pulled ove for a traffic stop, police search the car, find the cash, assume it's d money, and confiscate it. Police departments then get to use the money after a period of time. At least that's the story that's been reported, corroborated by some departments bragging about buying things for the department with confiscated funds.
When it's your money that's confiscated, you then need to go to court t retrieve it, and that's where the odd court cases come to light. You'll need to pay for a lawyer and it could take a year or more to resolve.
I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone thout a warrant of some kind.
Nightfox
Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-
Is that why people sometimes supposedly don't get their assets back
when they themselves are found "not guilty" or when charges are
dropped?
Yes, even after the erstwhile drug charge is dropped, the "drug money" stays in the custody of the police department.
There is another creepier element to them, the "master race" idea. People wil
literally tell you that it is better that we all blend as one race, because then various problems in the world will go away. This is basically another version of the "if we make this race dominant, and get rid of others, problems
will go away" line of reasoning.
It is ironic, the folks who seem to want to cry "fascists!" and "Nazi!" in the US are the same ones that don't seem to understand that their Globalist
ideas have a lot in common with what those Germans believed. Even the idea
of the EU was something the Germans were looking towards.
I guess it's no accident that the EU's parliament building is modeled after th
Tower of Babel... haha.
That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mashed together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with Go doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identitie our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.
That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are par of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity fo political expedience.
People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyo before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.
The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 1 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.
We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in past, where done with with good reason.
I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as one would imagine.
Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:08 pm
That though is seperate to believing that everything unique has to be mas together into one homogeneous paste? Surely believing in a one-ness with doesn't preclude us living our own separate lives, keeping our own identi our own, if you well, unique expressions of creation.
That is what I think is the problem, not that we acknowledge that we are of the same creation, but this desire to homogenise and destroy diversity political expedience.
I think that, in practice, practicioners who believe variations of one-ness with the Universe are more interested in achieving it themselves. This is wh they practice discipline, restraint and self-sacrifice: they reject distractions that are only good for satisfying egos (which are pointless, because the ego is an illusion that does not exist).
It is pointless to want a pile of gold for yourself, when your existence as independent spiritual unit is an illusion.
When your beliefs operate in this environment, I think wanting to put everyb under the same political regime is completely out of scope. Governments and such are just a pathetic attempt from things that believe they are spiritual independent to control other things which believe they are spiritually independent, but that is hogwash, because the tyrant who gets people shot fo disagreeing and the people getting shot are ultimately the same spiritual un
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
There is a bit of everything.
A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpf only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.
For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army onl if need be was an ok deal.
Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism bec obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the lan into puppets.
On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if the had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. An here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend th book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), becaus it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rig groups.
So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all t is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.
I think in part our view of how companies work still has a feudalist mentali
We have to balance Traditionalism (standing by culture and tradition) with Progressivism, and making objective assessments of our long held cultural traditions and values. The problem is that sometimes it is not apparent why held certain beliefs until long after we've abandoned them. I've done a cursory search for Ultima Ratio Regis, and get some hits, but nothing thta looks like an English translation of the book.
Business do NOT determine wages by determining the value of labour That is just not how business works.
So a retail or fast food worker is not making minimum wage because pote employees with those skills are in high supply
A professional (tradesman, engineer, accountant etc) isn't making above minimum wage because of a lower
supply of potential employees with those skills?
Of course they are. Their labour commands a value based on what the mar of available labour commands.
I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. T Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large
numbers that wages were driven down to the floor.
This is precisely how businesses determine wages. The value of labour i decided by supply and demand.
They are competing against other employees, and want to offer a wage
which will attract the candidates they want. The wage is
still, I maintain, based on them hiring you, not your labour.
By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Fri Feb 04 2022 01:53 pm
I remember when web developers were in short supply. Wages were high. T Indians learned to do that in sufficiently large numbers that wages wer down to the floor.
Not sure if that argument is valid anymore. The cost of housing is the same for "Indians" as it is for the rest of us.
