| [_strat_] Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:18:32 PM | |
|
I found this litte thing on the net: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Basicly, it gives you a whole bunch of questions, ranging from economy, social issues, ect. and determines your political standing. The special thing is that it does not only determine the usual "left - right" division, but also your standing on libertarian vs. authoritarian, which gives imo a much better picture.
Now... Anyone up for it? I took it. Results:
-9,50
-7,13
Which place me firmly in the bottom left quadrant of the libertarian left. |
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, February 08, 2009 4:18:13 PM | |
|
Apparently its also legal in six other countries... Among them Switzerland, Thailand, and two US states. The Swiss have a clinic where foreigners can come for euthanasia.
And yeah, Dutch are right. I always thought that in cases like these, the worst thing you can do is ban it. Then you guarantee that there will be a black market for it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:56:57 PM)| |  | Head banger wrote: | | true, the dutch will legalize anything, and are probably right with most things they do, that way.
the girls wishes, the familys wishes and the wishes of most people get trampled on.
I mentioned the evil dollar earlier, because ultimatly, all these decisions have a cost, either in cost to the family in a user pay system like the states, or in cost to society like in a socialized system.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Agreed - outlawed here too. I think that only the Dutch have legalised it so far... But they legalise just about anything.
And in any case, before she fell in the coma, the girl expressed the wish not to be kept on machines, should it come to that.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | over here its just totaly outlawed. sad. when a person cant live, they should be able to die.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Scrap economics, thats the least of the concern here. But, I agree, its cruel, its backwards, its... Typical for the Catholic church. I guess the Panzer Pope is not content with having people live the way he wants them, he wants them to die the way he wants it too.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | IMO, making someone suffer that long is insane, prolonging it is just cruel to both the family and the person, not to mention an economicly silly idea. but toss economics, its cruel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:56:57 PM | |
|
true, the dutch will legalize anything, and are probably right with most things they do, that way.
the girls wishes, the familys wishes and the wishes of most people get trampled on.
I mentioned the evil dollar earlier, because ultimatly, all these decisions have a cost, either in cost to the family in a user pay system like the states, or in cost to society like in a socialized system.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:35:19 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Agreed - outlawed here too. I think that only the Dutch have legalised it so far... But they legalise just about anything.
And in any case, before she fell in the coma, the girl expressed the wish not to be kept on machines, should it come to that.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | over here its just totaly outlawed. sad. when a person cant live, they should be able to die.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Scrap economics, thats the least of the concern here. But, I agree, its cruel, its backwards, its... Typical for the Catholic church. I guess the Panzer Pope is not content with having people live the way he wants them, he wants them to die the way he wants it too.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | IMO, making someone suffer that long is insane, prolonging it is just cruel to both the family and the person, not to mention an economicly silly idea. but toss economics, its cruel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:35:19 PM | |
|
Agreed - outlawed here too. I think that only the Dutch have legalised it so far... But they legalise just about anything.
And in any case, before she fell in the coma, the girl expressed the wish not to be kept on machines, should it come to that.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:31:51 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | over here its just totaly outlawed. sad. when a person cant live, they should be able to die.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Scrap economics, thats the least of the concern here. But, I agree, its cruel, its backwards, its... Typical for the Catholic church. I guess the Panzer Pope is not content with having people live the way he wants them, he wants them to die the way he wants it too.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | IMO, making someone suffer that long is insane, prolonging it is just cruel to both the family and the person, not to mention an economicly silly idea. but toss economics, its cruel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:31:51 PM | |
|
over here its just totaly outlawed. sad. when a person cant live, they should be able to die.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:13:44 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Scrap economics, thats the least of the concern here. But, I agree, its cruel, its backwards, its... Typical for the Catholic church. I guess the Panzer Pope is not content with having people live the way he wants them, he wants them to die the way he wants it too.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | IMO, making someone suffer that long is insane, prolonging it is just cruel to both the family and the person, not to mention an economicly silly idea. but toss economics, its cruel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:13:44 PM | |
|
Scrap economics, thats the least of the concern here. But, I agree, its cruel, its backwards, its... Typical for the Catholic church. I guess the Panzer Pope is not content with having people live the way he wants them, he wants them to die the way he wants it too.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:05:02 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | IMO, making someone suffer that long is insane, prolonging it is just cruel to both the family and the person, not to mention an economicly silly idea. but toss economics, its cruel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:05:02 PM | |
|
IMO, making someone suffer that long is insane, prolonging it is just cruel to both the family and the person, not to mention an economicly silly idea. but toss economics, its cruel.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, February 07, 2009 4:51:34 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, February 07, 2009 4:51:34 PM | |
|
Well... Maybe a new topic? The shit in Italy comes to mind... A girl has had an accident in 1992, and has been in a coma since. Now, after her father went through hell in proving that there is no chance she can wake up again, they have finaly started to gradualy stop her feeding, and in effect perform euthanasia. But... The Catholic church, along with the neo-fascist prime minister Berlusconni started their usual shit about the "sancity of life", and are trying to pass laws that would prevent euthanasia.
