RE: People should not have to work for a living. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:36:16 AM)

My sister and I have sort-of a running joke about all those slave laborers in China whenever we go to K-Mart or Wal-Mart, and see the ridiculously low prices.

It really isn't funny at all, and we know that (and I am an Amnesty International donor) . It's just that there isn't much we can do about it, since Americans, as a whole, will probably never willingly give up all of their reallly, really low prices goods.

- Susan 



juliaoceania -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:43:39 AM)

Yes Susan, I think that sometimes people in the USA think that everyone everywhere should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", when in other places they do not have the right to unionize, to vote in a free civil society with diverse political system (maybe I am acually describing the USA for the last few years..smiles). It is hard for people to challenge free market capitalism and get a fair deal.

In my undergraduate work we did some studies of how women's labor is often used when a country industrializes, because women are a more transient workforce, they are more mild and less likely to demand worker's rights. They will not hire married women or women with children often, there are no laws in many countries against such practices.



gooddogbenji -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:43:48 AM)

Hey, the smaller the kids, the more floors you can build!

(That was a running joke between me and some friends.  They moved into a neighbourhood with lots of kids, and decided they wanted to start a sweat shop.)

Seriously, though.  Don't you find it depressing that the western economy revolves around the rest of the world living in abject poverty?

Yours,


benji



juliaoceania -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:45:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

Hey, the smaller the kids, the more floors you can build!

(That was a running joke between me and some friends.  They moved into a neighbourhood with lots of kids, and decided they wanted to start a sweat shop.)

Seriously, though.  Don't you find it depressing that the western economy revolves around the rest of the world living in abject poverty?

Yours,


benji


It bothers me a great deal



SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:46:07 AM)

Yes, I do. I donate to Amnesty International, and I also have three "adopted" Ethiopian children I donate to every month, via an organization called World Vision. It's not a huge contribution to this mess, but it's something. I also donate to the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross - and the local homeless shelter and the Food Bank (because my hometown has poor people, too).

- Susan 



LaTigresse -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:49:12 AM)

And it is getting more and more difficult to avoid buying products made "out of country". Some of which I do blame the unions for. After seeing the inside working of contract negotiations, I have lost alot of respect for any benefit they may continue to have for US workers.



SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 8:54:51 AM)

Actually, if it were not for those near-slave laborers in China, I believe the American standard of living would maybe be in the toilet, so to speak. I think,

Personally, that China's government has about 20 years, tops, before the dawn of true capitalism starts to take over in the hearts of a majority of their population. Wal-Mart has opened over there, and they did allow unionization for their Chinese employees (which is something Wal-Mart does not do in the U.S.) - it's only a matter of time. In China, though, this may be a great idea for the people.
I mean, the average Chinese worker makes something like $40-80 a month?
That makes me feel like an absolute slug, on many levels.

- Susan



juliaoceania -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:01:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

And it is getting more and more difficult to avoid buying products made "out of country". Some of which I do blame the unions for. After seeing the inside working of contract negotiations, I have lost alot of respect for any benefit they may continue to have for US workers.


I do not blame unions, I worked for one, my Daddy belongs to one, I blame pure unadulterated greed, and the fact that corporations are not encouraged to stay here, and the fact that the artifical lowering of the cost of fossils through the 90s created a situation where it was more economical to ship things around the world than to make a product here. I would refer you to http://www.newamericancentury.org/ , in which they discuss lowering the price of gas to what it would cost for a gallon pof fitlered water during the 90s.

I would also blame people that were so short-sighted that they didn't buy from their neighborhood store at higher prices, but instead they chose to shop WalMart, destroying the economic fabric of small communities throughout the USA.

But like I said, I am a commie in some ways, not the Russian kind, the materialist theory of economics kind. If it were not for Marx there would be no unions, socialists pressed for a 40 hour week, and vacation, health benefits. We take that forgratned here.. it really is unfortunate that people do not care what happened 100 years ago. My Daddy's union gets the birthday of the founder of the union as a paid holiday. The day they were murdered for unionizing The Port of Los Angeles the port completely shuts down for everything but perishables to honor these men who sacrificed their lives in the labor struggle right here in my state. Many others died and continue to be murdered around the global in this struggle...



gooddogbenji -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:05:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Actually, if it were not for those near-slave laborers in China, I believe the American standard of living would maybe be in the toilet, so to speak. I think, 



Nope.  Without the Chinese slave labourers, we wouldn't have toilets, not even American Standard (TM)

Yours,


benji



SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:07:43 AM)

Right you are puppy dog! Hehe.
Well, most electronics, and certainly much of the stuff sold at Wal-Mart and Target is not made in the U.S. Some is, much of it is not, though.

