Why your job sucks, an evolutionary tale.

Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Why your job sucks, an evolutionary tale.

I should start by saying that I identify myself by how I do something, not what I do.  All things being relative, the overall "meaning" of an action performed is much less important than involving oneself in the work performed and giving it 100%, alludes to a pseudo-taoistic philosophy.  

That out of the way...  I have had the misfortune of working in a mid to large corporate environment my entire adult life.  One thing that you quickly learn in that petty, heavily political, shallow materialistic environment is that almost everyone considers themselves underpaid, under appreciated and under used.  Most water-cooler discussions turn into apathy pissing contests, everyone trying to show how little they care.  But why is that? Why does everyone's job suck? Why are so many good ideas not considered?  Why are so many idiots/asskissers being promoted while the hardworking geniuses are being left behind?  

Well the answer is complicated, but the skinny is... survival of the fittest.  That's right... good ole evolution.  Now, many of us know that "fittest" is not to be interpreted as strongest, or best candidate.  Fittest, in this case mirroring evolution, means "best fit" or "best adapted for the environment".  A corporate environment is loosely composed of shareholders that want to make more money at all costs, upper management that is overpaid but has little direct control on the results and carry all the ultimate responsibility for the outcome, middle management which is underpaid, has a little more direct control and have to carry the responsibility from upper management, and the grunts, which get shit for pay, have all the direct control of the result, and close to no responsibility for the outcome. 

When climbing the proverbial corporate ladder,it is not enough to work hard, or have the best ideas, though those things in themselves are great assets.  You have to be the best FIT for climbing the ladder.  For example, if you needed someone to troubleshoot a server, and you needed to pick between an idiot that ALWAYS shows up for work, and eventually figures it out, or a genius that can figure it out in five minutes but has extremely poor attendance?  Reliability will almost always win over ability.  Also having the correct personality fit with the people in charge of promoting is a definite asset, and largely will overcome both ability and reliability in the long run.  

Bottom line is, if you want to get ahead, you need to pay attention to what is needed, not what you think is needed.  Corporations are vast and complicated environments and moving through them is a difficult and ultimately meaningless effort, but if you like to play the game for the love of the game, you can make it through by showing up on time, being buddy buddy with the boss and if necessary come up with as many ideas as possible.  95% of the time that's all that it is necessary.  

This rant was brought to you by two weeks worth of fiscal year end reviews and all the corporate speak one can cram into 20+ meetings.  I'm glad the nightmare is over for another year.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Wow! That is exactly why I lost my job of 25 years. I get things done but at the cost of not kissing corporate ass. They kept me around because I could meet the corporate goals when all the assholes with masters degrees were barely competent to scrub garbage cans.

 

The beginning of the end was when the executive director retired. His replacement just does not get basic facts. She does not even understand the mental health industry. Bitch is a corporate wonk who is good at leading teams of ass kissers. So out the door I went.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We also evolved to gap fill

We also evolved to gap fill with god answers. So what. It seems to me that you buy into the corporate "survival of the fittest" (actually evolution is "ability to adapt) not "survival of the fittest. You are basically promoting the dark side of evolution which leads to the "misfortune" of working in their materialist environment where the top get over paid and the grunts get shit for pay.

Evolution, in all species will always have individuals or groups that dont give a fuck about how they get on top, which DOES play into "If you want to get ahead, then do what is needed, not what you think is needed"

HOWEVER,

You are focused on ONE aspect of evolution, which is NOT, as you'd like to think, a given in all cases.

The other aspect of evolution is the caring and compassion that we are capable of and without that side, evolution wouldn't happen. So it is either "survival of the fittest" or "always take care of everyone". Neither works by themselves and BOTH happen in evolution.

Basically your model is flawed in that it basically states "kill or be killed" BECAUSE that is only one aspect of evolution NOT ALL OF IT. We are also social animals capable of using cooperation to maximize the benefit for the most.

Our current climate of Corporate America only reflects the DARK side of evolution. When you look at Egypt and Libya, they too reflect that same attitude. It is all fair as long as I get what I need, fuck everyone else.

YOU also see that that attitude never lasts in a society forever. Once enough people are starving and have the opportunity to take power or resources themselves, they will do so. So to avoid conflict humans also evolve with cooperation, which is why we saw the revolutions in Egypt and Libya.

So while yes, our economic model DOES reflect what you say, it does not mean it is optimum for society as a whole. Our current system leads to a concentration of wealth at the expense of all others.

So do I want to be one of those over paid CEOs? Fuck no. You look at the pay gap in other countries where it is not as bad, and you see economically speaking they fair far better in education and less poverty and lower crime rates.

Our current system, if it continues the way it is, will reflect what you say and to suggest humans shouldn't strive for something beyond their own paycheck makes me sad for our future.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:We also

Brian37 wrote:

We also evolved to gap fill with god answers. So what. It seems to me that you buy into the corporate "survival of the fittest" (actually evolution is "ability to adapt) not "survival of the fittest. You are basically promoting the dark side of evolution which leads to the "misfortune" of working in their materialist environment where the top get over paid and the grunts get shit for pay.

Evolution, in all species will always have individuals or groups that dont give a fuck about how they get on top, which DOES play into "If you want to get ahead, then do what is needed, not what you think is needed"

HOWEVER,

You are focused on ONE aspect of evolution, which is NOT, as you'd like to think, a given in all cases.

The other aspect of evolution is the caring and compassion that we are capable of and without that side, evolution wouldn't happen. So it is either "survival of the fittest" or "always take care of everyone". Neither works by themselves and BOTH happen in evolution.

Basically your model is flawed in that it basically states "kill or be killed" BECAUSE that is only one aspect of evolution NOT ALL OF IT. We are also social animals capable of using cooperation to maximize the benefit for the most.

Our current climate of Corporate America only reflects the DARK side of evolution. When you look at Egypt and Libya, they too reflect that same attitude. It is all fair as long as I get what I need, fuck everyone else.

YOU also see that that attitude never lasts in a society forever. Once enough people are starving and have the opportunity to take power or resources themselves, they will do so. So to avoid conflict humans also evolve with cooperation, which is why we saw the revolutions in Egypt and Libya.

So while yes, our economic model DOES reflect what you say, it does not mean it is optimum for society as a whole. Our current system leads to a concentration of wealth at the expense of all others.

So do I want to be one of those over paid CEOs? Fuck no. You look at the pay gap in other countries where it is not as bad, and you see economically speaking they fair far better in education and less poverty and lower crime rates.

Our current system, if it continues the way it is, will reflect what you say and to suggest humans shouldn't strive for something beyond their own paycheck makes me sad for our future.

Brian, did you even read my post? it was a rant on the ultimate futility of a shallow and materialistic corporate environment, where asskissers advance faster than honest hard workers BECAUSE evolution is survival of the fittest (as in best fit for he possition, or best to adapt, or best to "click" with the boss).  If you're going to take the time to type, please make sure you read the whole post.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Brian37 wrote:We

Ktulu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

We also evolved to gap fill with god answers. So what. It seems to me that you buy into the corporate "survival of the fittest" (actually evolution is "ability to adapt) not "survival of the fittest. You are basically promoting the dark side of evolution which leads to the "misfortune" of working in their materialist environment where the top get over paid and the grunts get shit for pay.