Opinions? Mine is that they should let her family decide. |
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, February 07, 2009 4:43:03 PM | |
|
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllll.... Time for me to throw my hands in the air now... We are at a full circle again, it would seem. You have a lot to learn, comrade...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 06, 2009 5:38:31 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if it cant be sold, its doomed from the start.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Refer to my previous posts - if there are any other employees beside you, they should be the co-owners... So, you cant just sell something that isnt your alone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | most people's retirement savings are invested in shares. mutual funds and the like. companies that give, or sell shares at a discount, end up with more loyal and dedicated employees, because they have a more vested interest in the success of the business.
but, if I cant sell the company, and its running out of money, I have to close it and put everyone out of work. plus, if I open a company, build it up, should I not be able to profit from my hard work and cash invested?
ron, there are, and some do it very well. see Warren Buffett.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, February 06, 2009 5:38:31 PM | |
|
so, if it cant be sold, its doomed from the start.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, February 06, 2009 4:58:37 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Refer to my previous posts - if there are any other employees beside you, they should be the co-owners... So, you cant just sell something that isnt your alone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | most people's retirement savings are invested in shares. mutual funds and the like. companies that give, or sell shares at a discount, end up with more loyal and dedicated employees, because they have a more vested interest in the success of the business.
but, if I cant sell the company, and its running out of money, I have to close it and put everyone out of work. plus, if I open a company, build it up, should I not be able to profit from my hard work and cash invested?
ron, there are, and some do it very well. see Warren Buffett.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, February 06, 2009 4:59:50 PM | |
|
Yup... Parasites. A wonder that nobody thought to make some sort of a spray or a powder to get rid of them.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Friday, February 06, 2009 11:10:53 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...for some...buying and selling companies IS their jobs...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, February 06, 2009 4:58:37 PM | |
|
Refer to my previous posts - if there are any other employees beside you, they should be the co-owners... So, you cant just sell something that isnt your alone.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 06, 2009 11:17:20 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | most people's retirement savings are invested in shares. mutual funds and the like. companies that give, or sell shares at a discount, end up with more loyal and dedicated employees, because they have a more vested interest in the success of the business.
but, if I cant sell the company, and its running out of money, I have to close it and put everyone out of work. plus, if I open a company, build it up, should I not be able to profit from my hard work and cash invested?
ron, there are, and some do it very well. see Warren Buffett.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, February 06, 2009 12:06:01 PM | |
|
WELL... under the changes I would have made, we would eliminate a ton of civil servants. your plant is subcontracted, a supplier.. you have to be dedicated to the health of the company you supply, but also your own.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Friday, February 06, 2009 11:28:04 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | That type of system only works if you produce you're own product...what if you're a civil servant?...or you support another company like the plant I work in...sub-contracted work??...
| | | Head banger wrote: | | most people's retirement savings are invested in shares. mutual funds and the like. companies that give, or sell shares at a discount, end up with more loyal and dedicated employees, because they have a more vested interest in the success of the business.
but, if I cant sell the company, and its running out of money, I have to close it and put everyone out of work. plus, if I open a company, build it up, should I not be able to profit from my hard work and cash invested?
ron, there are, and some do it very well. see Warren Buffett.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Friday, February 06, 2009 11:28:04 AM | |
|
That type of system only works if you produce you're own product...what if you're a civil servant?...or you support another company like the plant I work in...sub-contracted work??...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 06, 2009 11:17:20 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | most people's retirement savings are invested in shares. mutual funds and the like. companies that give, or sell shares at a discount, end up with more loyal and dedicated employees, because they have a more vested interest in the success of the business.
but, if I cant sell the company, and its running out of money, I have to close it and put everyone out of work. plus, if I open a company, build it up, should I not be able to profit from my hard work and cash invested?
ron, there are, and some do it very well. see Warren Buffett.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, February 06, 2009 11:17:20 AM | |
|
most people's retirement savings are invested in shares. mutual funds and the like. companies that give, or sell shares at a discount, end up with more loyal and dedicated employees, because they have a more vested interest in the success of the business.
but, if I cant sell the company, and its running out of money, I have to close it and put everyone out of work. plus, if I open a company, build it up, should I not be able to profit from my hard work and cash invested?
ron, there are, and some do it very well. see Warren Buffett.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, February 06, 2009 11:07:39 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Friday, February 06, 2009 11:10:53 AM | |
|
...for some...buying and selling companies IS their jobs...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, February 06, 2009 11:07:39 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, February 06, 2009 11:07:39 AM | |
|
Not here. Some companies (very few) have the policy to give a part of their shares to employees - but never enough for the employees to have any real control over the decision making. And shares dont have anything to do with pensions, anyway.