I wouldn't have thought the police could take something belonging to someone only based on a suspicion. I'd have thought it would be illegal for the police to take something belonging to someone without proof it's to be used for nefarious purposes or without a warrant of some kind.
Nightfox
People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.
The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.
We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people in the past, where done with with good reason.
People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think anyone
before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, the problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.
The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet some 19 year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.
They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.
Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.
Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every profession.
The police in my country can use legislation known as the Proceeds of Crime to seize belongings (cash, jewelry or any other valuable) that can be viewed as unexplained wealth. These productions are then lodged with a prosecutor who will thereafter release them back to the owner should they be able to prove they were acquired by legal means.
They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.
Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.
Re: Re: The stay home and not wor
By: Boraxman to Andeddu on Mon Feb 07 2022 05:14 pm
People today are very bigoted against people from the past. They think a before 2001 was an ignorant, bigot, unaware of the world, how it worked, problems we face etc. So they just reject out of hand what they said, believed, learned.
The reality is, that tradition, culture and religion are the products of generations, centuries of trial and error, hard learned lessons. Yet som year old girl attends some college and thinks she knows better.
We would all do well to realise that the values and ideas held by people past, where done with with good reason.
There is a bit of everything.
A lot of ideas and practices were just counterproductive, or were very helpf only for the people pushing it. Others made a lot whole of sense back in the day, but became obsolete.
For example, feudalism and feudal armies made sense in the 10th Century, because it tied together nobles with common interests with loyalty oaths and made it so areas dominated by a given type of culture could count with the protection of a warrior class capable of fending off invasive threats. Since keeping a standing army sucked very hard (wars ruined territories, because nobody was tending the crops if all the men were chopping heads), having a group of knights for keeping order and turning the peasants into an army onl if need be was an ok deal.
Once monarchies could afford siege machines nobody else could, feudalism bec obsolete because monarchs no longer needed the old loyalty sistem to ensure obedience of nobles and their subjects. Any noble who disagreed with whoever happened to have the artillery sets that Century would see his house bombed the ground with no recourse. History classes always point to the rise of the burgoise class as the downfall of the feudal system, but it was standing monarchist armies which turned nobles from warlords and defenders of the lan into puppets.
On the other hand, I think some ideas from the 5th Century Before Christ are still valid. A lot of Europeans look at 2nd Ammendmendt proponents as if the had losed it, but the idea that only slaves and non-citizens would allow themselves to be forbidden from bearing weapons already existed, in a way or another, in ancient Athens, Sparta, the Republican Rome, various Viking folks... the idea still survives in a number of Asian places to this day. An here is something funny: when a culture stops being combative, they abbandon the idea that free people has weapons, weapons get eliminated from society and that culture collapes under the push of external threats. I recommend th book Ultima Ratio Regis (if it exists in anything else than Spanish), becaus it makes this specific case despite the fact the author despises pro-gun rig groups.
So, in conclusion, we can extract valid lessons from the past, but not all t is past is golden either or would be golden if brought back.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Mon Feb 07 2022 04:51 pm
I would find it rather boring if everyone looked the same. There is a classic Twilight Zone episode about that. Things are not so utopic as on would imagine.
They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.
Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was cause by the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities who set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a mag device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.
Eventually the village sucked to the point of collapse. Nobody could bake a decent cake, because the ponies with the ability to bake a decent cake had been made equal with everybody else in mediocrity. Same with every professio
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply of potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the wages This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations the wor over.
The culture creators were able to invert almost all of our beliefs within th span of one century. It was a very impressive undertaking when you think abo it like that. The new culture that has been handed to us is destructive howe is packaged in such a way that the masses believe to be good and moral.
Homogeneity and standardisation of all systems, beliefs and cultures in the name of ending all disputues will take us down a dark path.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Tue Feb 08 2022 04:42 pm
They actually made a My Little Pony episodes, playing with the idea.
Some Pony leader convinced a whole village that society's problems was caused
the fact there were ponies who were better to others, or had unique abilities
set them appart from the others. Her solution was to use a magic
device to suck everypony's special traits out so everybody was equal in mediocrity.
how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons
how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons
Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.