Evolution, in all species will always have individuals or groups that dont give a fuck about how they get on top, which DOES play into "If you want to get ahead, then do what is needed, not what you think is needed"

HOWEVER,

You are focused on ONE aspect of evolution, which is NOT, as you'd like to think, a given in all cases.

The other aspect of evolution is the caring and compassion that we are capable of and without that side, evolution wouldn't happen. So it is either "survival of the fittest" or "always take care of everyone". Neither works by themselves and BOTH happen in evolution.

Basically your model is flawed in that it basically states "kill or be killed" BECAUSE that is only one aspect of evolution NOT ALL OF IT. We are also social animals capable of using cooperation to maximize the benefit for the most.

Our current climate of Corporate America only reflects the DARK side of evolution. When you look at Egypt and Libya, they too reflect that same attitude. It is all fair as long as I get what I need, fuck everyone else.

YOU also see that that attitude never lasts in a society forever. Once enough people are starving and have the opportunity to take power or resources themselves, they will do so. So to avoid conflict humans also evolve with cooperation, which is why we saw the revolutions in Egypt and Libya.

So while yes, our economic model DOES reflect what you say, it does not mean it is optimum for society as a whole. Our current system leads to a concentration of wealth at the expense of all others.

So do I want to be one of those over paid CEOs? Fuck no. You look at the pay gap in other countries where it is not as bad, and you see economically speaking they fair far better in education and less poverty and lower crime rates.

Our current system, if it continues the way it is, will reflect what you say and to suggest humans shouldn't strive for something beyond their own paycheck makes me sad for our future.

Brian, did you even read my post? it was a rant on the ultimate futility of a shallow and materialistic corporate environment, where asskissers advance faster than honest hard workers BECAUSE evolution is survival of the fittest (as in best fit for he possition, or best to adapt, or best to "click" with the boss).  If you're going to take the time to type, please make sure you read the whole post.  

I DID read your post, go back and read mine. If I hadn't read your post I wouldn't have quoted you.

Now, if I misunderstood you. that is a different issue. But you still made a huge mistake in describing evolution. It is not "survival of the fittest",  Being "fit" is one aspect of evolution, luck also plays a part and misfortune can hit even the "fittest".

Evolution is not ONE thing, it is a combo of factors. Mainly adaptation of genes and adaptation of environment, but also luck and misfortune play a huge part.

EXAMPLE, a guy works his entire life making 60k a year, and despite that he still loses his job and house do to an economy beyond his control. Then on the other hand, a poor janitor plays the lotto and hits becoming a multi millionaire.

Or, two guys get into a bar fight. One guy is "fit" and 6ft tall and 300lbs. He has never had kids. The other guy is only 5 foot 9 and only weighs 150. This guy has 2 kids. The smaller guy pulls out a gun and shoots and kills the bigger guy. "fit" like I said, is only one aspect of evolution.

All that is required in evolution is to get to the point of reproduction.

I do agree that our materialistic society is the cause of our problems. But government run economies like North Korea are also not a good model either. I think the truth of evolution, and thus a better economic model is in the middle, not either extreme.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I always come back to this

I always come back to this but the real problem is overpopulation. So as long as this is the case, there will always be a lower class that can be exploited by corporations, communist and socialist party bosses, capitalists, business owners,  aka whoever is in charge. There is always an oversupply of labor and undersupply of natural resources. Always another guy that will take your job if you don't accept whatever working conditions and pay the upper classes set.

Your job sucks because of supply and demand. Because we are always on headed for Malthusian catastrophe. That is what evolution has produced.

There have been a few times in US history where we came close to having labor shortages such that workers had the power to negotiate a fair deal. But then the government lets in workers from the overpopulated 3rd world.

There isn't any balance between capitalism and socialism that will work. The only balance can come from reduction of immigration and forced limits on reproduction.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I agree with Ktulu.

 I agree with Ktulu. Corporations tend to be very average. It is very much like evolution in that it isn't necessary to be the "best" or the fittest, it is simply necessary to survive (or in this case make a profit). The very concept of the corporate model is to spread out risk by minimizing the impact any one branch has on the bottom line of the company as a whole. As such, there isn't much pressure for a branch to be the most profitable, only a lot of pressure for it to avoid being the least profitable. Branches that fall in the middle of the pack assure their survival while those that are the most profitable generally get relatively small rewards for their efforts. Upper level management tends to focus its time on "fixing" branches that are losing money, often at the expense of ignoring branches that are just getting by. The result is a fairly consistent but mediocre branches. Which is why you can walk into a Walmart anywhere in the country and have pretty much the same experience. 

 

Personally, I think the franchise model is a far better model as far as producing quality and efficiency. In the franchise model, a single person owns and is responsible for a branch so there is a lot of incentive for them to make it as profitable as possible. This provides a greater incentive for innovation and efficiency at the local level. The downside is that a company following a franchise model often experiences a much larger variance in quality at its locations. Franchises also tend to provide much less support to new branches than a corporation. A corporation takes the profits from successful branches (and often employees) and uses them to start up new branches. A franchise allows the independent owner to keep a much larger portion of the profits which may or may not be used to open a new location while allowing locations to close with less of a fight from the parent corporation. The result is that corporations tend to grow larger than franchises and even though they might not produce higher profits per branch, they will produce more profit overall because they generally have a lot more locations. 

 

Also, you have to consider the expectations of investors. Someone who is investing in a franchise or small business is taking a large risk with their money and is going to expect and push for a large return. Investments in a large corporation are often considered safe investments. Corporations last a long time and generally their failure can be seen coming long before it actually happens. Someone who invests in a large corporation doesn't expect a large return, they expect a steady and consistent return. 

 

As far as working for a corporation, I don't get it. I have never worked for one but I have worked with them, and they are infuriatingly bureaucratic and collectively stupid. Personally, I don't think I would last 5 minutes working for one. Yet millions of people go to their cubicles every day, work their 9 to 5 and participate in office cooler politics while hating their job. I don't know if it is ignorance or if people have just been conditioned to believe that the corporate world is the path to success. I think there are much better and more pleasant ways to make money but people seem to think I am delusional when I point that out.  

 

People seem to believe they are stuck in their jobs and they have to put up with all the bullshit to pay the bills. For the most part, I believe most of the excuses people use to justify working a job they hate are self-imposed limitations and a fear of instability/change. Maybe they are willing to put up with corporate politics for the stability and low demands of the corporate work environment and more power to anyone who consciously makes that decision. But if you think it is your only option and you are forced into it by circumstance, you ought to take a look around, there are other options. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I agree with Ktulu. Corporations tend to be very average. It is very much like evolution in that it isn't necessary to be the "best" or the fittest, it is simply necessary to survive (or in this case make a profit). The very concept of the corporate model is to spread out risk by minimizing the impact any one branch has on the bottom line of the company as a whole. As such, there isn't much pressure for a branch to be the most profitable, only a lot of pressure for it to avoid being the least profitable. Branches that fall in the middle of the pack assure their survival while those that are the most profitable generally get relatively small rewards for their efforts. Upper level management tends to focus its time on "fixing" branches that are losing money, often at the expense of ignoring branches that are just getting by. The result is a fairly consistent but mediocre branches. Which is why you can walk into a Walmart anywhere in the country and have pretty much the same experience. 

