Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2016, 07:04 PM
RE: Do or Die
(29-09-2016 05:26 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Ok. And you also used an exceptional example to demonstrate your point. The point I am making? That despite this example, most poor people wont make it out without catching a break.
The question I am asking is "why?"

If the opportunity is there, then why aren't the poor taking those opportunities?
Does giving them money each month improve their chances of taking those opportunities or do they then think, why bother?

How does giving them money work towards getting them employed and self sufficient?


(29-09-2016 05:26 PM)tomilay Wrote:  And you say that they should just apply themselves. And I say that they do and still remain poor.
I don't believe you.
If a person has the qualifications, a potential employer doesn't look at the size of their bank account. How do you reason why they can't get the job?

(29-09-2016 05:26 PM)tomilay Wrote:  How did Americans manage to get back to prosperity from the great depression?
Why are you focussing on America?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2016, 07:08 PM
RE: Do or Die
(29-09-2016 05:26 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 04:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I didn't say that at all.
I said there are opportunities for everyone, regardless if you are poor.

...

Ok. And you also used an exceptional example to demonstrate your point. The point I am making? That despite this example, most poor people wont make it out without catching a break.

And you say that they should just apply themselves. And I say that they do and still remain poor. In any case, I am beginning to doubt if you have ever interacted with poor people in real life. I am not talking about the hobo on the street corner but the working poor.

Yours are fine soundbites, but they convey little by way of useful insights to a problem that is only worsening in the US despite continued economic growth. Let's cut to the chase. How did Americans manage to get back to prosperity from the great depression?

Blowing up industrial infrastructure abroad?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
29-09-2016, 09:14 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2016 11:13 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(29-09-2016 02:26 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 11:00 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  If the rich want to leave, let 'em.

I wonder why they don't take their wealth and selves to some undeveloped armpit where they can bribe officials and get away without paying taxes.

Because there is already a semi-legal and respectable place to do this already. It's called Ireland.


Apple Owes $14.5 Billion in Back Taxes to Ireland, E.U. Says

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
29-09-2016, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2016 01:04 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which is precisely why you cannot rely upon them to protect the best interest of your citizens.
Who is relying on businesses to protect interests of citizens? I don't know where this comes from? We also don't rely on businesses to build parks or to beautify our beaches, so what? I'm not understanding your point on this.

Because you profess an unhealthy and seemingly naive level of trust in the beneficence of entities with explicit profit driven motivations.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unless they have a monopoly, the end goal for every profit driven venture, the point at which they no longer have meaningful competition.
A wise government will have anti-monopoly measures in place.

Ideally yes, but it's also in the corporation's best interests to buy off the government to prevent or erode such measures. The public trust and the profit seeking goals of corporations are frequently categorically at odds.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Consequence of a successful business? Nope. You just described public works.
Huh, you don't think business employ people?
You don't think business bring in the need for decent infrastructure?

Everyone needs good infrastructure. But we didn't build the interstate highway system for the benefit of General Motors, we built it in case of a communist invasion during the Cold War. Granted, the automotive industry benefited from it heavily, so much so that public transportation never took off in as meaningful a way is it did in most other industrialized nations.


(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just take a look at India or other poor countries, when industry comes, so does infrastructure, also schools etc, industry is the life's blood of a thriving economy.

They also bring dangers of their own, terribly unsafe working conditions and environments. International corporations don't move their business to under developed nations because it benefits the native population, but because they can get beneficial and cost saving agreements, often saving money at a direct cost to worker safety and the environment.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is greed. Everything, including morality and ethics, is subservient to profit.
I really don't know why you are talking about morality and ethics. Business aren't churches. It isn't there place to be moral or promote morality. Why would you expect them to?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think churches are in the morality business.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's why business need regulations, because they cannot be trusted.
I'm not entirely against regulations, but of course I deem it as very serious when the govt interferes. So regulations ought to be kept in check.
Businesses aren't evil. It isn't evil to want to have a thriving and profitable business.

Profit at the cost of morality and ethics is evil, and in a corporation, everything is subservient to the attainment of profits.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unless they set up a hiring cartel with their competition, mutually agreeing with each other to artificially keep their wages lower and not scalp each other's talent, so that they all make more money from lower wages paid out to their employees. That shit can, and does, happen. In Silicon Valley, many of the largest tech firms (Apple, Google, Intel, etc.) have this gentleman's agreement in place. In a corporation, everything is subservient to profit.
Sounds like an out there conspiracy to me. People switch jobs all the time, talented people get head hunted and get paid huge salaries.

Yeah, well, I wish I was making this shit up.