Any more questions?
These inversions happen from time to time. Values are turned upside down for power. Our current "values" are as such as to benefit those one power, namely globalist government and corporations.
The fight against "Racism" isn't about tolerance, its about creating social conditions which benefit the elite. Destroying the family structure creates dependence and consolidates power. Power has shifted and as such, the values have had to change.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Feb 09 2022 08:41 am
how the fuck do you know about my little pony cartoons
Because Twilight is the best pony, that is why.
Any more questions?
you better not be one of those bronys
The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provide equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for various reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back than improving conditions for those who have less.
I have some MLP plushies in my bedroom and used to watch the show, but I don't go to conventions or start Internet fights about whether something was a master plan from Princess Celestia or not.
Which I suppose means I am a brony according to you :-P
By: Otto Reverse to Boraxman on Tue Feb 08 2022 11:15 am
The wage is based on the supply of potential employees who can perform required labour. Bigger supply of potential employees who can perform t required labour the lower the wage. Conversely the smaller the supply o potential employees who can perform the required labour the higher the This is a universal truth found in all democratic capitalist nations th over.
Not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that the price of renting a person for a fixed period of time is subject to market
dynamics.
You might want to think about what you wrote, because it is an admission that the "price of labour" isn't actually based on the price of the product of labour.
Which is what I've been arguing all along.
Otto Reverse wrote to Boraxman <=-
I don't need to rethink anything. This discussion stemmed from one on minimum wage and then how companies determine what to pay employees. I
had disagreed with what you'd said with my supply and demand argument.
You said the company you work for and your own business don't follow
that and I said I don't believe it, it is a world-wide truth as far as capitalist societies go. So no, it is not what you've been arguing all along. But hey, if you agree with me now I'll take it! ;)
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm
The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to provid equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing any limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for vari reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others back t improving conditions for those who have less.
Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much if you're competing with people who have leverage over you.
I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is too far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.
However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now abou race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention from where the real inequities actually lie.
You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of
labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I
argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm
The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to pro equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removing a limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder for v reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others bac improving conditions for those who have less.
Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean much i you're competing with people who have leverage over you.
I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality is far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.
However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is now a race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attention f where the real inequities actually lie.
People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those who had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often att buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you have to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open doors that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out others t t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.
You are confusing the cost of obtaining labour, with the value of labour. I never argued that labour didn't have a cost, nor have I argued against that cost being supply/demand influenced.
Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previous pos But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why they are what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Fri Feb 11 2022 12:33 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 10 2022 08:00 am
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Arelor on Tue Feb 08 2022 10:45 pm
The word I'm hearing more and more is equity. It is not enough to equality of opportunity, which is only lifting the roof and removin limit you can climb. Some are starting from lower on the ladder fo reasons, and it is easier to make things "equal" by holding others improving conditions for those who have less.
Where you start DOES matter a lot. Removing the roof doesn't mean muc you're competing with people who have leverage over you.
I really dislike how equity is implemented, but the wealth inequality far gone to avoid any sort of distribution/correction now.
However, now that instead of it being about assets and money, it is no race and gender, which I think is the elite wanting to divert attentio where the real inequities actually lie.
People ha ve started with less, and in some cases did better than those w had more because of where they started. There is a saying that is often buted to John F Kennedy, "rising waters lift all yachts." I feel this is true to an extent, however I do not believe the way to uplift some you ha to drown or hold back others. Quota programs in the apst would open door that some wouldn't have opened on their own, but they also left out other t studied heard and should have earned a place in a job or institution.
That would be an exception, not the rule. And I'm not saying this because I butthurt or anything, but I know that some luck, being able to obtain an ass inherited early has made a significant different. Much more so than you wou have thought.
That small advantage gives you leverage to a greater advantages, and that gi you more leverage. The system is gamed to reward "investors", definately. once made a "mistake" by spending thousands of dollars I didn't have to buy investments, and was fined $50 and had to sell them. I sold them making a f thousand in a short period of time, which I could then just reinvest elsewhe
Now I think about those who are renting, where the landlord just ups the re when they've cottoned on that the renter has had a small pay rise
In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.Yes, each November in California the fast food joints raise prices
Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger factor. In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than a full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by not being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard to pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.
