Layoffs coming...

[fdd2blk]

One has to breach the "hippy-trippy, bunnies and kites" mind of the libtard to make your point.

I'd troll you about your "federal misfortune" due to your smart reply, but I'm not actually a dick in real life so I'll leave it out.

you sure play a good one online though.

 

[Carthoris]

So if I own land and a creek runs thru it
That's my water and I can dam the creek and fill a lake?

I know you are just putting things like this to try and inflate your failed defense of your ideal. I forgive you. There are rules about water rights, and they are often included in the titles to land. I am not an anarchist. I accept there has to be rules and regulations in life in some way or form. To believe otherwise is utopian fantasy.

 

[Carthoris]

Now THAT is funny. The concept of stakeholders in a company is now long gone. No, the employees don't own what they manufacture, they shouldn't take pride in what goes out the door because - they don't have any, it is just a job and they get paid for their time, nothing else. The company owes them nothing but a paycheck and the employees need only show up on time and leave at 5:00 right? Now there is a way to proudly manufactured widgets made in the U.S.

The union mentality of US(workers) vs THEM(business) accomplishes the same thing.

 

[UncleBuck]

i know you are just putting things like this to try and inflate your failed defense of your ideal. I forgive you. There are rules about water rights, and they are often included in the titles to land. I am not an anarchist. I accept there has to be rules and regulations in life in some way or form. To believe otherwise is utopian fantasy.

*just not rules for how shitty we can treat our walmart workers.

 

[Carthoris]

Times have changed - showing up is now a significant portion of one's paycheck. No, technicly they don't own anything at all, except as I said, pride has vanished, hastened by management's disregard for their employees - they see employees as replaceable cogs and that is now what they get.

They used to put concern into their work - buyers would get the best elements for the best price, workers checked their work, kept tolerances low, oversaw their portion of thrift and alerted management to problems on the line that they might not have been aware of. This sort of thing still happens in Japan and the japanese turn out some of the most dependable and solid products in the world.

No, they don't own anything but they should and the companies where workers own a portion or all of their company have significantly better operations. So long as a company is viewed the way such as you see them, there will never be ethical, efficient and... happy operations in a company.

They do own something. Every hour they work they get part of the company. Your paycheck is essentially a piece of the company delivered to you for your work in the company. You could easily buy company stocks with the money - if you choose to spend it on Xbox games and Doritos, then that is your problem. The company still gave you a share of the company.

 

[abandonconflict]

everybody with a brain stopped reading here.

Farms are part of the "Means of Production" you already promised to "Collectivize" for the good of the "Collective". (which is like, totally different from socialization, nationalization or seizure... 'cause it's... ummm... for your own good?)

This Means You Are Lying.

Out of context is out of context. You have no integrity.

 

[UncleBuck]

The union mentality of US(workers) vs THEM(business) accomplishes the same thing.

no, wanting some level of control or stake or ownership does the exact opposite, actually. clawfoot.

 

[Carthoris]

Why are CEOs entitled to contracts but the ordinary worker is not?

They are entitled to contracts. I am sure there is a phrase for phrasing a retort in the form of a question and pretending something is fact to ask it. It is a lot like "How long ya been gay?"

 

[UncleBuck]

They do own something. Every hour they work they get part of the company. Your paycheck is essentially a piece of the company delivered to you for your work in the company. You could easily buy company stocks with the money - if you choose to spend it on Xbox games and Doritos, then that is your problem. The company still gave you a share of the company.

you'll be lucky to afford those doritos on a walmart check, much less stock in the company.

methinks most walmart workers have to settle for bargain basement "potato imitation crisps".

 

[Carthoris]

Maybe the ordinary worker should be allowed to form a union with other willing employees and collectivly bargain for compensation
CEOs have buddies on the board of directors
Workers have buddies in unions

They definitely have the right to do that. The business is under no obligation to accept their terms though. You would never force the employees to work - why would you force the business to give them work? There is no difference except your personal feelings on the matter.

 

[abandonconflict]

And here we get a clear glimpse at the lunacy that resides in the addled head of the progressive drone. Thinking that only union employees have humane working conditions and fair compensation. Strange, when I was in the workforce, I always had lunch breaks, ample vacation time and personal days, paid holidays and extremely fair compensation and benefits. How could that be possible for me and the MILLIONS of middle class non-union employees just like me? You seem to describe a non-union environment as a guarantee of treatment one would expect in a gulag.

[video=youtube;AtjTRTKHDjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtjTRTKHDjg[/video]

 

[UncleBuck]

They definitely have the right to do that. The business is under no obligation to accept their terms though. You would never force the employees to work - why would you force the business to give them work? There is no difference except your personal feelings on the matter.

you guys just close the store down if there is a chance workers band together to lobby for decent working conditions and livable wages.

be proud.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

And here we get a clear glimpse at the lunacy that resides in the addled head of the progressive drone. Thinking that only union employees have humane working conditions and fair compensation. Strange, when I was in the workforce, I always had lunch breaks, ample vacation time and personal days, paid holidays and extremely fair compensation and benefits. How could that be possible for me and the MILLIONS of middle class non-union employees just like me? You seem to describe a non-union environment as a guarantee of treatment one would expect in a gulag.

All the things you mention would not exist or have come about if it weren't for organized labor . Organized labor has even benefitted those who aren't a part of it , take that all away and we will see how bad things can really get quick .

 

[Carthoris]

I'm not suggesting it should be abolished to the point where you can't own a farm and keep it in the family. However, if you own tens of thousands of acres of farm land subsidized by the government, employing thousands of people and feeding millions of people, keeping ownership in your family makes you basically a nobleman among peasants. I'm also not pushing an exact set of parameters as to what I think the changes are that need to be made, I am simply suggesting that changes need to be made and am suggesting a direction.

Income inequality exists and socioeconomic upward mobility is rapidly vanishing. I thought socioeconomic upward mobility was the American dream. Wealth redistribution is happening, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

You are continuall repeating property rights, and I have nothing against property rights of well earned folks who have a little more than other people, I am talking about people who have consolidated so much to keep in their bloodlines that they have the power (and in many ways use it) to exercise control over local governments, buy elections, out source jobs, push for legislation that protects their profits at the cost of the way of life of the people who need jobs...I could go on.

There seems to be an idea that it's an employer's world, that suppliers should have the power over the demanders. It seems to me a bad thing that it is acceptable to say, many other people want your job, so I'll pay you less, because they are willing to take less, because I wish to profit. This attitude is reliant upon rabid consumerism in the form of buyers carelessly buying because they don't realize how much power they have over industry. Sure, cakes made by a factory where non-union workers will be cheaper, but the people buying those cakes are telling the world they want factory workers to be paid less. If you think workers should be treated better, given benefits and even have a retirement package that includes tradeable stock, buy cakes from the company that has these policies for it's workers. On the other hand, if continually there is always an ever growing pool of people desperate for employment and a consumer base choosing products based solely on price, things will head in the direction of the last decade, of wealth redistribution into the accounts of the wealthiest from the poorest.

Now if it is simply impossible that a well informed populace could ever be a majority such that reality could begin to resemble utopian visions, than big government and Keynesian economics is the only answer for protecting the people's equality. By equality, I mean equal access to socioeconomic upward mobility.

You're alright. It is nice to have someone to discuss ideas with instead of fighting about them. Much better than bucky with his turtle fucking pictures instead of thoughtful replies.

In my ideal world there is no subsidies. You either make it or you don't. This includes everybody. If you fail, then you restructure your life to your abilities to produce. Including CEOs to Hobos. If you own thousands of acres and you take care of them through your own ability(whether actual or paying someone) then it is yours and who cares what you do with it as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. One of the central tenants of the Libertarian concept to me is almost like the Wiccan rede: "An it harm none, do what ye will." Harming and not helping are far different. If I have a dozen apples and you are starving, but I refuse to give you one. Sure, I am an asshole, but I am not starving you. (I would give up an apple in most situations, this is just an example). In the end the business owns the jobs, and they can do what they want with them. The statement where you mention 'well earned folks'. It is very scary if the government looks at it like this because everyone has a completely different definition for this. It would be like defining 'good'. You have to give it a direct definition or it becomes a dictatorship where the president gets to decide whoever he wants has enough or not enough.

The reason I repeat property rights is because I believe that it is the very basis of law and the foundation of society. I think most of the rest of just follows it.

Demand has always dictated supply in capitalist countries, not the other way around. Demand always causes the supply to react a certain way. People want cheap shit, Wal-Mart items it. Wal-Mart didn't force people to buy cheap items. Who is the supply and who is the demand in business? The workers or the owners?

What we have currently isn't a free market. I honestly believe that if we implemented a true free market that the average person would have more power. Businesses that can't exist based on their business model would fold and everything would even out in a few decades to reach a sustainable level of existence for the common man. It might be higher or lower than now, but it would be sustainable. I think that is very important.

 

[Carthoris]

All the things you mention would not exist or have come about if it weren't for organized labor . Organized labor has even benefitted those who aren't a part of it , take that all away and we will see how bad things can really get quick .

The Nazi's advanced science by murdering people. The Romans advanced civilization by enslaving the known world. This doesn't make the actions or the original goals acceptable.

 

[UncleBuck]

The Nazi's advanced science by murdering people. The Romans advanced civilization by enslaving the known world. This doesn't make the actions or the original goals acceptable.

so, unions are akin to nazis (notice how there is no need for an apostrophe, clawfoot) and slave drivers?

you need some perspective, sistah.

 

[UncleBuck]

Harming and not helping are far different.

yes, i believed you made this point when you argued in favor of segregation and keeping blacks out of certain businesses.

i mean, they could have just bought some land somewhere else where they wouldn't have been made to sit on the back of the bus! that one was priceless.

the fact is that your insane, rawnpawlian view of property rights did harm others. that is a fact. it is historically documented.

yet you dust off this failed old argument, and repackage it like some bundle of "potato style imitation crisps" and sell it to some min wage walmart chump.

jesus fucking christ, can't you see that your retarded philosophy has been roundly rejected?

 

[Harrekin]

you sure play a good one online though.

There are two things that can entertain one online...

1. Motorcycle accidents on YouTube (watching a Squid break themselves is hilarious!)
/and

2. Trolling the shit out of Libtard ball sucking queers.

I guess selling an "illicit substance" across State lines made you uber stupid...as your early Sky-Daddy birthday gift, Ill give you this advice...stop advertising the fact youre gonna get buttfucked daily REALLY soon maybe?

Btw, keep voting for Obama...he'll save you.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

The Nazi's advanced science by murdering people. The Romans advanced civilization by enslaving the known world. This doesn't make the actions or the original goals acceptable.

What ? There is no comparison . Collective bargaining , you ever heard of it ? Bacon Davis Act how about that ?

 

[abandonconflict]

There are two things that can entertain one online...

1. Motorcycle accidents on YouTube (watching a Squid break themselves is hilarious!)
/and

2. Trolling the shit out of Libtard ball sucking queers.

I guess selling an "illicit substance" across State lines made you uber stupid...as your early Sky-Daddy birthday gift, Ill give you this advice...stop advertising the fact youre gonna get buttfucked daily REALLY soon maybe?

Btw, keep voting for Obama...he'll save you.

Deciphering...

"You're gay, therefore I win."