 

Personally, I think the franchise model is a far better model as far as producing quality and efficiency. In the franchise model, a single person owns and is responsible for a branch so there is a lot of incentive for them to make it as profitable as possible. This provides a greater incentive for innovation and efficiency at the local level. The downside is that a company following a franchise model often experiences a much larger variance in quality at its locations. Franchises also tend to provide much less support to new branches than a corporation. A corporation takes the profits from successful branches (and often employees) and uses them to start up new branches. A franchise allows the independent owner to keep a much larger portion of the profits which may or may not be used to open a new location while allowing locations to close with less of a fight from the parent corporation. The result is that corporations tend to grow larger than franchises and even though they might not produce higher profits per branch, they will produce more profit overall because they generally have a lot more locations. 

 

Also, you have to consider the expectations of investors. Someone who is investing in a franchise or small business is taking a large risk with their money and is going to expect and push for a large return. Investments in a large corporation are often considered safe investments. Corporations last a long time and generally their failure can be seen coming long before it actually happens. Someone who invests in a large corporation doesn't expect a large return, they expect a steady and consistent return. 

 

As far as working for a corporation, I don't get it. I have never worked for one but I have worked with them, and they are infuriatingly bureaucratic and collectively stupid. Personally, I don't think I would last 5 minutes working for one. Yet millions of people go to their cubicles every day, work their 9 to 5 and participate in office cooler politics while hating their job. I don't know if it is ignorance or if people have just been conditioned to believe that the corporate world is the path to success. I think there are much better and more pleasant ways to make money but people seem to think I am delusional when I point that out.  

 

People seem to believe they are stuck in their jobs and they have to put up with all the bullshit to pay the bills. For the most part, I believe most of the excuses people use to justify working a job they hate are self-imposed limitations and a fear of instability/change. Maybe they are willing to put up with corporate politics for the stability and low demands of the corporate work environment and more power to anyone who consciously makes that decision. But if you think it is your only option and you are forced into it by circumstance, you ought to take a look around, there are other options. 

I HATE the franchise model because it comes at the expense of treating humans as property and mere numbers on a page. At least where I work if my boss fires me, he has to look me in the face and WILL lose sleep over it. When you get a bunch of corperate dickheads buffered by multiple states who barely see the workers at the bottom and never see what kind of life they have off the job, it makes it easy to treat humans like trash.

I know we need a certain number of big business, otherwise cars wouldn't get built and cell phones, or computers. I get that. But when it dominates our economy  and our politics to the point where wages are driven down and stagnate while the profit margins explode, it is nothing more than exploitation.

And this same model allows dickheads in a cubical to tell someone who needs a life saving operation or medicine they cant have it. Easy to tell someone they are going to die or starve when you aren't looking them in the face.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I HATE the

Brian37 wrote:

I HATE the franchise model because it comes at the expense of treating humans as property and mere numbers on a page. At least where I work if my boss fires me, he has to look me in the face and WILL lose sleep over it. When you get a bunch of corperate dickheads buffered by multiple states who barely see the workers at the bottom and never see what kind of life they have off the job, it makes it easy to treat humans like trash.

I know we need a certain number of big business, otherwise cars wouldn't get built and cell phones, or computers. I get that. But when it dominates our economy  and our politics to the point where wages are driven down and stagnate while the profit margins explode, it is nothing more than exploitation.

And this same model allows dickheads in a cubical to tell someone who needs a life saving operation or medicine they cant have it. Easy to tell someone they are going to die or starve when you aren't looking them in the face.

 

What do you think the franchise model is? A franchise is simply a legal agreement allowing someone to copy a business and use trademarks and such. So in the franchise model, the owner is generally someone local and often the person who actually runs the location (or maybe 2 or 3 locations). So in the franchise model there are far fewer people between the low level workers and the owner. Of course there are exceptions because sometimes a franchise is owned by a corporation or some businesses use a hybrid where some aspects of the business or some locations are corporate while others are franchised. 

 

Your argument seems mostly against the corporate model, which contrasts with the franchise model because in the corporate model the parent company retains actual ownership of all locations. This means that people in some corporate office can make decisions and there are often several levels of middle and upper management. Our federal government also uses a corporate model, which is why it often encounters problems with bureaucratic red tape, is heavy handed and does downright stupid shit. The model doesn't produce a high quality product unless it is managed extraordinarily well. Generally, it produces a product that is just good enough to get by and encourages mediocrity. 

 

I have never heard of a doctor refusing to perform a life saving operation even if you can't pay for it. Evidence please? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
This is a bit off topic, but

This is a bit off topic, but resonates with Beyond Saving's comment, also an interesting perspective.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

CNN article wrote:

And so the president goes on television telling us that the big issue of our time is jobs, jobs, jobs -- as if the reason to build high-speed rails and fix bridges is to put people back to work. But it seems to me there's something backwards in that logic. I find myself wondering if we may be accepting a premise that deserves to be questioned.

 

I am afraid to even ask this, but since when is unemployment really a problem? I understand we all want paychecks -- or at least money. We want food, shelter, clothing, and all the things that money buys us. But do we all really want jobs?

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I HATE the franchise model because it comes at the expense of treating humans as property and mere numbers on a page. At least where I work if my boss fires me, he has to look me in the face and WILL lose sleep over it. When you get a bunch of corperate dickheads buffered by multiple states who barely see the workers at the bottom and never see what kind of life they have off the job, it makes it easy to treat humans like trash.

I know we need a certain number of big business, otherwise cars wouldn't get built and cell phones, or computers. I get that. But when it dominates our economy  and our politics to the point where wages are driven down and stagnate while the profit margins explode, it is nothing more than exploitation.

And this same model allows dickheads in a cubical to tell someone who needs a life saving operation or medicine they cant have it. Easy to tell someone they are going to die or starve when you aren't looking them in the face.

 

What do you think the franchise model is? A franchise is simply a legal agreement allowing someone to copy a business and use trademarks and such. So in the franchise model, the owner is generally someone local and often the person who actually runs the location (or maybe 2 or 3 locations). So in the franchise model there are far fewer people between the low level workers and the owner. Of course there are exceptions because sometimes a franchise is owned by a corporation or some businesses use a hybrid where some aspects of the business or some locations are corporate while others are franchised. 

 

Your argument seems mostly against the corporate model, which contrasts with the franchise model because in the corporate model the parent company retains actual ownership of all locations. This means that people in some corporate office can make decisions and there are often several levels of middle and upper management. Our federal government also uses a corporate model, which is why it often encounters problems with bureaucratic red tape, is heavy handed and does downright stupid shit. The model doesn't produce a high quality product unless it is managed extraordinarily well. Generally, it produces a product that is just good enough to get by and encourages mediocrity. 