In essence, raising the minimum wage doesn't lift up the poor, it pulls down everyone else. Simply put, being a millionaire wouldn't be so desirable if everyone was a millionaire.Yes, each November in California the fast food joints raise prices
another 5-10% to compensate for the min wage increases. Then I also
noticed in Feburary prices rose even again likely due to the cost of the commodities.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Sun Feb 13 2022 11:14 am
Another form of leverage that stems from disadvantage is the hunger fact In general, hungry animals are going to fight harder for their meal than full animal. Those who have rose from the lower ranks have done some by being happy with what they had, or didn't have much to lose. It is hard pass that on to a child that has everything they ask for.
True, which is why in family businesses they often tend to decline by the th generation, because they've been handed everything to them and become decade and lazy, taking what they have for granted.
Part of that is a work ethic. My grandparents were migrants, and there was strong work ethic, a strong push to study hard and try to achieve your best. In some of the poorer suburbs here in Melbourne, that senes of wanting to be the best you can be, isn't really there.
Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.
it rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, or help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 2022 11:09 am
Mileage does vary between individuals, however the fact remains success stories do happen and it is possible to escape poverty but it requires considerable effort and a plan.
We get a lot of stories here about some teenager or young adult that "made i rich", and almost always, somewhere in there, is some kind of inheritance, o help from their parents. You'll see stories about these kids who have a business, but the business was partly or completely set up for them. Trump himself started with a lot of money from his parents.
Stories DO happen, but they are the exception, not the rule. Connections matter more than ability.
I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes, e ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their personal motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be the most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your example th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, and the connections are the icing on the cake.
everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.
Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through previou But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why the what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)
Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay
a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make
it real.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 11:36 am
I jhope this isn't going off too far on a tangent. When Olympic athletes ecially medal winners are asked if they are there because of their person motivation or their athleticism, they'd choose motivation. You can be th most dedicated person yet lack the genetic profile that makes a person athletically better at something, but you won't get there. In your examp th saying it is connections, I think the drive or motivation is a given, the connections are the icing on the cake.
Yes, the winners of Olympic events must be ones with the athletic ability. you survey the winners, you've already filtered out those that don't have it
Likewise, if you just speak to people that made it, they too will say it is their own effort. It is human nature to want to attribute our own success to something we chose to do, our own values, effort, work, etc.
My personal experience though, I've dealt with many who have the connections but no drive, no ability, and who were in the position much to the wonder of everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corpor machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, their only skill knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Wed Feb 16 2022 06:26 pm
everyone else. People CLEARLY unfit for the job, but that is how the corporate machine works. I worked for someone who was utterly lazy, thei only skill was knowing who to know. I 've worked with others who's only skill was dating a relative of the CEO. The dumbest property developers will get favours in Australia. Some people are just driven to grift and brown-nose.
i worked at a place where there was this lady in her 50s who fucked the boss ke up with talked shit about her to everybody. i caught her giving a guy a
eventually she worked under and old 'friend' doing a job she didnt know how
i'm glad i left that place.
i'm glad i left that place.
My brother works for a small company that has a few ladies that play that game. The parent company has their spies that look out for dead weight that plays games like that.
Could be. I don't think so, but I'm not inclined to dig through prev But from my perspective we were talking about minimum wages and why what they are (supply/demand). Anyway, I guess we agree. ;)
Yes, we do! That is what I consider the problem. The more logical approach is to value the end product. The customers willingness to pay a price for what is produced is the true value of what was done to make it real.
That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it working i say a fast food restaurant or retail.
Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overrule by profitability.Maybe in a small company, but in a medium to large one, they get lost in the noise. A large company can afford to keep the driftwood.
Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyism can be overruled by profitability.
Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.
That does exist in many cases as contract work. But I can't see it work say a fast food restaurant or retail.