My opinion is that we should scrap the entire "shares" thing altogether. Scrap buying and selling companies as well. Buying a company isnt just a piece of paper that states that you have a certain amount of shares of a certain company - it means trading with peoples jobs.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 06, 2009 10:56:30 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, February 06, 2009 10:57:30 AM | |
|
there are some. most work. see, we are comparing apples to oranges with stats.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, February 06, 2009 10:29:34 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Stay at home moms? You really do have a lot of money floating around there. Over here, most women are employed, simply because just one wage doesnt suffice to keep an average family going. As for maternity leave, I did say before that they dont count as unemployed (as they are not), and they do get financial compensation - so they dont get nothing.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | stay at home moms, after the maternaty leave do. and in our income stats, I am sure most forms of suport dont count.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No one "earns" 0. If nothing else, there is at least the social support. And those that earn 1000 (and suppose 1000 is the average) are not really doing anything to raise or lover the average.
That, and the few on the top earn more than all of us combined.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if a million people earn 1000 per month, it skews the average right close to that. sure you get a few on the top end, you get some who earn 0. shit happens
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | If a thousand earn a million dollars between them in a month, thats thousand dollars each, and that would be average by our standards. If one person earns a million in a month, thats the equivalent of two thousand workers on our minimal wage. And, if we take into consideration that certain people get tens of millions of dollars per year, and that there are more than just one such person, then we get that a handfull of people get as much money for sitting in the board of directors, as the rest of us (say, nine tenths of the working population) get for working.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if there are a million people there and a thousand earned a million dollars, they have very little effect on the average, but yes, some are higher and some are lower
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The "average" wage may be a bit of a deception - over here its around 800€ - but very few actualy get that. Most get around 500, and the handfull with really big incomes bring the averages up. IDK, maybe the same at you end? I guess you have more people that are richer than our rich people.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, February 06, 2009 10:56:30 AM | |
|
so, if the average company is owned by shareholders, most workers are owners here in a DC pension.
would it make sense to give employees stock options?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, February 06, 2009 10:26:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | There would still be a director, and there would be people to organize and run things - a workers council is supposed to be the body that they answer to. Kinda like the CEO must answer to the business owners, who are not the workers in the company.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | would you have different control if a workers council ran the company? your one voice would get heard? what if they screwed up, would the state simply give the company more money to keep going. would you keep building VCR's for the next 20 years? dvd and pvr have effectivly killed it, how come the workers didnt see it coming? works both ways.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, vote....My vote and a million others. The majority has the control, wheter I am with it or against it. Not to mention that essentialy all candidates are business friendly... In a way that benefits business owners, not the employees. Probably the best thing to do would be to dig out the Communists, they were the opposite. And if it was up to me, thats how things would be run. Freedom of press, speech... No problem. Prostitution, gay marriage, light drugs, no problem either, personal things. NO private businesses. Workers councils and state planning. That worked. It gave us half a century of peace and prosperity. Two decades of capitalism gave us misery and foreign dependancy. No contest here.
I know to avoid people who want me to work too much. Infact, I can, since we have the laws that forbid it, and means to enforce them - both thanks to the unions and class struggle - so I guess that Im covered here, at least better than most working people in the world.
In any case... Some control, I guess so. But not nearly enough. I dont make any decisions on how to run the company. What if people who do screw up, and I lose the job because of their incompetence?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | skils transfer. its not like you only learn a computer system that your present company is the only one who uses, you need all kinds of skills. most transfer. your planing to get into an industry that is creating weath, therefore will survive. BTW, avoid rent a car right now. ha!
effort, you control. demand, well its quite vaguely under your conttrol. voting for business friendly candidates, etc.... but within reason, anyone who wants you to work like bob cratchet, avoid. the pendulum can swing to far. but there is some control
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Effort? Yes, but you said skills before. Not interchangeable. And there is still the factor of demand, which is not even vaguely under my control.
And, yes, some companies may just train me... To work for them. If that job is gone, what then?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your effort is under your control, the public education goes away, companies will train you. I guarantee it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, February 06, 2009 10:29:34 AM | |
|
Stay at home moms? You really do have a lot of money floating around there. Over here, most women are employed, simply because just one wage doesnt suffice to keep an average family going. As for maternity leave, I did say before that they dont count as unemployed (as they are not), and they do get financial compensation - so they dont get nothing.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, February 06, 2009 7:23:33 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | stay at home moms, after the maternaty leave do. and in our income stats, I am sure most forms of suport dont count.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No one "earns" 0. If nothing else, there is at least the social support. And those that earn 1000 (and suppose 1000 is the average) are not really doing anything to raise or lover the average.
That, and the few on the top earn more than all of us combined.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if a million people earn 1000 per month, it skews the average right close to that. sure you get a few on the top end, you get some who earn 0. shit happens
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | If a thousand earn a million dollars between them in a month, thats thousand dollars each, and that would be average by our standards. If one person earns a million in a month, thats the equivalent of two thousand workers on our minimal wage. And, if we take into consideration that certain people get tens of millions of dollars per year, and that there are more than just one such person, then we get that a handfull of people get as much money for sitting in the board of directors, as the rest of us (say, nine tenths of the working population) get for working.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if there are a million people there and a thousand earned a million dollars, they have very little effect on the average, but yes, some are higher and some are lower
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The "average" wage may be a bit of a deception - over here its around 800€ - but very few actualy get that. Most get around 500, and the handfull with really big incomes bring the averages up. IDK, maybe the same at you end? I guess you have more people that are richer than our rich people.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