 

I have never heard of a doctor refusing to perform a life saving operation even if you can't pay for it. Evidence please? 

DUH, thanks. You don't think I don't know what a franchise is? My last owner owned 14 pizza stores of a MAJOR CHAIN. He wasn't the actual owner. He was nothing but a glorified bean counter who paid royalties to the Corporate owner for use of the Corporate name. So yea, I am well aware of "franchise" being paper contract.

Still doen't change that that dickhead and his overlord constantly sent their goons into our store to bully us into squeazing every dime out of us he could. That fuck wad went through 1 store manager a year. You want to know why they quit? Because the dickhead made promises to them he had no intent on keeping as far as bonuses and pay raises. And without exception every single one of them busted their asses.

Writing something down on paper may make it legal, but having worked for "franchizes", and that was not the only one I worked for, there is nothing moral about it and everything exploitive about it.

Its all about money and fuck the employee, pay them shit and dump them out like trash.

Most mom and pop shops don't do that, because they have to be face to face to people they hire and fire. It's easy to fuck someone when you don't have to look them in the face.

I don't want to hear your fucking lectures about the economy. I HAVE LIVED IT AND AM LIVING IT NOW. Your retarded republican goons have fucked up this country. Your words are hollow and don't mean shit to me.

Go fucking move to Somalia with your "no rules" "let them eat cake" bullshit. You wont even listen to Warren Buffet.

It's going to take another great depression before people like you wake up, and even then, I don't think you personally will. At least Warren Buffet is man enough to admit that there is a huge inequity problem.

Go peddle your Daddy Warbucks crap somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Still doen't

Brian37 wrote:

Still doen't change that that dickhead and his overlord constantly sent their goons into our store to bully us into squeazing every dime out of us he could. That fuck wad went through 1 store manager a year. You want to know why they quit? Because the dickhead made promises to them he had no intent on keeping as far as bonuses and pay raises. And without exception every single one of them busted their asses.

Writing something down on paper may make it legal, but having worked for "franchizes", and that was not the only one I worked for, there is nothing moral about it and everything exploitive about it.

So you worked for a crappy person who bought a franchise. So what? You quit and go work elsewhere. Some people are jerks to work for, others aren't. I suggest you work for people who are pleasant to work for. Regardless of what the business model is, working for (or with) someone who is a complete jackass isn't pleasant.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Most mom and pop shops don't do that, because they have to be face to face to people they hire and fire. It's easy to fuck someone when you don't have to look them in the face.

Really? I have worked for some mom and pops that weren't very pleasant. Assholes are everywhere and I doubt any amount of regulation is going to make them magically disappear. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't want to hear your fucking lectures about the economy. I HAVE LIVED IT AND AM LIVING IT NOW. Your retarded republican goons have fucked up this country. Your words are hollow and don't mean shit to me.

Apparently you aren't living it very well since you are always so upset about it. Obviously my words don't mean shit to you because you have illustrated a complete inability to comprehend what I say (as illustrated by your insistence that I am a republican). Maybe a few lurkers gain some benefit. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Go fucking move to Somalia with your "no rules" "let them eat cake" bullshit. You wont even listen to Warren Buffet.

Somalia now. Obviously, you have ignored the convenient list I supplied you in another thread. You can't even make a decent argument against me when I try to make one for you. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It's going to take another great depression before people like you wake up, and even then, I don't think you personally will. At least Warren Buffet is man enough to admit that there is a huge inequity problem.

I have suggested multiple times that if you have an inequality problem that you go make more money. If you don't like being an employee, stop being one. If you feel like you are being exploited, stop allowing it. If you think you know how to run a company better, run one. The only problems are the artificial barriers that make it more difficult for you to do so. It really is that easy. I don't mean it is easy to actually do, it requires a lot of effort, thought and work- but it really is that easy to make the decision to do so.

 

But don't blame me, or others like me, if you lack the initiative to create your own employment. When you put yourself in a position where you rely on others for something as important as your income, you aren't really in a position to bitch about if those others are assholes. One of the benefits of living in a free country is that you have the freedom to choose your own manner of employment.

 

Which brings me back to the threads general topic:

 

You don't HAVE to work for someone else, and arguably, working for someone else isn't even an efficient way to make an income. All you need to do to get an income is to provide something of value to others. That can be intellectual, physical, luxury, necessity, tangible, intangible, personal, impersonal or anything. As long as people are willing to give you money. You can work for someone (or a corporation) which basically amounts to you selling a specific amount of your time or selling a specific amount of labor. Or you can provide a product or service directly to a customer. That product or service can be anything. Everyday I walk through my life and come up with an idea that would probably make more than a little money. I get more ideas fleeting through my head than I have the initiative or time to take advantage of.    

 

Where I disagree with the article that Ktulu linked to is that there is no reason to separate the necessities from the "creative activity". Both are on equal footing from an economic standpoint as far as I am concerned. The other problem is that it fails to describe a distribution alternative for necessities that would work better than capitalism. Declaring food and shelter a "basic human right" is all well and good, but you still need to create and distribute food and shelter. Even with modern technology and excess labor, it isn't that easy. I would refer you to my lengthy discussion with NMCP about a resource based economy http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29234 I'm not saying that lassez-faire capitalism is the only or most efficient answer, but compared to what has been attempted it has worked well while also protecting many of the freedoms we enjoy. If you want me to entertain another option you will need to make a pretty convincing argument, and to me protecting freedom is far more important than maximum efficiency in distributing resources. 

 

As long as there is a market for a product, capitalists will endeavor to create a surplus. As natural resources become spread thin, capitalists will endeavor to create alternatives. Profit will always be found when people desire something and you can provide it to them. If you have a desire to increase your personal income, or to replace your current jobs income, then you really need to think about what you can do to provide value to your neighbors. The most difficult part is deciding exactly what you want to do and determining whether or not there is a real demand for it (or whether you can create a demand for it). Fortunately, with the internet, it is much easier to look at what others have tried and what worked and what didn't. Right now is a great time to consider leaving your employment in favor of independent contracting or direct sales since many employers are in a holding pattern for a variety of reasons. Companies are not enthusiastic to hire but still need certain jobs performed, an independent contractor is cheaper, easier and less risky for a company and highly attractive when the economy is as unstable as it is now.

 

If you are like Brian and hate your boss, consider telling him/her to shove it where the sun doesn't shine and take responsibility for providing your own job and maybe even employing others in the future. FFS, most of you here live in the wealthiest and most free countries in the history of the world. You have the option and opportunity to provide for yourself in whatever manor you choose. Your not going to starve to death, even if you have a wild hair up your ass like me and refuse to accept assistance from government welfare programs, there is more than enough opportunity for you to meet your basic needs easily. If you don't have that wild hair, you don't even need to go through the effort to find non-government charity.