Pretty easy to figure. You sell 200 pizzas a night at $20 each, you produced $4,000 worth in value. Subtract your liabilities (cost of ingredients, amortised rent, energy, loans) and the residual is the surplus that the people worked to create would distribute as per their agreed contracts. So instead of arguing that labour is worth $X an
hour, you just get a share of the surplus. Some might be reinvested,
some might be held in reserve, but the left over is theirs (this
includes management!)
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm
Idiots exist as long as their idiocy stays within their department. As soon a s HR or business services begin wondering how much this guy is getting and paid and try to measure what he does, politics and chronyis can be overruled by profitability.
I have *never* seen it play out that way. He just gets moved over some other team/project under whatever leader was already protecting him.
The only time people get worked out is when 2+ peers did a good job scapegoating him with why their departments numbers were bad.
- Andre
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm
Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they ar thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.
all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate anytime for any reason except discrimination.
i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people though.
usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year put into the company. at my long time job, one guy who was there 50 years almost destroyed the company with a huge mistake that was because of his lazyness. he was forced to retire.
That's not going to work because the type of people who work these kinds of jobs rely on a regular pay cheque with a steady amount on that cheque every weeks. This is why entrepreneurs start pizza parlours, bear the burden/risk and then (if their is one) reap the rewards.
I have seen it once, and the person that was dismissed for poor performance wasn't the worst person I've worked with. The real reason was that she was under pressure from upper management to get stuff released, and they were probably not happy with her not rushing as much as she could have.
That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.
But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Thu Feb 17 2022 08:17 pm
Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large companies social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they ar thought of well by the right people, then, little else matters.
all of our states are 'at will' states. that means either side can terminate i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people
usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year retire.
Andre wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <620F996C.6965.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
@REPLY: <620F2D9B.55048.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri
Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm
That "at will" situation kind sounds sucky.
I really like it and wish it was that way in more companies. There's a huge difference with how workers in different countries act based on
how secure their employment is. I prefer the freedom and chaos that
comes with being a bit more of a free market.
The only thing I really wish was different is some sort of government mandated severence for maybe people under $100k or $150k or something. Like at a certain point, if you've been paid decently, you should have been able to amass an emergency fund. If you keep buying expensive
things and living on credit, then you reap what you sow.
Andre wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <620FAA75.6966.dove-general@bbs.radiomentor.org>
@REPLY: <620F2D9B.55048.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Fri
Feb 18 2022 04:24 pm
But "at will" means any reason. Try proving discrimination. If youre a protected class, black/gay/trans, you've got a shot, but if you're dismissed because you're white or conservative, I would imagine it would be close to impossible to show it is discrimination if the company just never admits it.
Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.
The US government seems hostile to the people who founded it.
terminate i thought california had some laws that made it harder to get rid of people
usually redundant people stick around out of respect of their amount of year retire.
Yeah, it's hard to get rid of non-performers when the company is doing well. When times are tough, some companies would rather offer incentives for early retirement before voluntary layoffs or terminations when money is tight. I worked for a couple of places where the budget would tip from feast to famine as quick as the wind blew. One week they would be cutting the level of
buyers in purchasing, then hiring new buyers a month later.
--- BORAXMAN wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Wed Feb 16 2022 10:33 pm
Things might be different in the US, but in Australia it isn't as easy to just
let someone go. So they make then "redundant". But also in large
companies
social climbing and status seeking are important, so if they are thought
of
well by the right people, then, little else matters.
---
Synchronet MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
Being white and/or conservative is not a protected class in US federal
law. It's age, pregnancy, origin, race, ethinicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Not the US government, or it's people, it's the Democrats and the Left... I'm not talking about the "Normal" Democrats... Gi
them a break as they have not figured out that their party has left them... The far left zealots have taken over... Truth b
known there people in the US government that will sell out their country for profit, this is a problem on the left and right
The same problem exists in Canada but it's harder to recognize... mainly because he wears Black Face...
BTW, I voted for the man who gave up profit for his country... I miss the way he says China!!!