The job conundrum.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 12:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(03-05-2013 08:51 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  http://lolpics.se/pics/3032.jpg

So, I read your post, I give you my view in a polite way, and you call me a dickhead. Okay, well excuse me if I'm not too sympathetic that you can't get a job. I'm wondering if it might have to do with the way you come across and not really market forces. Consider

I can't believe I'm trolling Egor so easily.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=3543&d=1352744905]

Here, Fishy Fishy........

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 03:03 PM
 
RE: The job conundrum.
Hey Carlo, whatever makes you feel like a winner. Go for it. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
Can't help but be skeptical when corporations and business owners complain about how it's the government's fault they have to lay people off or lower their wages - especially when profits are up and CEOs are still getting huge bonuses and making way more than the average employee.

In fact, it's the lack of government regulation and oversight that got us into the Great Recession, beginning in the Clinton administration and expanding during Bush's tenure. Without the checks and balances put in place by the government, capitalism becomes too cutthroat, leaving most of the money in the hands of an elite while relegating most everyone else to the bottom rungs of the ladder.

Bottom line, any company that has to make its employees pay for taxes and salary regulations by lowering their wages, cutting benefits, or downsizing suffers from a lack of leadership and vision at the top, as screwing over the little guy is, plain and simple, scapegoating in order to take the easy way out.

Perhaps the upper echelons need to make sacrifices and put some sweat equity into innovative solutions if being in charge and running a business is so important to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atheist_pilgrim's post
03-05-2013, 05:07 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 03:03 PM)Egor Wrote:  Hey Carlo, whatever makes you feel like a winner. Go for it. Smile

And how's Veridicanism going for you?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 04:58 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  Can't help but be skeptical when corporations and business owners complain about how it's the government's fault they have to lay people off or lower their wages - especially when profits are up and CEOs are still getting huge bonuses and making way more than the average employee.

In fact, it's the lack of government regulation and oversight that got us into the Great Recession, beginning in the Clinton administration and expanding during Bush's tenure. Without the checks and balances put in place by the government, capitalism becomes too cutthroat, leaving most of the money in the hands of an elite while relegating most everyone else to the bottom rungs of the ladder.

Bottom line, any company that has to make its employees pay for taxes and salary regulations by lowering their wages, cutting benefits, or downsizing suffers from a lack of leadership and vision at the top, as screwing over the little guy is, plain and simple, scapegoating in order to take the easy way out.

Perhaps the upper echelons need to make sacrifices and put some sweat equity into innovative solutions if being in charge and running a business is so important to them.

You see that all over the place. Next time someone demands layoffs or a hiring freeze or pay freeze, just get a copy of their shareholders report and check A) Company profits, B) Executive compensation. That'll tell you all you REALLY need to know about exactly how dire the health of the company is.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 04:58 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  Can't help but be skeptical when corporations and business owners complain about how it's the government's fault they have to lay people off or lower their wages - especially when profits are up and CEOs are still getting huge bonuses and making way more than the average employee.

You're taking the actions of maybe 500 companies and blaming literally millions of business owners (who are indeed suffering under onerous regulation and taxation) for them. If a Chinese man stole your car, would you claim that all Chinamen are thieves?

Quote:In fact, it's the lack of government regulation and oversight that got us into the Great Recession, beginning in the Clinton administration and expanding during Bush's tenure. Without the checks and balances put in place by the government, capitalism becomes too cutthroat, leaving most of the money in the hands of an elite while relegating most everyone else to the bottom rungs of the ladder.

There has never been a lack of government regulation in the past century or more. Regulations didn't go away... they were rewritten so as to favor the richest businesses at the expense of the rest.

Quote:Bottom line, any company that has to make its employees pay for taxes and salary regulations by lowering their wages, cutting benefits, or downsizing suffers from a lack of leadership and vision at the top, as screwing over the little guy is, plain and simple, scapegoating in order to take the easy way out.

Perhaps the upper echelons need to make sacrifices and put some sweat equity into innovative solutions if being in charge and running a business is so important to them.

Again, you're lumping millions of hard working, honest men and women in with a few hundred of the wealthiest and most sociopathic people in the country. The latter of whom happen to be birds of a feather with respect to the legislators who do their bidding at your expense.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 06:42 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  There has never been a lack of government regulation in the past century or more. Regulations didn't go away... they were rewritten so as to favor the richest businesses at the expense of the rest.