 

There are people around the world who literally have no choice. They starve because there isn't enough food to go around. They can't work for themselves because whatever they make is forcibly taken by government or thugs. They would do anything to have the opportunity that much of the Western world squanders and then whines and bitches while they are squandering it. One of the biggest health problems in the US is fucking OBESITY. Then we whine about having to pay for medical care while getting some of the best care in the world while so many can't go to a doctor because there isn't a fucking doctor that you can reach before you die. All those people don't have options, they don't have an education, they don't have resources and they don't have freedoms.

 

Take an honest look at your life. You have the option to TRY. You might fail. Maybe you misjudge the market and end up losing all your money. So what? Even if you go flat bankrupt you have your life, your have access to food, water and shelter and you can try again. If you are young and just starting out, you have nothing to lose, so why not? If you have accumulated a few assets I can understand why you might be more hesitant to risk them. But you do have the option. If you choose not to take a risk and provide your own employment, I simply don't think your in a position to bitch about how the person who IS taking a risk with THEIR assets to provide YOU with a job is "exploiting" you. I have news for you, I don't HAVE to provide jobs. I could live quite comfortably without ever employing another person and so could the majority of employers. You make your choices, and you live with them.

 

The good news is that it is never really too late to decide to change your employment situation. I know people who didn't start their businesses until they were in their 50's or 60's. IME, people usually get comfortable where they are. They don't want to take that risk so they settle with something they don't like because they prefer the devil they know to the unknown. Many people end up doing something after finding themselves involuntarily unemployed and end up sticking with it when it works. If you are willing to put in the hours, it is much more stable to start a business while working as an employee. When I was doing my initial investing I worked several jobs, being an insurance agent was the best one because I could make a little money (22k/year) and had plenty of unsupervised time so I could take off to work on my own stuff when needed.

 

It isn't physically difficult unless you are entering a physical field like construction, it doesn't even require excessive intelligence- trust me, plenty of really dumb ass people work for themselves (enter joke about BS's intelligence here). All if requires is that you are willing to put the time in to come up with a good idea (or search the internet to mimic someone else's good idea) and invest your assets or persuade someone else that your idea is good enough to invest theirs. The vast majority of the initial labor will be researching to help you make the initial decisions that are so crucial to your initial success. I would recommend creating an entire business plan even if you won't be seeking investors just to help you iron your own thoughts out.

 

If you aren't willing to do this, and you aren't willing to provide your own employment, where do you get off assuming that it is someone else's obligation to provide you employment and then get angry when you don't like the terms of said employment? No one is forcing you to work there. You can work for someone else, somewhere else or do it yourself.

 

If you hire a plumber and he is rude to you, what do you do? You tolerate it, you go find a different plumber or you do the job yourself. Why do you assume it is or should be any different with your employer? It is an economic agreement to exchange cash for labor. If you don't like how the agreement works out for any reason you can tolerate it, go find a different employer or employ yourself. If you decide to sit around and tolerate it, you have no one to blame other than yourself.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blah blah blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah,

Save it.

You want to blame the worker and the poor for their decisions and the economy is not one dimensional. I have seen too much of what your attitude brings to our country and how it drives down wages and ships jobs overseas and fucks the workers and the poor.

Go peddle your crap somewhere else. I have had enough of your bullshit utopia crap.

Maybe if the economy fucks you over bad enough, and the way things are going, it may get to you or someone you care about. But as dense as you are, I think it would take a nuclear war for you to wake up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Still doen't change that that dickhead and his overlord constantly sent their goons into our store to bully us into squeazing every dime out of us he could. That fuck wad went through 1 store manager a year. You want to know why they quit? Because the dickhead made promises to them he had no intent on keeping as far as bonuses and pay raises. And without exception every single one of them busted their asses.

Writing something down on paper may make it legal, but having worked for "franchizes", and that was not the only one I worked for, there is nothing moral about it and everything exploitive about it.

So you worked for a crappy person who bought a franchise. So what? You quit and go work elsewhere. Some people are jerks to work for, others aren't. I suggest you work for people who are pleasant to work for. Regardless of what the business model is, working for (or with) someone who is a complete jackass isn't pleasant.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Most mom and pop shops don't do that, because they have to be face to face to people they hire and fire. It's easy to fuck someone when you don't have to look them in the face.

Really? I have worked for some mom and pops that weren't very pleasant. Assholes are everywhere and I doubt any amount of regulation is going to make them magically disappear. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't want to hear your fucking lectures about the economy. I HAVE LIVED IT AND AM LIVING IT NOW. Your retarded republican goons have fucked up this country. Your words are hollow and don't mean shit to me.

Apparently you aren't living it very well since you are always so upset about it. Obviously my words don't mean shit to you because you have illustrated a complete inability to comprehend what I say (as illustrated by your insistence that I am a republican). Maybe a few lurkers gain some benefit. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Go fucking move to Somalia with your "no rules" "let them eat cake" bullshit. You wont even listen to Warren Buffet.

Somalia now. Obviously, you have ignored the convenient list I supplied you in another thread. You can't even make a decent argument against me when I try to make one for you. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It's going to take another great depression before people like you wake up, and even then, I don't think you personally will. At least Warren Buffet is man enough to admit that there is a huge inequity problem.

I have suggested multiple times that if you have an inequality problem that you go make more money. If you don't like being an employee, stop being one. If you feel like you are being exploited, stop allowing it. If you think you know how to run a company better, run one. The only problems are the artificial barriers that make it more difficult for you to do so. It really is that easy. I don't mean it is easy to actually do, it requires a lot of effort, thought and work- but it really is that easy to make the decision to do so.

 

But don't blame me, or others like me, if you lack the initiative to create your own employment. When you put yourself in a position where you rely on others for something as important as your income, you aren't really in a position to bitch about if those others are assholes. One of the benefits of living in a free country is that you have the freedom to choose your own manner of employment.

 

Which brings me back to the threads general topic:

 

You don't HAVE to work for someone else, and arguably, working for someone else isn't even an efficient way to make an income. All you need to do to get an income is to provide something of value to others. That can be intellectual, physical, luxury, necessity, tangible, intangible, personal, impersonal or anything. As long as people are willing to give you money. You can work for someone (or a corporation) which basically amounts to you selling a specific amount of your time or selling a specific amount of labor. Or you can provide a product or service directly to a customer. That product or service can be anything. Everyday I walk through my life and come up with an idea that would probably make more than a little money. I get more ideas fleeting through my head than I have the initiative or time to take advantage of.    

 

Where I disagree with the article that Ktulu linked to is that there is no reason to separate the necessities from the "creative activity". Both are on equal footing from an economic standpoint as far as I am concerned. The other problem is that it fails to describe a distribution alternative for necessities that would work better than capitalism. Declaring food and shelter a "basic human right" is all well and good, but you still need to create and distribute food and shelter. Even with modern technology and excess labor, it isn't that easy. I would refer you to my lengthy discussion with NMCP about a resource based economy http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29234 I'm not saying that lassez-faire capitalism is the only or most efficient answer, but compared to what has been attempted it has worked well while also protecting many of the freedoms we enjoy. If you want me to entertain another option you will need to make a pretty convincing argument, and to me protecting freedom is far more important than maximum efficiency in distributing resources. 