- Susan



meatcleaver -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:08:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Wrong. [:D]
Differing thoughts I guess but to me, at least part of human dignity is derived from a willingness to work...doesn't matter whether the work is blue collar, white collar...at an honest labor.  A lack of this willingness due to no extenuating circumstances such as disability or illness but only an indulgence of the pleasure-seeking self diminishes dignity.

As for whether it is written down somewhere that people should only do what they like...it might be but having been a soldier who read the Geneva Convention papers several times, I can tell you that it is not in there.  Sorry! [;)]


What is this thing about honest labour? I can only suggest you have been indoctrinated or at least socialized into the puritan idea of the work ethic. Capitalists don't indulge in honest labour. As my brother's father in law pointed out to him, 'People don't get rich by working hard to earn a living, you get rich by working hard at accumulating wealth.' A big difference.

Think about it. Most jobs are utterly pointless and are only there to keep money circulating. People have their time which is their most valuable asset appropriated for other people to get rich on their backs. Having seen the light I walked out of my job and have been doing what I damn well please, fortunately I earn enough money to live but I am down at the local haven most days for lunch. I don't have the desire to be a millionaire but neither do I have the desire to have my time consumed in a meaningless job.

Capitalists are just getting rich on people feeling guilty if they sit around or indulge in the sensual experience of existence. Fuck capitalists. You only live once and I'm going to enjoy the ride and not waste it on some dreary pointless activity.



SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:12:16 AM)

I think there needs to be a legal limit on executive pay levels. Too many people are losing their jobs, while many of the execs get golden parachutes. Menawhile, the government has made it legal for companies to declare bankruptcy and lose, or get rid of,  the workers' pension funds, while at the same time not going out of business, but re-organizing. Any corporate raider can come in and re-hire the same workers who were just laid off their jobs, and lost their pensions, at a lower salary. Bush has made this even more atractive to people who do such things than it was before he took office. Individual citizens, however, do not get the same courtesy, if they find themselves in financial trouble and having to declare bankruptcy.

Does anyone really earn, much less need, a $10 million a year salary w/much valuable company stock thrown in? How much money does one person need? Isn't 1-2$ million enough?

- Susan  



LaTigresse -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:12:43 AM)

Oh, I agree that unions once served their purpose here. I am too aware of our history in this country to belittle anything they did in the past. It is the way they conduct their business now that bothers me. When a woman sitting on an expensive ergonomically correct chair assembling switch gears with an expensive ergonomically correct air driver can miss a grand total of 20 weeks of work without any reason, do substandard work, while making $27.00 an hour, be immediately eligible for overtime because of her time with the company, costs the company a fortune in benefits,does substandard work and it takes almost an act of God to get rid of her, finally after 2 years of documentation, fired, then of course backed by her beloved union, sues the company. I don't blame said company for saying the hell with it, and moving their entire production line. And the thing that really pisses me off, that union seems to think she deserved to get paid more than most teachers, police, and paramedics.
I just feel that the unions have gone too far, pushed too hard and are in a large part responsible for their paying members loss of jobs.
But then, I am just one person that saw the decision making behind the scenes that put several thousand union workers out of a job because of their union leaders demands.



LaTigresse -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:14:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I think there needs to be a legal limit on executive pay levels. Too many people are losing their jobs, while many of the execs get golden parachutes. Menawhile, the government has made it legal for companies to declare bankruptcy and loste the workers' pension funds, while not going out of business. Individual citizens, however, do not get the same courtesy.

Does anyone really earn a $10 million a year salary w/much valuable company stock thrown in? How much money does one person need? Isn't 1-2$ million enough?

- Susan  


I agree with this also. The very same company I was speaking of used their creative accounting to make very sure their top tier management got their 6 figure plus bonuses. They would have regardless.



gooddogbenji -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:16:05 AM)

I do blame unions.  I also blame individuals, but unions make people lazy.

I come from the opposite end of the spectrum - my family is the employer of a few thousand people.  While we try to manufacture in North America and Europe, the problem is that people are not willing to pay higher prices.  Now, without a union, you can get away with certain things, but you get a union in, and you're screwed. 

You can no longer reward good staff, only senior staff.
People get random days off (Like the birthday of the founder) hurting productivity, efficiency, and flexibility.
Depending on the union, they may just decide to strike to support another union (Here in Canada, at least, a common practice)
Union labour is paid so much more than non-union, which seems fair at first, but all it does is make the company become entirely non-competitive unless they make a drastic move, like moving production to China.  So instead of making $10/hour, you make nothing. 

Unions are a company like any other.  They provide a service in exchange for money, and they have to make a profit.  The service they provide is better working conditions (or the illusion thereof) the money they take in is dues. 

The better they make you think you're off, the more you're willing to pay.

So to make a long story short, if unions were reasonable, and not just in it for their own good, they would maintain a basic minimum, and then work WITH the employer to ensure that the company remains competitive. 

I can just imagine the headlines now:

"Union approves laying off of 1 000 staff, paycut to rest"

I don't think they'd say it saved 10 000 people their jobs.

Yours,


benji



SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:21:23 AM)

I agree with the original reason unions were started and think they were definitely needed. But - things can sometimes go "too far". One reason I was laid off from my General Motors market research analyst job (along w/1,500 other folks who were laid off that same year) was due to the fact that General Motors was having extreme financial difficulty paying out worker benefits that were insisted upon by union workers. They would not budge on their demands, and once they got those benefits, the company felt they had to give them to every worker, unionized, or not.

In the short run, it was nice. When I got laid off, I still received 90% of my old salary, plus free health insurance, for an entire year. I worked for the division that made electric and diesel engines for locomotives, and marine vessels. But - after that year was over, 2,000 more people in that division lost their jobs. The original force of 7,000 is currently at a little over 1,100 folks, and the company has been trying to sell off that division - but nobody else, including the U.S. government, wants to buy it, because it has operated at a loss for years and it makes it look like nobody could possibly run it at a profit.

Paying for their benefits to workers was a big part of the reason. Nobody in the world, practically, has better benefits than GM employees have had - or really absolutely needs them, probably. I remember a lot of unionized employees being shocked that nobody else was going to hire them at $25 a hour, with a high school education, once they got laid off. This was especially sad for the folks that had families to support. At the time I was laid off, I was single and didn't care that much. 

- Susan 



juliaoceania -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:32:31 AM)

I think that corporations that harm people should be closed.. I think they should be closed and their officers tried for crimes against humanity... starting with WalMart. I think corporations should be illegal, because they only have a responsibility to shareholders, and none to the people who use their product, and none to those they employ. They spew this garbage about being "good corporate citizens".. I say, what the hell???? They are NOT citizens. The bottom line is all that matters, and they will ship jobs where ever they can to save 5 cents a unit on 150 dollar sneakers. It galls me. The tech industry had no unions, it didn't save the ass of all those computer techs, engineers, and programmers, did it? Living in California I know many of them, my Daddy was a computer engineer himself. He is now an college educated longshoreman because he can make 6 figurres a year and they cannot "outsource" the port..smiles. You may think that it was the cost of living and doing business in California that caused this, actually the tech boom made property values skyrocket in some places. If these companies wanted to move out of the USA because they were in california, why not go to Nevada? Because India was even cheaper.



SusanofO -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:35:48 AM)

I certainly agree with you julia that a lot of dmage to the world has been done in the name of increasing shareholder profits. Some good has come of it - capitalism isn't all bad. But lots of damage, too. No doubt.  

- Susan  



gentlethistle -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:44:07 AM)

I quite agree (with this thread's proposition). 

No one should have to work for a living.  It's pointless, degrading and grossly inefficient.  Not only do a whole raft of deductions get taken from your wages before you can pay other people to carry out services (involving a whole lot of deductions from their pay, plus profits for shareholders and so on and so on).... but also, think of all the management overheads of organising everyone's work, and entire HR departments dedicated to employing us.

No, people should simply, co-operatively and generously do what needs to be done and make what needs to be made, possibly with a bit of judicious bartering where necessary.

However, I haven't got the slightest idea how you successfully form a society with large enough critical mass to care for itself based on these principles.

So I guess we'll have to stick with the day jobs.  Bummer.  I was so looking forward to giving up work.

Laura



BrutalAntipathy -> RE: People should not have to work for a living. (8/22/2006 9:44:11 AM)

Thats right, every morning I wake up and put one foot on the ground and the other up the ass of a 12 year-old Indonesian girl.___Ed Wunkler, the Boondocks.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125