Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
No playgrounds to keep him entertained?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Too close to the drive by shootings
If you have ever worked in retail you would realize the workers are underpaid. They are trained just as other companies trained. According to many rightwingers on the forum Hostess employees just push a button and the Twinkies bake themselves. Wouldn't that be unskilled labor then? Profits are not dependent upon making employment is one theory, but all profit is squeezed from labor is what Marx argued. It will always be the workers who make the company a profit.
Does he own a lot of ice cream parlors? And does his milk come in large glass bottles? I believe he ran for political office as a Republican in IL if it is who I am thinking of.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
How the fuck is a retail worker underpaid?
They're the human interface between the customer and the till, that is all.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
The interface is faulty, it lacks product knowledge, and tells me the company could give a shit about me, my time or the employee.
Well why then do they fold clothing, stock the shelves, assist customers in finding items, order items, prepare the items, move heavy items for the customers, explain things to the customers about items, and numerous other tasks. You are just trying the childish trick of reducing their jobs to a minimal task. That is like saying a fireman only sprays water on fires. You are forgetting all of the other things they do in order to make your point stronger.
You are making up a world that doesn't exist and then drawing comparisons.
Dumping poison into the public water supply is an outright attack and punishable. The water isn't owned by them and thus it is illegal except where the government gives them permission. In unfettered capitalism, if you did this, you would be sued and punished as you attacked someone else.
Making the comparison to people working and refusing to take care of themselves with the money is another. No one forces you or the government to take care of anyone at all. They all make enough to buy insurance and live, they choose to make foolish choices instead. You could alternatively let them make their bad choices and live with the results instead of rewarding them for being irresponsible.
You might as well of said that it is the same thing when people don't let me shit on their couches and that Wal-Mart is at fault for that too.
You didn't make the connection so I will. Greed is what created jobs in the first place. Without greed, there would be no jobs.
I really don't see how someone can see a man make a business and then complain that he isn't giving enough of it up. Shouldn't other people go get their own business if they want more of one?
Or maybe, just maybe, they should just stop using the social resources to pay people to be irresponsible.
Define living wage - isn't that what they decided minimum wage was? The issue here is that people making minimum wage have $600 iphones and tablets, drive nice cars, and live above their means. Your life should directly reflect the amount of effort you put into it. How much effort does your average Wal-mart cashier put into their life? Not very much, that is why they are doing a remedial job for remedial pay. I really don't understand the tendency of people like you to punish those who do well in favor of those who on average really couldn't give a crap about themselves.
I am willing to compromise. Since the government already subsidizes laziness, how about we trade EIC credits for universal 100% government payed health care for those who receive EIC? Both are really shitty things to do, but at least one has some benefit.
I realize you are saying he was a lazy bitch who was forced to paint his house by the city, which is pretty fucked up. I am sure he was absolutely libertarian that day "I shouldn't have to paint my house if I don't want to." It is almost to the point where you aren't allowed to paint your house til the city gets involved
What kind of fucked up place do you live in where the city comes and makes you paint a 4 foot piece of trim?
Profits are not dependent upon making employment is one theory, but all profit is squeezed from labor is what Marx argued. It will always be the workers who make the company a profit.
The red part is true, but what he assumes is true because of that is his opinion and doesn't have anything to do with reality. Quoting him is very telling of your position. Also, this was probably said with labor theory of value in mind. That theory was at best retarded, so go figure.
As for the blue: Almost every business starts with the owner. He builds it up, and then shares part of his business with someone else in exchange for them helping him to make his company better. There are many businesses that never have more than the owner working there. What did marx say about owner/operators? You must also keep in mind that the world Marx lived in was dramatically different than ours. People worked all day and were still starving. We don't have that in America except by choice.
You just said all retail workers are retarded, didn't you? Your time and your money are the same thing. Giving you help at the lowest cost is very respectful of your time and money. Both the money you will spend and the time you spent getting it. When I go shopping, the only thing I ever need help with is the location of an item. Wal-mart has a phone app that tells you exactly where it is by aisle now, so I won't even need that soon. Considering there are 50 dollar android tablets, I am willing to bet for 10 bucks a piece Wal-Mart could put something like that on their buggiest to direct you to whatever item you need.
If you need help when you go to a store, then you obviously don't give a fuck about your own time or you would of already found out the information you needed before you went.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Koch-funded organizationsAccording to the 2010 report by Greenpeace, Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine, Koch has out-spent ExxonMobil in funding climate change denial. From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million, while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of climate change skeptics. Efforts include:
- More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide “Hot Air Tour” campaign opposing clean energy and climate legislation.
- More than $1 million to the Heritage Foundation, which writes about climate and environmental policy issues.
- Over $1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate story.
- $800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, which has hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years, a prominent media spokesperson who challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.
- $365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), which advocates against taking action on climate change because warming is “inevitable” and expensive to address.
- $360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded An Inconvenient Truth...or Convenient Fiction, a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth (PRIPP also threatened to sue the U.S. Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.)
- $325,000 to the Tax Foundation, which issued a misleading study on the costs of proposed climate legislation.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I have/do none of the three. cn
Exactly what were you trying to say in your response?