 

As long as there is a market for a product, capitalists will endeavor to create a surplus. As natural resources become spread thin, capitalists will endeavor to create alternatives. Profit will always be found when people desire something and you can provide it to them. If you have a desire to increase your personal income, or to replace your current jobs income, then you really need to think about what you can do to provide value to your neighbors. The most difficult part is deciding exactly what you want to do and determining whether or not there is a real demand for it (or whether you can create a demand for it). Fortunately, with the internet, it is much easier to look at what others have tried and what worked and what didn't. Right now is a great time to consider leaving your employment in favor of independent contracting or direct sales since many employers are in a holding pattern for a variety of reasons. Companies are not enthusiastic to hire but still need certain jobs performed, an independent contractor is cheaper, easier and less risky for a company and highly attractive when the economy is as unstable as it is now.

 

If you are like Brian and hate your boss, consider telling him/her to shove it where the sun doesn't shine and take responsibility for providing your own job and maybe even employing others in the future. FFS, most of you here live in the wealthiest and most free countries in the history of the world. You have the option and opportunity to provide for yourself in whatever manor you choose. Your not going to starve to death, even if you have a wild hair up your ass like me and refuse to accept assistance from government welfare programs, there is more than enough opportunity for you to meet your basic needs easily. If you don't have that wild hair, you don't even need to go through the effort to find non-government charity.

 

There are people around the world who literally have no choice. They starve because there isn't enough food to go around. They can't work for themselves because whatever they make is forcibly taken by government or thugs. They would do anything to have the opportunity that much of the Western world squanders and then whines and bitches while they are squandering it. One of the biggest health problems in the US is fucking OBESITY. Then we whine about having to pay for medical care while getting some of the best care in the world while so many can't go to a doctor because there isn't a fucking doctor that you can reach before you die. All those people don't have options, they don't have an education, they don't have resources and they don't have freedoms.

 

Take an honest look at your life. You have the option to TRY. You might fail. Maybe you misjudge the market and end up losing all your money. So what? Even if you go flat bankrupt you have your life, your have access to food, water and shelter and you can try again. If you are young and just starting out, you have nothing to lose, so why not? If you have accumulated a few assets I can understand why you might be more hesitant to risk them. But you do have the option. If you choose not to take a risk and provide your own employment, I simply don't think your in a position to bitch about how the person who IS taking a risk with THEIR assets to provide YOU with a job is "exploiting" you. I have news for you, I don't HAVE to provide jobs. I could live quite comfortably without ever employing another person and so could the majority of employers. You make your choices, and you live with them.

 

The good news is that it is never really too late to decide to change your employment situation. I know people who didn't start their businesses until they were in their 50's or 60's. IME, people usually get comfortable where they are. They don't want to take that risk so they settle with something they don't like because they prefer the devil they know to the unknown. Many people end up doing something after finding themselves involuntarily unemployed and end up sticking with it when it works. If you are willing to put in the hours, it is much more stable to start a business while working as an employee. When I was doing my initial investing I worked several jobs, being an insurance agent was the best one because I could make a little money (22k/year) and had plenty of unsupervised time so I could take off to work on my own stuff when needed.

 

It isn't physically difficult unless you are entering a physical field like construction, it doesn't even require excessive intelligence- trust me, plenty of really dumb ass people work for themselves (enter joke about BS's intelligence here). All if requires is that you are willing to put the time in to come up with a good idea (or search the internet to mimic someone else's good idea) and invest your assets or persuade someone else that your idea is good enough to invest theirs. The vast majority of the initial labor will be researching to help you make the initial decisions that are so crucial to your initial success. I would recommend creating an entire business plan even if you won't be seeking investors just to help you iron your own thoughts out.

 

If you aren't willing to do this, and you aren't willing to provide your own employment, where do you get off assuming that it is someone else's obligation to provide you employment and then get angry when you don't like the terms of said employment? No one is forcing you to work there. You can work for someone else, somewhere else or do it yourself.

 

If you hire a plumber and he is rude to you, what do you do? You tolerate it, you go find a different plumber or you do the job yourself. Why do you assume it is or should be any different with your employer? It is an economic agreement to exchange cash for labor. If you don't like how the agreement works out for any reason you can tolerate it, go find a different employer or employ yourself. If you decide to sit around and tolerate it, you have no one to blame other than yourself.

 

Way to mix apples and hand grenades. You are talking about personal relationships between a boss and client IE "Plumber" AND client. I am talking about pay gap and policy and corporate climate which have NOTHING to do with one person or one boss.

Your model IS great at making money. The problem with business is that it DOES NOT, or at least MOST businesses cant afford to care about their workers, or flat out dont give a shit about their workers.

So if you want to blame me for not wanting to own a business. DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT I DONT WANT TO. Because I could not sleep at night, unlike you, knowing that the people at the bottom couldn't feed themselves or go to the doctor. That is your idea of competition, not mine.

Other countries have the same open market system we do and are healthy BECAUSE they don't have the enequity we do. They have higher education rates. lower crime rates and far less poverty.

"Your boss doesnt owe you shit". THANKS AND DUH, he owes it to the climate of the country, not one person. The better off more people are, the less they have to depend on government. The less the corporate climate cares the more the workers will RIGHTFULLY turn to government. It IS our government, not yours just because you have money.

Climate and attitude are what I have a problem with. This is what you keep missing and you will never get it until the economy affects you badly enough. And if you think it never will or never can, you are a fool. Plenty of people at your status who "did all the right things" lose everything because of circumstances beyond their control.

YOU CANT SEE that if enough in the middle and the bottom drowned you wont have shit to sell them, nor will you be able to buy foreign  crap to sell them. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting damned close that if you create enough poverty IT WILL affect even you.

"FUCK EM" Keep it up, I doubt you'll like the outcome if we reach that point. And if your rethuglican buddies get their way, we will.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Your model IS

Brian37 wrote:

Your model IS great at making money. The problem with business is that it DOES NOT, or at least MOST businesses cant afford to care about their workers, or flat out dont give a shit about their workers.

Do you have evidence that a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of workers cant meet basic needs?

 

Brian37 wrote:

So if you want to blame me for not wanting to own a business. DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT I DONT WANT TO. Because I could not sleep at night, unlike you, knowing that the people at the bottom couldn't feed themselves or go to the doctor. That is your idea of competition, not mine.

I don't blame you. Just a request that you stop bitching about not making money when you do nothing to try to make more. Personally, I don't give a rats ass whether you decide to try to make more money or just stay where you are. While it would be better for the economy for everyone to work to their full potential I believe the freedom to do what you want is far more important than the economic growth of the country. So I support your right to decide to work at minimum wage your whole life, or even not to work at all if you want. As far as I'm concerned, you have the freedom to go shoot up on heroine and live in a crack house. Just don't bitch at me when you make that decision and don't like how uncomfortable your life becomes.

 

Funny how you say you couldn't sleep at night by providing someone with a job. That is just so backasswards I don't even know what to say. I bet there are a few people on this site who would be quite happy if you were able to provide them with a job, even if it wasn't a high paying one, they might prefer working to not working at all.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Other countries have the same open market system we do and are healthy BECAUSE they don't have the enequity we do. They have higher education rates. lower crime rates and far less poverty.

Evidence? Exactly which country whose poor have better living conditions than our poor? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Climate and attitude are what I have a problem with. This is what you keep missing and you will never get it until the economy affects you badly enough. And if you think it never will or never can, you are a fool. Plenty of people at your status who "did all the right things" lose everything because of circumstances beyond their control.

The difference is that if I lose everything again, I will simply start over. It is only money and I can always make more. As I pointed out in my lengthy rant, you can lose every penny you have in this country and still not starve, still get emergency medical care and still have way more opportunity than a large portion of the worlds population. Show me evidence that I am wrong. Show me that people are routinely denied essential healthcare solely because they couldn't afford it. And I mean actually denied care, not just money for it. Show me one person who has died of dehydration or starvation without being either completely mentally incompetent or juiced up on massive levels of drugs or got lost in the wilderness.

 

Brian37 wrote:

YOU CANT SEE that if enough in the middle and the bottom drowned you wont have shit to sell them, nor will you be able to buy foreign  crap to sell them. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting damned close that if you create enough poverty IT WILL affect even you.

I don't want anyone to drown. Where the hell did you get that from? And can you provide evidence that free markets have caused an increase in poverty? People with jobs are not the ones in poverty. No one who works for me is in poverty. I want to be in a position to employ more people- therefore, I want to reduce poverty and unlike you, I am actually taking active steps to reduce poverty instead of whining about it. Funny how you accuse me of being immoral when you have done nothing to reduce poverty for even one person while I employ many people in my little corner of the ocean. You attack business owners for "causing poverty", who the fuck do you think hires and pays people? Those of us in the business community are the ones screaming at the government to get our of our way so we can hire people because the more people we have doing effective work, the more money we make. Give me one line of rational thought on how someone TRYING to employ people is causing poverty. Poverty isn't caused by those of us who ENCOURAGE more production of goods and services, it is caused by the LACK of production of goods and services. And right now the primary cause of businesses cutting back in production is government policy.

 

All you have is small, generalized and exaggerated sound bites. Provide me some evidence, or at least a well formed opinion.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Your model IS great at making money. The problem with business is that it DOES NOT, or at least MOST businesses cant afford to care about their workers, or flat out dont give a shit about their workers.

Do you have evidence that a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of workers cant meet basic needs?

 

Brian37 wrote:

So if you want to blame me for not wanting to own a business. DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT I DONT WANT TO. Because I could not sleep at night, unlike you, knowing that the people at the bottom couldn't feed themselves or go to the doctor. That is your idea of competition, not mine.

I don't blame you. Just a request that you stop bitching about not making money when you do nothing to try to make more. Personally, I don't give a rats ass whether you decide to try to make more money or just stay where you are. While it would be better for the economy for everyone to work to their full potential I believe the freedom to do what you want is far more important than the economic growth of the country. So I support your right to decide to work at minimum wage your whole life, or even not to work at all if you want. As far as I'm concerned, you have the freedom to go shoot up on heroine and live in a crack house. Just don't bitch at me when you make that decision and don't like how uncomfortable your life becomes.

 

Funny how you say you couldn't sleep at night by providing someone with a job. That is just so backasswards I don't even know what to say. I bet there are a few people on this site who would be quite happy if you were able to provide them with a job, even if it wasn't a high paying one, they might prefer working to not working at all.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Other countries have the same open market system we do and are healthy BECAUSE they don't have the enequity we do. They have higher education rates. lower crime rates and far less poverty.

Evidence? Exactly which country whose poor have better living conditions than our poor? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Climate and attitude are what I have a problem with. This is what you keep missing and you will never get it until the economy affects you badly enough. And if you think it never will or never can, you are a fool. Plenty of people at your status who "did all the right things" lose everything because of circumstances beyond their control.

The difference is that if I lose everything again, I will simply start over. It is only money and I can always make more. As I pointed out in my lengthy rant, you can lose every penny you have in this country and still not starve, still get emergency medical care and still have way more opportunity than a large portion of the worlds population. Show me evidence that I am wrong. Show me that people are routinely denied essential healthcare solely because they couldn't afford it. And I mean actually denied care, not just money for it. Show me one person who has died of dehydration or starvation without being either completely mentally incompetent or juiced up on massive levels of drugs or got lost in the wilderness.

 

Brian37 wrote:

YOU CANT SEE that if enough in the middle and the bottom drowned you wont have shit to sell them, nor will you be able to buy foreign  crap to sell them. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting damned close that if you create enough poverty IT WILL affect even you.

I don't want anyone to drown. Where the hell did you get that from? And can you provide evidence that free markets have caused an increase in poverty? People with jobs are not the ones in poverty. No one who works for me is in poverty. I want to be in a position to employ more people- therefore, I want to reduce poverty and unlike you, I am actually taking active steps to reduce poverty instead of whining about it. Funny how you accuse me of being immoral when you have done nothing to reduce poverty for even one person while I employ many people in my little corner of the ocean. You attack business owners for "causing poverty", who the fuck do you think hires and pays people? Those of us in the business community are the ones screaming at the government to get our of our way so we can hire people because the more people we have doing effective work, the more money we make. Give me one line of rational thought on how someone TRYING to employ people is causing poverty. Poverty isn't caused by those of us who ENCOURAGE more production of goods and services, it is caused by the LACK of production of goods and services. And right now the primary cause of businesses cutting back in production is government policy.

 

All you have is small, generalized and exaggerated sound bites. Provide me some evidence, or at least a well formed opinion.

Evidence? TURN ON THE FUCKING NEWS DIPSHIT. Oh I forgot, people have livable wages and everyone in America is doing just fine. What fucking planet do you live on.

Keep smoking your corporate crack I seriously hope you get hit just as badly as far too many in this country have been hit, then and only then will you fucking wake up. Your tunnel vision and corporate dick sucking is asinine and boringly mundane.

Please, if you want to lend truth to your online name, change it to "Marie Antoinette". On second thought, keep your name, because it is an apt description.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Evidence? TURN

Brian37 wrote:

Evidence? TURN ON THE FUCKING NEWS DIPSHIT. Oh I forgot, people have livable wages and everyone in America is doing just fine. What fucking planet do you live on.

Keep smoking your corporate crack I seriously hope you get hit just as badly as far too many in this country have been hit, then and only then will you fucking wake up. Your tunnel vision and corporate dick sucking is asinine and boringly mundane.

Please, if you want to lend truth to your online name, change it to "Marie Antoinette". On second thought, keep your name, because it is an apt description.

 

Then it ought to be easy for you to provide numbers to back up your assertions. Data on income, standard of living etc. is readily available for most modern countries. 

 

Show me a news story about someone who died because a doctor refused to give them life saving treatment. I can find plenty where insurance companies refused to pay for one reason or another, but payment of medical services is different from whether or not you receive medical services as many people receive them without paying for them. 

 

Show me a news story of someone who starved to death. We simply do not have a starvation problem in the US, you don't go out into the streets and see people starving to death like you do in some countries. We have food shelves in virtually every moderate sized town and that is before you even think about going on the myriad of government programs we have to help people. There might be some people who have to do the ramen noodle diet for a bit but for the most part, food in the US is readily available and inexpensive.

 

And you have yet to define what the definition of a "livable wage" is. So how the hell do I know if I pay a livable wage by your definition? Give me a definition, and I can easily look up the statistics to tell you how much of the population makes less than the livable wage. I suspect that your definition of "livable wage" is either really high or you are completely unaware of how much money most working people make. The bottom line is that your broad assertions fall like bowling pins to the statistics.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable at all for me to request facts as they are easily attainable and will either support your position or mine. Isn't that the purpose of this site? To push having beliefs that are based in fact rather than your feelings? If you can find compelling evidence that I am wrong on any point, I will eat crow. At the very least, if you provide some evidence, arguing over how to interpret those statistics would be far more interesting than simply throwing out hyperbolic rhetoric. So far, most of our conversations follow the pattern

I make a claim.

You scream YOUR WRONG, throw out a few references to dictators or evil corporations.

I provide evidence/expand on my argument.

You call me greedy, selfish, and grossly exaggerate my position.

I ask you to provide evidence.

You move on to another thread.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

 

So provide some evidence. I prefer raw data, but will accept news stories if the news is based on original sources. If you can't, I am kind of tired of running around in circles with you. It was amusing at first, but not so much anymore. If you want to challenge anything I say and want me to provide specific evidence I am happy to do so. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Keep smoking

Brian37 wrote:

Keep smoking your corporate crack I seriously hope you get hit just as badly as far too many in this country have been hit, then and only then will you fucking wake up. Your tunnel vision and corporate dick sucking is asinine and boringly mundane.

You do realize that if I were to fail that everyone who relies on me for a job would suddenly qualify for food stamps? I don't think it is nice to wish people lose their jobs. I for one, hope that I can continue to employ them and continue to stimulate the economy. My bartenders, poker dealers, waiters/waitresses, business partners, lawyer, cpa, brother, girlfriend, ex-wife, this site, my favorite charities, and the government with your precious programs would all be missing out on money.  Who would benefit if I were to lose everything? And you call me selfish.

 

But, if it makes you feel better, I have had a terrible year so far. I am operating at a rather large loss and have not taken a single penny in income yet. I anticipate a few large checks during this last quarter, but even so my income will be approximately 1/3 of what it was last year especially since the fucking government is still holding on to my online poker funds. The good news is that I will be down a couple tax brackets so I won't be able to bitch about taxes so much next year about taxes. I might even get a refund. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Keep smoking your corporate crack I seriously hope you get hit just as badly as far too many in this country have been hit, then and only then will you fucking wake up. Your tunnel vision and corporate dick sucking is asinine and boringly mundane.

You do realize that if I were to fail that everyone who relies on me for a job would suddenly qualify for food stamps? I don't think it is nice to wish people lose their jobs. I for one, hope that I can continue to employ them and continue to stimulate the economy. My bartenders, poker dealers, waiters/waitresses, business partners, lawyer, cpa, brother, girlfriend, ex-wife, this site, my favorite charities, and the government with your precious programs would all be missing out on money.  Who would benefit if I were to lose everything? And you call me selfish.

 

But, if it makes you feel better, I have had a terrible year so far. I am operating at a rather large loss and have not taken a single penny in income yet. I anticipate a few large checks during this last quarter, but even so my income will be approximately 1/3 of what it was last year especially since the fucking government is still holding on to my online poker funds. The good news is that I will be down a couple tax brackets so I won't be able to bitch about taxes so much next year about taxes. I might even get a refund. 

Stop it. No one wants you to fail, so please knock it off. Once again you are to dense to see that I am talking about an attitude change in the corporate climate. But for you to expect someone starving not to do what they have to do to put food on the table is fucking absurd.

It is as simple as those at the top giving a shit instead of "every man for themselves".

I have seen my hours, AFTER 6 YEARS of being stable, get flushed down the toilet, and not because the guy who owns the place cant afford me, but because he simply wants to maximize his profits. So if you think I am going to give one fuck about taking food stamps or unemployment, when he cant see fit to do the right thing, fuck him. No he doesn't "owe me" a job, but the collective attitude of people like you and him are too damned dense to see the more you take it out on the labor, the less stable society is collectively.

The economy is bad because of the top and because they don't want to do a damned thing to take care of the people who do the work to make them rich. As long as they don't give a fuck, they have no right to bitch about the middle and poor turning to government.

Long term our economy is creating more poor people and not because of the laziness of the poor or middle, but because the competition in the market is not on the consumer level. It is at the shareholder and CEO level. Consumer goods and fuel shrink in size while the price goes up. Workers hours get cut and jobs get cut and those lucky enough to keep their jobs aren't getting paid shit to survive.

I want you to succeed, but you need to get it through your head, that success will not benefit society with your "I got mine, screw everyone else" attitude. It will work for you short term, but it is slash and burn and eventually you will undermine the buying power of the lower classes to the point you wont have anyone to buy what you are selling.

30 years of bubbles and jobs disappearing is enough for me to KNOW that your attitude sucks and is exactly why we are in this mess. More of the same wont wash. Investment here, jobs here, higher wages here, less pay gap. End the monopoly on insurance and drug companies. And if banks, Wall Street, and the housing market refuses to behave itself, it has no right to bitch when government steps in.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Keep smoking your corporate crack I seriously hope you get hit just as badly as far too many in this country have been hit, then and only then will you fucking wake up. Your tunnel vision and corporate dick sucking is asinine and boringly mundane.

You do realize that if I were to fail that everyone who relies on me for a job would suddenly qualify for food stamps? I don't think it is nice to wish people lose their jobs. I for one, hope that I can continue to employ them and continue to stimulate the economy. My bartenders, poker dealers, waiters/waitresses, business partners, lawyer, cpa, brother, girlfriend, ex-wife, this site, my favorite charities, and the government with your precious programs would all be missing out on money.  Who would benefit if I were to lose everything? And you call me selfish.

 

But, if it makes you feel better, I have had a terrible year so far. I am operating at a rather large loss and have not taken a single penny in income yet. I anticipate a few large checks during this last quarter, but even so my income will be approximately 1/3 of what it was last year especially since the fucking government is still holding on to my online poker funds. The good news is that I will be down a couple tax brackets so I won't be able to bitch about taxes so much next year about taxes. I might even get a refund. 

No it does NOT make me feel better that you are having a terrible year. BUT THAT SHOULD BE WAKING YOU UP. It is a collective thing going on here and what is affecting me is affecting you as well. All I am saying is that our long term policies we have had have allowed the foxes to guard the hen house and those same foxes are asking for more of the same which you densely and blindly support.

You keep taking it out on labor you will end up with no one to buy anything and more dependency on government which you and I agree is better when less people depend on government. Again, things will not get better until those at the top start giving a shit.

I do not want America to sink to the level of India and China to compete, nor do I think we have to. You don't even understand that the people causing your problems, ARE NOT YOUR "GREEDY" labor.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37