Incorrect. Regulation proposed, voted on, and passed by congress concerning workers rights, corporate taxes, and monopolies, the three most basic issues of any free market economy, were quite effective when they were enforced. Due to corporate lobbying, however, tax cuts for corporations and the upper class, trusts, and limited workers rights are problems once again. You want an example? Check out the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and how all the loopholes that it sealed are, thanks to lobbying, now reopened.

The wealth inequality in the United States can be blamed on corporations almost entirely. It is unfair to argue, however, that identifying corporations as the problem necessarily calls the workers a problem. They are not a problem for public interest but, rather, a problem for the corporate owners and investors. Jobs cost money, only, not as much as they did in the 50s. Said corporations have made very sure that salaries did not keep up with inflation, lest they actually have to spread their insane wealth around.

I am always interested in how you think anarchy would operate in a superior manner, when one can demonstrate by simply looking throughout history that absolutely no anarchy has ever remained sustainable, safe, ideal, or fair.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 06:42 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  [You're taking the actions of maybe 500 companies and blaming literally millions of business owners (who are indeed suffering under onerous regulation and taxation) for them. If a Chinese man stole your car, would you claim that all Chinamen are thieves?

Again, you're lumping millions of hard working, honest men and women in with a few hundred of the wealthiest and most sociopathic people in the country. The latter of whom happen to be birds of a feather with respect to the legislators who do their bidding at your expense.

Aren't you lumping the entire goverment into one big entrepreneurial buzz-killer and bane of the sainted job-creator class? Take the Tea-Party bag out of your own eye before trying to remove the leaf fragment from mine. I'm not currently a government employee, but as a former Marine I'm grateful for how the GI Bill and a state gov't retraining program gave me the skills to get a job I've had for the last 16 years. At least the gov't invested in me, which is more than most companies will do because they are afraid employees will leave for greener pastures. Maybe those companies should make themselves into the green pastures instead of blaming training for employee turnover.

As for "lumping millions of hard-working honest men and women in with a few hundred of the wealthiest and most sociopathic people in the country"? I highly doubt if it's that cut-and-dried. It's bad enough that the "500 companies" you mention control the destinies of way too many people, but I've worked for a couple of small mom-and-pop shops that were as sociopathic as they come, so spare me the Capra-esqe whitewashing. Indeed, the best jobs I've had have been with larger companies or in academia.

Companies in general have too much power over their employees, especially during bad economic times. We need universal not-for-profit health care and a retirement plan that follows people wherever they go so that no one has to be afraid to leave a lousy job (or be out of options when they find themselves on the street because they were unfairly terminated due to an "at-will" work policy). Low college tuition and job retraining programs would also help people be free of corporate domination.

As for legislators - well, many of them appear to be Ayn Rand-loving Republican cronies who are in the pockets of big business (or business in general). They are against all the benefits I listed in the previous paragraph because they want a working class that's powerless against their campaign-contributing corporate masters. Getting rid of those human roadblocks to workers' rights would be a blessing - that I hope we can agree on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 07:29 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 07:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Incorrect. Regulation proposed, voted on, and passed by congress concerning workers rights, corporate taxes, and monopolies, the three most basic issues of any free market economy, were quite effective when they were enforced. Due to corporate lobbying, however, tax cuts for corporations and the upper class, trusts, and limited workers rights are problems once again. You want an example? Check out the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and how all the loopholes that it sealed are, thanks to lobbying, now reopened.

We can argue the efficacy of regulations elsewhere. But you've not offered any proof that any US industry has been unregulated in the last century. For clarification, the prefix un denotes not. As in none.Before, during and after the "Great Recession" there were some 150,000 federal regulations with about 4000 added each year. Many of those regulations did and still do relate to the financial industry, which is the industry of blame with respect to this latest recession. I don't know for a fact but if pressed, I would hazard a guess that at any given time in the last decade or so, there were at least ten thousand regulations governing the financial industry alone. That's not none. That's not un. You can argue misregulated or malregulated but to argue unregulated is patently false.

Quote:The wealth inequality in the United States can be blamed on corporations almost entirely. It is unfair to argue, however, that identifying corporations as the problem necessarily calls the workers a problem. They are not a problem for public interest but, rather, a problem for the corporate owners and investors. Jobs cost money, only, not as much as they did in the 50s. Said corporations have made very sure that salaries did not keep up with inflation, lest they actually have to spread their insane wealth around.

Right. And when a man's wife is caught cheating on him, her lover is 100% to blame. After all, it makes absolutely no difference whatever that the stranger she was fucking had never, ever sworn an oath of honor to the husband and that she had. It was never any of her fault that she allowed the stranger to court her and buy her drinks. It was all the stranger's fault.

Quote:I am always interested in how you think anarchy would operate in a superior manner, when one can demonstrate by simply looking throughout history that absolutely no anarchy has ever remained sustainable, safe, ideal, or fair.

For one thing, anarchy is voluntary association. There is no coercion inherent in voluntarism. Moreover, there is no criminalization of victimless behavior in a voluntary society. Thus, no one is forced to abide the irrational opinions of strangers and no one is forced to fund the murder of strangers on the other side of the planet.

I'm curious which anarchic societies you're talking about? Can you tell me which ones and why they no longer exist?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 07:17 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  Aren't you lumping the entire goverment into one big entrepreneurial buzz-killer and bane of the sainted job-creator class?
Quote:I don't support unethical behavior in anyone.

[quote]Take the Tea-Party bag out of your own eye before trying to remove the leaf fragment from mine. I'm not currently a government employee, but as a former Marine I'm grateful for how the GI Bill and a state gov't retraining program gave me the skills to get a job I've had for the last 16 years. At least the gov't invested in me, which is more than most companies will do because they are afraid employees will leave for greener pastures. Maybe those companies should make themselves into the green pastures instead of blaming training for employee turnover.

So the state invested stolen money in you after you risked your life and the lives of others by doing the bidding of men in suits. They didn't do you any favor. It was a voluntary financial transaction in which you agreed to do a job and they agreed to a compensation package. The only economic difference between that and any other capitalistic exchange is that the money they paid you was extracted from others through the threat of violence.

[quote]As for "lumping millions of hard-working honest men and women in with a few hundred of the wealthiest and most sociopathic people in the country"? I highly doubt if it's that cut-and-dried. It's bad enough that the "500 companies" you mention control the destinies of way too many people, but I've worked for a couple of small mom-and-pop shops that were as sociopathic as they come, so spare me the Capra-esqe whitewashing. Indeed, the best jobs I've had have been with larger companies or in academia.

That's your opinion. The next time you hire a plumber or eat at a small restaurant, be sure and let the owners know what you think about them. Again, you've had a few bad jobs in your life and now that means all employers are greedy trolls hell bent on destroying your life. Has it ever occurred to you that you get what you give?

Quote:Companies in general have too much power over their employees, especially during bad economic times. We need universal not-for-profit health care and a retirement plan that follows people wherever they go so that no one has to be afraid to leave a lousy job (or be out of options when they find themselves on the street because they were unfairly terminated due to an "at-will" work policy). Low college tuition and job retraining programs would also help people be free of corporate domination.

Who from any corporation you've ever worked for has ever pointed a gun at your neck and taken money from you? Who from any corporation has ever pointed a gun at your neck and forced you to buy their product? You choose to work for a company by voluntary agreement. You are always free to leave their employ and you are always free to seek better employment. Likewise, you are always free to choose between all the products on the shelf or to simply choose none. You do not have that choice with the state.

Quote:As for legislators - well, many of them appear to be Ayn Rand-loving Republican cronies who are in the pockets of big business (or business in general). They are against all the benefits I listed in the previous paragraph because they want a working class that's powerless against their campaign-contributing corporate masters. Getting rid of those human roadblocks to workers' rights would be a blessing - that I hope we can agree on.

Yeah. And the rest are Marx loving Democrats. So what. The problem isn't who they read, the problem is what they do. The Democratic party is just as heavily supported by the rich as the Republican party. In fact, the largest political contributors in the nation regularly contribute to both parties.

As for benefits, I'm against none of them, so long as they're voluntarily offered to the employee and voluntarily accepted by the employee. Personally, I don't want an employer to pay for all my shit. I want my money and I want to shop providers for all my insurance, pension and other needs. Of course, I understand and respect that a lot of people don't want to bother with those choices and I think that's a perfectly valid mode of operation for them. As long as no one is pointing guns at other people in order to make it happen, I support it.


And just to clarify, I am also vehemently anti-corporation. Although not for the same reasons most people are. Corporations exist because the state sanctions them and they are nothing more than legal shields against liability.

It is wholly unethical for a person or group of people to open a business and sell a product under a legal fiction that allows them to take all the profits when business is good while paying none of the losses when business is bad. But that's the purpose corporations serve and the only reason they exist is because of the state.

The same state you think has your best interests at heart.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: