Going on strike? Well, nobody in your family may have food stamps, then

An example of why we are in this mess. No one cares about anyone but themselves. If something doesnt effect them then ignore it untill something does. If we want to actually make a change we need to work for the good of EVERYONE not just whats good for ourselves. But sadly people are too selfish. Ahhhhhhh yeah Capitalism baby

Jolt_counter119

I'm forced to care enough. I can't bring myself to spare anymore sympathy, sorry. :(

Unless you plan on changing the Constitution, I have every right not to give a damn.

I would contend the reason we're in this mess is actually because of people like you. People who think they know what's best.

Irony. You are straight up running towards it with open arms.

789shadow

That's laughable. Hey, let me know what the winning lotto numbers are for Friday. :wink:

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="kussese"] Damn straight you will. If they're *that* horrible, *no one* will take the job and the company will collapse. Gogo capitalistic justice.coolbeans90

Yeah, without any regulation or organized power that's exactly what happens.

In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

This was common during the industrial revolution - a time of expansive wealth growth.

Awful conditions were present in the US as recently as the 20th century.

We've tried laissez faire capitalism in the past. It didn't work. Why people expect it to be the saving grace now is beyond me.

I don't think the family should be affected, but I agree with doing it just for the striker. I can understand the way republicans feel, unions have gotten too much power.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Irony. You are straight up running towards it with open arms.

airshocker

That's laughable. Hey, let me know what the winning lotto numbers are for Friday. :wink:

Oh, no, on the contrary, you give them to me. You seem to be incredibly sure that nothing bad will ever happen to you in the future.

Oh, no, on the contrary, you give them to me. You seem to be incredibly sure that nothing bad will ever happen to you in the future.

789shadow

I don't claim to know the future. I've taken better precautions than sitting back and thinking, "Oh boy, if the worst does happen, I'll have those food stamps to rely on!" You're the one acting as if my life is already mapped out to end in disaster.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Oh, no, on the contrary, you give them to me. You seem to be incredibly sure that nothing bad will ever happen to you in the future.

airshocker

I don't claim to know the future. I've taken better precautions than sitting back and thinking, "Oh boy, if the worst does happen, I'll have those food stamps to rely on!" You're the one acting as if my life is already mapped out to end in disaster.

No amount of precautions you take will make you completely safe.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Yeah, without any regulation or organized power that's exactly what happens.

789shadow

In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

But since America is capitalist, we should never have had sweatshops. Ever.

We did.

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

coolbeans90

But since America is capitalist, we should never have had sweatshops. Ever.

We did.

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

The difference between then and now: corporations are a lot more subtle now.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Yeah, without any regulation or organized power that's exactly what happens.

mattbbpl

In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

This was common during the industrial revolution - a time of expansive wealth growth.

Awful conditions were present in the US as recently as the 20th century.

We've tried laissez faire capitalism in the past. It didn't work. Why people expect it to be the saving grace now is beyond me.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Wealth growth =/= wealth. There is a vast amount of wealth growth in India right now; I don't want to live there. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was a developing nation. You are identifying causes related to poverty. Cliches don't prove a point.

No amount of precautions you take will make you completely safe.

789shadow

Right, that's where the gubmint comes in to save me! Give me a break and go fearmonger to someone who actually eats that s*** up.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

But since America is capitalist, we should never have had sweatshops. Ever.

We did.

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

But since America is capitalist, we should never have had sweatshops. Ever.

We did.

789shadow

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

The difference between then and now: corporations are a lot more subtle now.

The difference is that people will not work in certain conditions in a competitive market. In the interest of profit, profit-seeking entities are forced to make certain accommodations.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

coolbeans90

This was common during the industrial revolution - a time of expansive wealth growth.

Awful conditions were present in the US as recently as the 20th century.

We've tried laissez faire capitalism in the past. It didn't work. Why people expect it to be the saving grace now is beyond me.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Wealth growth =/= wealth. There is a vast amount of wealth growth in India right now; I don't want to live there. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was a developing nation. You are identifying causes related to poverty. Cliches don't prove a point.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

But since America is capitalist, we should never have had sweatshops. Ever.

We did.

mattbbpl

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

No. Care to make a causal argument?

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

No. Care to make a causal argument?

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Remember, if you oppose the Republicans, they'll cut your benefits. If you don't, they'll do it anyway. But they're the Party for the People.

GabuEx

This made me LMAO. Perhaps if people got off their lazy asses and earned their own way in the world, they wouldn't be receiving "benefits" to be cut off from.

The price of freedom is independence. When you allow yourself to be dependent on others, then others control you and you are not free.

Let them eat grass.

Ah, here we are, my prediction was bang on the money.

Ahhh. Like shootin fish in a barrel. Of course you were able to predict it. It is the antithesis of your position.

Its as predictable as liberals declaring the republicans to be the Evil Empire because they want to pass a law that says if you choose to not show up for your job until they meet your demands we aren't going to put you or your family on the dole.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Are there any modern laissez faire first-world countries?mattbbpl

No. Care to make a causal argument?

Ignoring history, eh? Would you care to describe in detail precisely how I have done so? Otherwise I'll just have to assume that it was baseless remark made in lieu of an actual argument.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

coolbeans90

The difference between then and now: corporations are a lot more subtle now.

The difference is that people will not work in certain conditions in a competitive market. In the interest of profit, profit-seeking entities are forced to make certain accommodations.

Yet people still do work in these "certain conditions". Also, I love how you had to say "certain accomadations", because this usually just involves stealth ****ing the workers to save a buck, because their friends the Republican party are going to make sure you can't strike to do something about that.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

The difference between then and now: corporations are a lot more subtle now.

789shadow

The difference is that people will not work in certain conditions in a competitive market. In the interest of profit, profit-seeking entities are forced to make certain accommodations.

Yet people still do work in these "certain conditions". Also, I love how you had to say "certain accomadations", because this usually just involves stealth ****ing the workers to save a buck, because their friends the Republican party are going to make sure you can't strike to do something about that.

Having been employed full-time in various low-skill blue-collar jobs, I would have to disagree. Stealth f***ing workers? Please, do elaborate.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The difference is that people will not work in certain conditions in a competitive market. In the interest of profit, profit-seeking entities are forced to make certain accommodations.

coolbeans90

Yet people still do work in these "certain conditions". Also, I love how you had to say "certain accomadations", because this usually just involves stealth ****ing the workers to save a buck, because their friends the Republican party are going to make sure you can't strike to do something about that.

Having been employed full-time in various low-skill blue-collar jobs, I would have to disagree. Stealth f***ing workers? Please, do elaborate.

I ignore your anecdotal evidence.

Although I do get annoyed with a lot of people on food stamps (many don't need them), I'm not a fan of this. Seems like whole point is to keep disgruntled workers quiet.GrindingAxe

That's my big issue with it. If they want to curb labour rights, they should just get out and say it. If you give people the right to strike, you can't punish them for exercising that right at the same time.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Yet people still do work in these "certain conditions". Also, I love how you had to say "certain accomadations", because this usually just involves stealth ****ing the workers to save a buck, because their friends the Republican party are going to make sure you can't strike to do something about that.

789shadow

Having been employed full-time in various low-skill blue-collar jobs, I would have to disagree. Stealth f***ing workers? Please, do elaborate.

I ignore your anecdotal evidence.

I ignore your assertions which are based upon, apparently, a complete lack of evidence and take notice that you still haven't in any respect even attempted to demonstrate these ever so elaborate, ninja-stealth-f***ing techniques utilized by employers. (employers don't screw employees for the sake of itself) Considering that I haven't been making claims, but merely posted said "evidence" as a counterpoint to your statements, the onus is yours, to substantiate your claims.

Ignoring history, eh? Would you care to describe in detail precisely how I have done so? Otherwise I'll just have to assume that it was baseless remark made in lieu of an actual argument.

coolbeans90

Hmmm, let's see what this quote system will let me do:

Edit: The quote system gave up the ghost.

I provided an example of such conditions in the past/present without the presence of regulations or collective bargaining

Me: Yeah, without any regulation or organized power that's exactly what happens.

You tossed that to the side as invalid due to your claim that such conditions only happen in poor countries:

You: In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

To which I responded with the fact that recent US history has had such examples as well:

Me: This was common during the industrial revolution - a time of expansive wealth growth. Awful conditions were present in the US as recently as the 20th century.

Which you tossed aside as invalid as well because the examples weren't recent enough:

You: Wealth growth =/= wealth. There is a vast amount of wealth growth in India right now; I don't want to live there. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was a developing nation. You are identifying causes related to poverty. Cliches don't prove a point.

Which you expanded on in your response to Shadow:

You: I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

I followed by asking if you had a recent example of laissez faire capitalism that met your time frame and provided support for your argument.

Me:Are there any modern laissez faire first-world countries?

To which you responded that there was not. Hence the comment regarding ignoring history in favor of fantasy.

We can't afford handouts for the lavish lifestyles these poor people are leading. Going on strike when they're living the good life? They're mocking us!

Anyone notices that the OT is Turing this into a US/Good guys/demo vs them/Bad guys/reps?alexside1

Anyone notices that the OT is Turing this into a US/Good guys/demo vs them/Bad guys/reps?alexside1

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Ignoring history, eh? Would you care to describe in detail precisely how I have done so? Otherwise I'll just have to assume that it was baseless remark made in lieu of an actual argument.

mattbbpl

Hmmm, let's see what this quote system will let me do:

Edit: The quote system gave up the ghost.

I provided an example of such conditions in the past/present without the presence of regulations or collective bargaining

Me: Yeah, without any regulation or organized power that's exactly what happens.

It happens in certain circumstances, yes. Not as a universal rule.

You tossed that to the side as invalid due to your claim that such conditions only happen in poor countries:

You: In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

Is there anything surprising about poorer countries having worse working conditions that wealthier ones?

To which I responded with the fact that recent US history has had such examples as well:

Me: This was common during the industrial revolution - a time of expansive wealth growth. Awful conditions were present in the US as recently as the 20th century.

The early 20th century U.S. is not economically comparable to a modern first world country.

Which you tossed aside as invalid as well because the examples weren't recent enough:

I'm inclined to think that the U.S. experienced a major amount of economic growth in that century.

You: Wealth growth =/= wealth. There is a vast amount of wealth growth in India right now; I don't want to live there. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was a developing nation. You are identifying causes related to poverty. Cliches don't prove a point.

Which you expanded on in your response to Shadow:

You: I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

I followed by asking if you had a recent example of laissez faire capitalism that met your time frame and provided support for your argument.

Me:Are there any modern laissez faire first-world countries?

To which you responded that there was not. Hence the comment regarding ignoring history in favor of fantasy.

Firstly, why did you go through the laborious process of posting a lengthy reply without posting a response to the question? Secondly, it's not a fantasy of mine, since I don't advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

No amount of precautions you take will make you completely safe.

airshocker

Right, that's where the gubmint comes in to save me! Give me a break and go fearmonger to someone who actually eats that s*** up.

You should give motivational speeches to the people in Japan who lost everything.

"Why are you still poor? What? You want the government to help you re-establish your lives?"

I mean, why should the government help people? Organize people to temporarily live in high school gyms and feed them? Why? Obviously, these people should be just left to fend for themselves.

Im so glad i dont live in America,

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Ignoring history, eh? Would you care to describe in detail precisely how I have done so? Otherwise I'll just have to assume that it was baseless remark made in lieu of an actual argument.

Hmmm, let's see what this quote system will let me do:

Edit: The quote system gave up the ghost.

I provided an example of such conditions in the past/present without the presence of regulations or collective bargaining

Me: Yeah, without any regulation or organized power that's exactly what happens.

It happens in certain circumstances, yes. Not as a universal rule.

You tossed that to the side as invalid due to your claim that such conditions only happen in poor countries:

You: In poorer countries, yes. Not first world countries with competitive labor markets.

Is there anything surprising about poorer countries having worse working conditions that wealthier ones?

To which I responded with the fact that recent US history has had such examples as well:

Me: This was common during the industrial revolution - a time of expansive wealth growth. Awful conditions were present in the US as recently as the 20th century.

The early 20th century U.S. is not economically comparable to a modern first world country.

Which you tossed aside as invalid as well because the examples weren't recent enough:

I'm inclined to think that the U.S. experienced a major amount of economic growth in that century.

You: Wealth growth =/= wealth. There is a vast amount of wealth growth in India right now; I don't want to live there. In the early 20th century, the U.S. was a developing nation. You are identifying causes related to poverty. Cliches don't prove a point.

Which you expanded on in your response to Shadow:

You: I don't think that you read my post. The U.S. would be considered impoverished by modern standards when those existed. What is currently known as the "first-world" was pretty damn poor back then.

I followed by asking if you had a recent example of laissez faire capitalism that met your time frame and provided support for your argument.

Me:Are there any modern laissez faire first-world countries?

To which you responded that there was not. Hence the comment regarding ignoring history in favor of fantasy.

Firstly, why did you go through the laborious process of posting a lengthy reply without posting a response to the question? Secondly, it's not a fantasy of mine, since I don't advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Anyone notices that the OT is Turing this into a US/Good guys/demo vs them/Bad guys/reps?Sandvichman

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="alexside1"]Anyone notices that the OT is Turing this into a US/Good guys/demo vs them/Bad guys/reps?collegeboy64

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="alexside1"]Anyone notices that the OT is Turing this into a US/Good guys/demo vs them/Bad guys/reps?collegeboy64

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Let me put it this way, if i dont shut up, you hurt my family, how can this be considered good by anyone?Sandvichman

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

Unless you have a very big house, I don't think you'll have a house in which one person can live in California and the other can live in Alaska and have both still be in the same household.

I used the term "fantasy" in the sense of "not real" or "having no material substance".

As for not answering the question, I blatantly showed you where you ignored multiple historical examples. That was the only question you posed to me.mattbbpl

Your historical examples didn't meet the previously established criteria on which I based my sole objection to your highly general statement. I deliberately clarified beforehand that wealthier (as referenced by "first-world") nations wouldn't have miserable working conditions under laissez-faire.

[QUOTE="GrindingAxe"]Although I do get annoyed with a lot of people on food stamps (many don't need them), I'm not a fan of this. Seems like whole point is to keep disgruntled workers quiet._BlueDuck_

That's my big issue with it. If they want to curb labour rights, they should just get out and say it. If you give people the right to strike, you can't punish them for exercising that right at the same time.

1. People don't give people rights. We are supposed to respect each other's natural rights.

2. Choosing to not provide direct monetary assistance is not punishment.

If you go on strike, or voluntarily quit your job, or are fired for cause you cannot draw unemployment. Unemployment is funded by an insurance fund with the premiums paid by the employer. Why should you be able to get assistance paid for by all the taxpayers.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

GabuEx

Unless you have a very big house, I don't think you'll have a house in which one person can live in California and the other can live in Alaska and have both still be in the same household.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Let me put it this way, if i dont shut up, you hurt my family, how can this be considered good by anyone?Sandvichman

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

As much as us Americans would say we'd fight for the death for our freedom and rights, we dont really care that much about them. As long as we're personally not in trouble then who cares about basically taking away the right to strike. I have a great job and would would never be in financial trouble so who cares about the people that are.

2. Choosing to not provide direct monetary assistance is not punishment.

collegeboy64

What is a punishment if not an action undertaken in response to another's action that negatively impacts that person?

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I used the term "fantasy" in the sense of "not real" or "having no material substance".

As for not answering the question, I blatantly showed you where you ignored multiple historical examples. That was the only question you posed to me.

Your historical examples didn't meet the previously established criteria on which I based my sole objection to your statement. I deliberately clarified beforehand that wealthier (as referenced by "first-world") nations wouldn't have miserable working conditions under laissez-faire.

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="GrindingAxe"]Although I do get annoyed with a lot of people on food stamps (many don't need them), I'm not a fan of this. Seems like whole point is to keep disgruntled workers quiet.collegeboy64

That's my big issue with it. If they want to curb labour rights, they should just get out and say it. If you give people the right to strike, you can't punish them for exercising that right at the same time.

1. People don't give people rights. We are supposed to respect each other's natural rights.

2. Choosing to not provide direct monetary assistance is not punishment.

If you go on strike, or voluntarily quit your job, or are fired for cause you cannot draw unemployment. Unemployment is funded by an insurance fund with the premiums paid by the employer. Why should you be able to get assistance paid for by all the taxpayers.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I used the term "fantasy" in the sense of "not real" or "having no material substance".

As for not answering the question, I blatantly showed you where you ignored multiple historical examples. That was the only question you posed to me.coolbeans90

Your historical examples didn't meet the previously established criteria on which I based my sole objection to your highly general statement. I deliberately clarified beforehand that wealthier (as referenced by "first-world") nations wouldn't have miserable working conditions under laissez-faire.

America is a "first-world" country. So was England when factory owners ****ed over it's citizens, including child workers. People will **** over other people when given the chance. Even rich white people. It's kind of why we have laws in the first place.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Let me put it this way, if i dont shut up, you hurt my family, how can this be considered good by anyone?Sandvichman

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

I don't believe I have a right to a job.

I believe people have a right to join or form a union and go on strike. That means the employer can't hire goons to break up your union or strike.

I don't believe the employer is obligated to recognize and/or negotiate with a union if that is their choice.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Let me put it this way.

If YOU make an employment decision that you have not prepared for financially, then YOU are the one hurting your family, not me or anyone else.

Jolt_counter119

As much as us Americans would say we'd fight for the death for our freedom and rights, we dont really care that much about them. As long as we're personally not in trouble then who cares about basically taking away the right to strike. I have a great job and would would never be in financial trouble so who cares about the people that are.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

2. Choosing to not provide direct monetary assistance is not punishment.

GabuEx

What is a punishment if not an action undertaken in response to another's action that negatively impacts that person?

Because it is an action NOT undertaken. We are NOT going to give you food stamps.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

2. Choosing to not provide direct monetary assistance is not punishment.

collegeboy64

What is a punishment if not an action undertaken in response to another's action that negatively impacts that person?

Because it is an action NOT undertaken. We are NOT going to give you food stamps.

Withholding something is also an action.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Hey, enjoy giving up your rights man. Sandvichman

As much as us Americans would say we'd fight for the death for our freedom and rights, we dont really care that much about them. As long as we're personally not in trouble then who cares about basically taking away the right to strike. I have a great job and would would never be in financial trouble so who cares about the people that are.

lol thats not my mindset, I was saying thats how a lot of people in America are.