Ex-Apple, Google, Intel geeks in line for $415m over wage-fix pacts

As expected, a four-year-long wage-fixing case could be over – after Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe offered to pay out $415m to make the case go away.

The foursome are trying to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by former employees over claims senior management quietly entered a pact to not poach each other's staff. This effectively kept engineers' wages relatively low as the deal meant no company could offer techies a salary increase to defect.




(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Just point out why they are not to be trusted, when you seem so willing to bend yourself over and let them fuck you in the ass with a smile on your face, lest they head off and go fuck someone else in your stead.
You seem to have a very negative view of successful people, of employers. I see them as providing me with a job and income and opportunity for me to upskill. If I don't like my current employer then I seek other arrangements by applying for other jobs. In the meantime, I work, I get paid, I have the odd holiday, I still get paid, I do some training, I still get paid. I don't count that as being fucked in the ass.
I am grateful to have a job.

Because we do not live in a meritocracy. I've spent well over a decade working under a few different family businesses, and they've all been rampant with nepotism and incompetence. They abuse the rules for salaried employees, often having them work multiple positions in excess of over 60~70 hours a week, for a salary calculated on a 40 hour work week. Turnover is obscene, as I've had five different general managers in as many years. I don't get holidays, and my paid time off rolls over and disappears every year, and I never get to use it all because almost nobody can cover my position because we're critically understaffed and have incessant turnover. The people in positions to make decisions that affect the ground level don't have the slightest idea what actually happens at the ground level, and they've demonstrated this ignorance for years. That want an experienced and well trained staff, but refuse to put the effort to train people or pay them enough to keep them; instead relying upon burning out enthusiastic fresh faces who have no idea for what a shit show they're in for.

So I trust large businesses about as far as I can throw them, which is to say, not at all.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Income for who? In the United States, corporations are sitting on some of the largest piles of cash they have ever had, and they're not doing shit with it.
Really?! that sounds like poor management to have all that capital and not get returns from it. They will surely go under at that rate.

It's not poor management per se, rather just the logical conclusion of their profit seeking actions. They're paying less in taxes than ever before. They also operate in a consumer driven economy, and it is demand that drives consumption; and in their incessant seeking of profitability, they've offloaded so much economic burden onto the consumers that they've stifled consumer demand. In effect, they have cut off their own legs, and are left sitting atop piles of capitol. They could use it to hire more staff and make more product, but they won't, because there is not enough demand; because said demand is being stifled by their own profit seeking actions.

They have become Ouroboros, so consumed by hunger they eat their own tail.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They have the money to hire people, or pay better wages, but they're not. Why?
They aren't a charity. If the business case doesn't stack up then they spend the money on other things. there is no obligation to hire more staff than you need. No obligation to pay a staff member more than they are worth.

See above. They're too near sighted to notice that their actions now are negatively affecting everyone's future.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Wages have been stagnant for decades, so people's buying power hasn't increased. In their drive for profitability, they're killing off their own market.
Really?, they are often outsourcing to lower costs, looking to automate to lower costs. Consumers are lucky to be able to reap the benefits of that.

Really really. Median wages have been relatively stagnant in the US since the 70's, around the time the Supreme Court started to side with corporations over the public good. I can do my job by myself thanks to technology. My position would have taken about three people to perform in the 70's. But the kicker is, each of those three people would have earned in excess of a living wage, whereas I don't even make that much. There was a befit to automation, but workers didn't see any of it, all of that increased profitability went straight into the pockets of the employers. American workers are far more productive than they have ever been, work more hours and with far less time off than our first world contemporaries, and yet we have little to show for it. There has to be a better balance, and laissez faire economic policies won't get you there.



(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Every year that passes without a raise in wages, but the cost of living goes up, means there's less left over for the rest of the economy.
You put wages up,then perhaps since costs are now higher you raise the price of your goods, now cost of living goes up even higher. Or perhaps offshore companies making the same thing can do it cheaper and your business goes under, and onshore jobs are lost.

Once again, knee capping the buying power of the consumers in a consumer driven economy is doing nothing but eroding the foundation of said economy. You want that economy to grow? Then people need to consume, they need to generate demand, and they cannot do that when more and more of their wage is eaten up by the simple cost of living.

Supply side and trickle down economics are complete bullshit, and in the United States we are seeing its effects play out. The largest wealth inequality since the Gilded Age, the time right before the Great Depression; when the system could no longer sustain the imbalance and collapsed, and took everyone down with it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
29-09-2016, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2016 10:21 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Do or Die
(29-09-2016 02:26 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 11:00 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  If the rich want to leave, let 'em.

I wonder why they don't take their wealth and selves to some undeveloped armpit where they can bribe officials and get away without paying taxes.

Exactly.

This "threat" of the wealthy leaving, and taking their taxes --what they claim they pay, of course -- is empty, because there are multivarious reasons why doing business in a generally non-corrupt country is beneficial, even if the taxes are higher.

For one, you'll have to pay employees more to live overseas, especially if the country has as loose a legal regimen as a sloppy tax code implies.

Another point -- bribery is also a form of taxation, and what's worse, because it's off-the-books one has no legal recourse if the bribe doesn't come home -- you pay the same amount of money, you get the same results, and additionally, if you actually choose to forgo the bribe in order to save the overhead you'd planned to save, you might just make an enemy or two -- one with the power of government behind him.

Another point is access to resources. If you're a startup trying to insert your computer chips, say, into the latest Dell offerings, locating your operations in some Caribbean nation might look good on paper -- until you tot up the cost of shipping Taiwanese chips there instead of, say, Long Beach.

Yet another point is market access. If you're putting your stuff together offshore and shipping it to the largest commercial market in the world -- the US -- you are already adding cost to your product and susceptible to undercutting.

Me, I think that if those businessmen don't want to invest in the society they're using to glean their profits, fine. Let them leave America. Just like Stevil, I don't care for leeches, either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
29-09-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: Do or Die
I didn't follow the thread very closely, but i thought this article could be interesting to your conversation. Enjoy!

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...th/501470/

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
30-09-2016, 12:38 AM
RE: Do or Die
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who is relying on businesses to protect interests of citizens? I don't know where this comes from? We also don't rely on businesses to build parks or to beautify our beaches, so what? I'm not understanding your point on this.

Because you profess an unhealthy and seemingly naive level of trust in the beneficence of entities with explicit profit driven motivations.
I really don't understand what you are talking about with regards to trust. Businesses are there to make profit, they do that and You complain because for some reason you think businesses ought to be a welfare state in their own right.

I, on the other hand expect businesses to exist in order to make profit. If they do that, then I say "well done"


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ideally yes, but it's also in the corporation's best interests to buy off the government to prevent or erode such measures. The public trust and the profit seeking goals of corporations are frequently categorically at odds.
If people are bribing govt, then that is against the law, they run the risk of prison.

(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Everyone needs good infrastructure.
Economically, how do poor countries pay for the infrastructure?

If these countries are going to benefit from industry then they would be wise to create the infrastructure when they have agreement from big companies to set up shop there.


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  International corporations don't move their business to under developed nations because it benefits the native population, but because they can get beneficial and cost saving agreements, often saving money...
Well of course they are looking to lower costs. If wages in India and China are much less then in USA, or UK, or NZ then it makes sense to set up shop in India or China. Why on Earth would these companies be expected to go around the world
benefiting the native populations? Their goal is to make profit, and that is the right goal. A consequence however, is that the locals gain jobs, skills and the local region gains better infrastructure. It's win, win, win.
Meanwhile, you complain about low wages in your country, govt raises minimum wage and the corporations seek even further to move their factories off shore.


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I really don't know why you are talking about morality and ethics. Business aren't churches. It isn't there place to be moral or promote morality. Why would you expect them to?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think churches are in the morality business.
I'm under the impression that you think businesses are there to better the society, perhaps give people money, perhaps build playgrounds, perhaps clean the rivers and beaches. But in reality business are there to make profits. It isn't greedy of them and it isn't wrong of them to do so. This is their sole purpose. I don't know why you have a problem with that. You have very different expectations from the reality of it.


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Profit at the cost of morality and ethics is evil, and in a corporation, everything is subservient to the attainment of profits.
There is no cost of morality and ethics. Businesses aren't there for morality, its not their place, they are there for profits. I don't understand your expectations.


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, well, I wish I was making this shit up.

Ex-Apple, Google, Intel geeks in line for $415m over wage-fix pacts

As expected, a four-year-long wage-fixing case could be over – after Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe offered to pay out $415m to make the case go away.

The foursome are trying to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by former employees over claims senior management quietly entered a pact to not poach each other's staff. This effectively kept engineers' wages relatively low as the deal meant no company could offer techies a salary increase to defect.
That's interesting, seems they got caught and will have to face the music.


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't get holidays, and my paid time off rolls over and disappears every year, and I never get to use it all because almost nobody can cover my position because we're critically understaffed and have incessant turnover.
If you are not happy with your job, why don't you quit?


(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 02:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Really?! that sounds like poor management to have all that capital and not get returns from it. They will surely go under at that rate.

It's not poor management per se, rather just the logical conclusion of their profit seeking actions. They're paying less in taxes than ever before. They also operate in a consumer driven economy, and it is demand that drives consumption; and in their incessant seeking of profitability, they've offloaded so much economic burden onto the consumers that they've stifled consumer demand. In effect, they have cut off their own legs, and are left sitting atop piles of capitol. They could use it to hire more staff and make more product, but they won't, because there is not enough demand; because said demand is being stifled by their own profit seeking actions.
What you are saying makes no business sense whatsoever. That management style would drive a business into bankruptcy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2016, 01:50 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2016 04:23 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because you profess an unhealthy and seemingly naive level of trust in the beneficence of entities with explicit profit driven motivations.
I really don't understand what you are talking about with regards to trust.

Yes, you keep making your naivety rather abundantly clear.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Businesses are there to make profit, they do that and You complain because for some reason you think businesses ought to be a welfare state in their own right.

No, I complain because unfettered capitalism is dangerous. We've already been there, it was called the Industrial Revolution; a time before government oversight and trade unions. It was a time when large business held an obscene level of power, and they've been doing everything they can to get back there, because the more power they have the easier it is for them to make greater profits. Such unfettered greed must be checked, and I don't expect them to regulate themselves.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I, on the other hand expect businesses to exist in order to make profit. If they do that, then I say "well done"

But at what cost? There is always a cost. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ideally yes, but it's also in the corporation's best interests to buy off the government to prevent or erode such measures. The public trust and the profit seeking goals of corporations are frequently categorically at odds.
If people are bribing govt, then that is against the law, they run the risk of prison.

[Image: zBvKyMK.jpg?fb]

If only it were that simple. Citizens United v. FEC. Because of the ruling of the Supreme Court, there are almost no limits to political campaign contributions, because they ruled that donations are political speech and thus protected under the First Amendment. All you need to do is set up a PAC (public action committee), whom you can funnel unlimited donations into anonymously, and use that to wield undue political power by way of campaign contributions. Those contribution buy advertising, the single largest contributing factor in winning an election. So to get into office or maintain their position, politicians take the money with the expectation that if they want to continue receiving such funds, they need to keep their donors happy (instead of say, representing the electorate).

That is the state of legal bilberry in the largest economic and military nation in the world. They've simply legalized third party quid pro quo.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Everyone needs good infrastructure.
Economically, how do poor countries pay for the infrastructure?

If these countries are going to benefit from industry then they would be wise to create the infrastructure when they have agreement from big companies to set up shop there.

Once again, at what cost? Sure they can build a road to benefit moving their products, but that doesn't guarantee they'll set up a public water treatment plant to create safe drinking water, when they can just dump their pollution into the nearby river because there is no oversight or regulation. Why invest in cleaning up the pollution when it's cheaper to offload that burden onto the local environment? The local population gets a new road or a factory, while they're being poisoned; is infrastructure an adequate trade-off for that? If it's cheaper to just dump their pollution in the river instead of clearing it, that's what they'll do; their profit seeking does not care for the harm it causes. Governments that let them get away with such things trade on the lives and health of their citizens, and everyone should expect better than that. The reason they mostly can no longer do this in developed nations is because nations wised the fuck up, but even then, they do their best to chip away at safety and regulations. Then you get shit like flammable drinking water; the cost of backsliding on corporate regulations in developed countries.






(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  International corporations don't move their business to under developed nations because it benefits the native population, but because they can get beneficial and cost saving agreements, often saving money...
Well of course they are looking to lower costs. If wages in India and China are much less then in USA, or UK, or NZ then it makes sense to set up shop in India or China. Why on Earth would these companies be expected to go around the world
benefiting the native populations? Their goal is to make profit, and that is the right goal. A consequence however, is that the locals gain jobs, skills and the local region gains better infrastructure. It's win, win, win.

Once again, you fail to see any possible downside to national exploitation by corporations.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Meanwhile, you complain about low wages in your country, govt raises minimum wage and the corporations seek even further to move their factories off shore.

Because table scraps are better than starving, right?

If all governments gave enough of a shit to protect their people, then international corporations wouldn't be able to play nations off one another like this. They move to other territories because exploiting the people and the environment is simply cheaper. That is not good. That most certainly is not a win-win-win.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think churches are in the morality business.
I'm under the impression that you think businesses are there to better the society, perhaps give people money, perhaps build playgrounds, perhaps clean the rivers and beaches. But in reality business are there to make profits. It isn't greedy of them and it isn't wrong of them to do so. This is their sole purpose. I don't know why you have a problem with that. You have very different expectations from the reality of it.

No, I'm just not naive enough to think that corporations, who exist solely for making profits, can be trusted with anything else; let alone see them a positive forces without drawbacks. I acknowledge that their drive for profit causes a lot of damage, damage that you either do not know or do not care about. I find that to be terribly intellectually offensive.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Profit at the cost of morality and ethics is evil, and in a corporation, everything is subservient to the attainment of profits.
There is no cost of morality and ethics. Businesses aren't there for morality, its not their place, they are there for profits. I don't understand your expectations.

How many times do I fucking have to say this? It's not that I expect them to do better, it's that I acknowledge that they don't; while you seem more than happy to ignore the cost of that shortcoming.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, well, I wish I was making this shit up.

Ex-Apple, Google, Intel geeks in line for $415m over wage-fix pacts

As expected, a four-year-long wage-fixing case could be over – after Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe offered to pay out $415m to make the case go away.

The foursome are trying to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by former employees over claims senior management quietly entered a pact to not poach each other's staff. This effectively kept engineers' wages relatively low as the deal meant no company could offer techies a salary increase to defect.
That's interesting, seems they got caught and will have to face the music.

A slap on the wrist, no sanctions or reprimands, a settlement that will have them paying pennies on the dollar for the damage they caused. That's hardly what I'd call accountability. There is no music to be faced, those who participated aren't going to jail, there are no repercussions for their actions; and thus no real disincentive. Corporation are people too, until it's inconvenient. They can have religious preference, but fuck if you can every hold them or the people in charge legally accountable.

How many bankers went to jail for the 2008 crash and global recession? A $700 billion bail out for the banks, using public money, and how many people went to jail? One. Because he was a little too candid when he thought the gig was up, instead of baldfaced lying like everyone else.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't get holidays, and my paid time off rolls over and disappears every year, and I never get to use it all because almost nobody can cover my position because we're critically understaffed and have incessant turnover.
If you are not happy with your job, why don't you quit?

How Libertarian.

If only it were that easy. But few, if any, jobs would pay as well, and most would pay even worse. I can't just take a leave of absence and go job hunting, because I have huge student loans to pay (which, unlike corporate debt, are not subject to bankruptcy). I'm limited by my geographic local, and what I have access to locally. I'm having trouble making ends meet, let alone saving up enough to support moving out of town and job hunting.


(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-09-2016 10:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's not poor management per se, rather just the logical conclusion of their profit seeking actions. They're paying less in taxes than ever before. They also operate in a consumer driven economy, and it is demand that drives consumption; and in their incessant seeking of profitability, they've offloaded so much economic burden onto the consumers that they've stifled consumer demand. In effect, they have cut off their own legs, and are left sitting atop piles of capitol. They could use it to hire more staff and make more product, but they won't, because there is not enough demand; because said demand is being stifled by their own profit seeking actions.
What you are saying makes no business sense whatsoever. That management style would drive a business into bankruptcy.

What makes no sense? That consumer driven economies are driven by consumer demand? Because they are. What happens when the consumers have less and less of their wages left over from covering the cost of living? They simply have less left over to partake in the economy to purchase products and services, which generates demand for those products and services. It really is that simple. I do not understand what there isn't to get. It's a matter of corporate shortsightedness, where the most important thing in the moment is the current value of the stock. No thought for the ramifications of the actions taken to raise the price of the stock, their effect on the very economy they need to survive, but I don't expect them to. That requires a level of foresight that in-the-moment shareholders don't give two shits about. Nor should anyone else expect them to, which is why we need regulation; because unfettered capitalism is not all sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops.

Left to their own devices, corporations and banks if left unchecked will inevitably causes economic collapse in their greed. They've done it twice before, the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession.

Where's the win-win-win part again?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-09-2016, 02:17 AM
RE: Do or Die
Stevil, what is the purpose of government?

To my mind it is to govern people in a fair manner. That includes poor people, stupid people, lazy people. All people who are part of that society. To my mind, it is not an option to say "these people we will not care about, we will leave them to fend for themselves".

You keep talking as if corporations are the messiahs who will save us all with jobs etc, but those same corporations have no allegiance to society, as you yourself say, they care about profits and profits alone. And often those profits are at the expense of the local population.

Nestle bottles water at a particular location and sells it. A mining company extracts diamonds and sells it. Why *should* they keep all the profits from that? At the end of the day a company is just an association of individual humans, what makes their profits so important that it's OK to ignore everyone else?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
30-09-2016, 10:25 AM
RE: Do or Die
(30-09-2016 12:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  There is no cost of morality and ethics. Businesses aren't there for morality, its not their place, they are there for profits. I don't understand your expectations.

Do you honestly think business decisions don't have moral or ethical dimensions?

Are you honestly comfortable with profit being the sole input for any business decision?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: