On 8/7/2013 12:11 AM, scott wrote:
> This is why I really don't agree with people's reasoning about buying or
> producing locally. That's what we used to do and it's not very
> efficient, the people who would have been doing manual labour in
> factories or fields from the age of 10 are now generating far more
> wealth by being a shop assistant in Tesco or maintaining a machine in a
> food factory. This in turn allows them to have a warm, heated house with
> a hot meal every day, new clothes (and Sky TV, an iPhone and a holiday
> abroad each year etc). Their equivalents from 1900 could only dream of
> such luxuries.


Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes, 
put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you 
mention. But then, I haven't met a libertarian that seems to have ever 
met such a person, understood what they go through, or, for that matter, 
when/if they do, ever believe they are growing in number, and that all 
those companies, selling all those "luxuriates" while paying the workers 
crap wages, are helping make it happen.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 10:13 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 7-8-2013 2:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b)
>> they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at
>> anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart,
>> k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all
>> the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week",
>> jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.
>
> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
> people. And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
> developments in the real world.
>
>
lol Wow.. Really? They need 20x as much money, or more, than it takes to 
buy, pay the taxes on, and fill their houses with the same crap everyone 
else does, because they "work harder"? Yeah.. Those single parents, who 
have to make up for the fact that they still have nearly the same net 
costs are a two parent home, with both working, and thus work 70-80 
hours a week, and hasn't had a vacation in 10 years, while he CEO is 
sitting on a beach some place, are working so much less hard than the CEO..

Seriously, as just on example, one of the damned "bosses" I have is 
supposed to be there 10 hours a day, 4 days out of the week, but is 
often there for 12-13 hours instead **and** he is a closer, so doesn't 
have to deal with customers much, or any of the other things the day 
managers have to deal with. The reason for him being there 12-13 hours a 
day, instead of 8, which one of the "non-managers" when they close 
manages to get things done it, while dealing with the same customer 
issues, the same in store issues, the same stocking issues, inventory 
management, and so on, is because, unlike every other bloody manager I 
have worked with (who almost always left when the store closed) is 
simply because he won't get off his ass and do his bloody work, until 
after all the help has left, and then, I spent more damn time doing crap 
the rest of them did themselves, for him, than he did.

More work, and harder.. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 1:55 AM, scott wrote:
>> 5% walmart - minimum wage
>> 5% k-mart - minimum wage
>> 5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but
>> they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days
>> one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if
>> it was 10 '8 hour' days.
>> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a
>> week.
>> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
>> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
>> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
>> staff, including management.
>> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
>> 5% The assholes that own all of it.
>
> Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum
> wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better
> reflects your typical national distribution.
>
Ah.. right.. Try - a different state. Only... Hmm. No, California, they 
pay about $3 more, but, the cost of living is often so much higher than 
the $3 will not make up the difference. You don't seem to be getting it. 
This problem is now ***in every city, and state***. Sure, there may be 
some total backwater places, which don't have the problem, but.. when, 
somehow, all those people that can barely pay rent, manage to scrape 
together the money to move to Midnowhere, Tennessee, the local market 
will have to expand, the companies that move in will be the same, and 
the cost of living will jump, and its the same crap all over. Though, 
mind you, somewhat ironically, the ***highest*** poverty levels, the 
highest unemployment, and the biggest supporters of getting rid of 
unions, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, environmental laws, 
etc. is the **home** of companies like Walmart.

Its truly bizzare, but.. well, not too unexpected. The same states often 
make sales, and/or deliver, to your door, of porn, sex toys, and other 
things, illegal, promote abstinence education, and other similar 
nonsense, but have the **highest** national levels of teen pregnancies, 
incest, porn sales/ownership, and racism.

Its almost like that whole region of the country thinks its living in an 
alternate universe, where voting against the stuff they do, and 
supporting the politicians they do, etc., makes absolutely perfect 
sense, while *actually* living in this one, in which these things range 
between not working at all, to batshit insane.

Post a reply to this message

> Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes,
> put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you
> mention.

Indeed it's sad that we haven't reduced the number of people in that 
situation to 0%, but it's *a lot* better than the situation 100 years ago.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:13:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners 

False dichotomy.  IT professionals work a lot, sometimes even during 
their dinners (or for 30-40 hours straight) and don't get paid like a CEO 
does.

> and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
> people. 

False dichotomy.  Nobody has job security.  Getting laid off taught me 
that.  Especially in the US, where "right to work" translates to "right 
for your employer to let you go for any reason or even no reason" with 
very few exceptions.

> And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
> developments in the real world.

False dichotomy.  See previous comment regarding IT professionals.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:520332b1@news.povray.org...

Just a general reply. Every anti-anti-authoritarian (make sure you read that 
one right) argument you give comes down to "It'll work if it's done right." 
The anti-authoritarian (Libertarian) view can be expressed semi-succinctly 
as "It's not being done right, or conscientiously. The government, military, 
and megacorps are three heads of the same beast. Feeding any of its thee 
mouth strengthens the entire animal. The beast cannot be controlled and has 
to die. I'm taking back what power I still have--while I still can."

Also, read about Mercantilism on Wikipedia. We aren't talking about the same 
thing.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel"  wrote in message news:520### [at] gmailcom...
> So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try to 
> neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)

Ha.

Yet, I still give to charity, though I try to be very careful about it.
Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that will 
make the world a better place.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that will 
> make the world a better place.

It would be nice if polio were completely eradicated like smallpox was,
but with the current politically correct western civilization that's
something that might not actually happen.

The eradication of smallpox in the 70's was rather "brutal" in the
sense that we just went to places and vaccinated people without asking.
Sometimes even by using borderline force. And it worked. It's basically
the first worldwide disease that caused millions of deaths that was
completely eradicated from the face of the Earth, and good riddance.

Polio is a different story, though. And not because it couldn't be
eradicated in the same way. No, it's different because the modern western
zeitgeist has changed a lot since the 70's. The western civilization has
built a self-loathing dogma that tells us that we just can't go there
and vaccinate people without asking. That's like colonialism and white
supremacy and stuff. We have to respect the local cultures and beliefs.

Which in practice means that some deluded people out there won't take
the vaccines because their belief system says that it's against the will
of their gods or BS like that. And as said, the modern western zeitgeist
is to submit to their beliefs and not force them.

Thus thousands and thousands of innocent people out there are going to
either die or be crippled for life every year because we are too
concerned with political correctness and avoiding the picture of
colonialism and western supremacy.

Basically, we are making up for centuries of colonialism by letting people
die and suffer horribly. Yay us.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?

On 8-8-2013 17:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:13:35 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
>> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
>> their dinners
>
> False dichotomy.  IT professionals work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners (or for 30-40 hours straight) and don't get paid like a CEO
> does.
>
>> and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
>> people.
>
> False dichotomy.  Nobody has job security.  Getting laid off taught me
> that.  Especially in the US, where "right to work" translates to "right
> for your employer to let you go for any reason or even no reason" with
> very few exceptions.
>
>> And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
>> developments in the real world.
>
> False dichotomy.  See previous comment regarding IT professionals.
>
> Jim
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2013 8:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Basically, we are making up for centuries of colonialism by letting people
> die and suffer horribly. Yay us.

That is a fair point, IMO.
But AFAIK, you Finns don't have the collective guilt that we, (the 
Brits, Dutch, French etc.) have with our colonialism. I've worked in 
some of our former colonies and am aware of a few of the many bad things 
that were done in the name of civilising the natives. It is a touchy 
subject.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message