Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Easysauce, I'm not sure you should be throwing around claims about who is brainwashed and who isn't.

Both sides do their fair share of brainswashing but that is why we allows discourse through the marketplace of ideas. It is this debate that allows us (society) to try and keep a balance before going to far to one extreme or the other.

Remember, crazy is taking your ideas to their logical conclusions.

 easysauce wrote:

there is far more brainwashing sucessfully being implemented on the "we are the 99%" crowd who seems to think that rich people are evil... cause they are rich...

No one said rich people are evil because they are rich. There are many rich people who are giving large portions of their wealth back, people like Buffet and Gates.

Rich people, however, are like all people, in that they operate with a self-interest. It's perfectly natural, and not "evil", for a rich person to say that he'd like a lower tax rate.

The problem is that our government is so heavily dependent on money, that when 1% of the people control 80% of the wealth, than that 1% of the people have 80% of the say in how the rules will be implemented. And, naturally, because of their self-interest, that leads to them getting more of the wealth.

How is it brainwashing to show actual data? How is it brainwashing to show charts that show the wealth distribution in the country. How is it brainwashing to show how that wealth distribution changed as the tax rates on the wealthy were reduced, as capital gains taxes were lessened, as minimum wage was allowed to fall behind inflation?

The single most successful method possible for changing ones situation is to change the rules of the game. The 99% don't have the means to do that, the 1% do, and as the last 20 years have shown, they're pretty good at it.

 Redbeard wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

there is far more brainwashing sucessfully being implemented on the "we are the 99%" crowd who seems to think that rich people are evil... cause they are rich...

No one said rich people are evil because they are rich. There are many rich people who are giving large portions of their wealth back, people like Buffet and Gates.

Don;t worry everyone knows rich people are not evil for being rich, but we also know that all poor people are lazy and stupid. Right Easysauce!

yup, more 99% double speak... if you really think that 99% of people have no power over 1%, simply due to monetary imbalance, you are insane...



not to mention, minimum wage in america makes you top 1% in the world still, so put some perspective on it. (

The world's average income - total world income divided by total number of people - is about $7,000. Still, only about 19 percent of the world's population lives in countries with per capita incomes at least this high.

)

or you should accept responsability for keeping all the 3rd world down, cause you are rigging the game against them right?

I know its literally unthinkable that sucessful people are sucessful, because they make good choices, but give it a try.

your theory that 20 years ago some fat cats got together and rigged the game is insane... so it was fair before that? and before that? if we made everything 100% fair tommorow, would it still be "fair" next week? next year? how long do you think it would take for the idiots to fall below the imposed equality line, and for the geniuses to surpass everyone?

should we continually set back the successful, and prop up the unsucessfull?

 easysauce wrote:
not to mention, minimum wage in america makes you top 1% in the world still, so put some perspective on it.

You and the Inquisitor should write a book.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well. You seem to, as you're the one tossing around "right wing" whenever it suits your fancy.

I'm tossing it around when I see it's most vapid concepts get dragged in to this forum.

1. A competitive free market will dictate what your work is worth.

Actually, a free market doesn't do that automatically. A free market simply means an absence of a controlling authority. The market could by a monopoly or oligopsoly or whatever, and have all the associated pricing distortions, and still be a free market.

The term you're looking for, the one that'll effectively price labour, is a perfect market and, well, go read about perfect markets and what's needed to for a perfect market to exist. Think particularly about transfer costs and information asymmetry.

2. Declaring a federal minimum is outside the scope of power for the federal government; if anything, that authority should fall to the individual state and perhaps even local municipalities.

The existing policies in your country seem to contradict that, what with there being a federal minimum wage and all.

Why? Because a blanket minimum wage for the entire nation doesn't consider cost of living at all.

No, it doesn't. But it prevents a race to the bottom between states, and that's a much bigger deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
So funny to hear people say its ok for workers to want more $, but not ok for walmart to want more $...

why on earth would investors invest a lot of money, and operate at a loss for a while till the investment is recouped (if it is, its not guaranteed) for less then they feel it is worth?

some people just dont seem to get that someone, be it a board of investors, shareholders, or whatever, who invests a large amount of money in a business, is taking a risk with a large amount of money, and creating jobs... they SHOULD be rewarded, and if they dont like the reward, they dont have to take the risk.

Your mistake there is in assuming that a raise in the minimum wage would mean the company couldn't continue to make a ROI that'd satisfy the market. I have no idea how you've reached that conclusion, and I'm pretty certain if you ever looked at the financial return of Walmart you'd change your mind quite quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
if you really think that 99% of people have no power over 1%, simply due to monetary imbalance, you are insane...

If they had the power, then they'd have the money. Seriously, that's what people do when they get the power. This shouldn't be something I have to explain to you.

 sebster wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
if you really think that 99% of people have no power over 1%, simply due to monetary imbalance, you are insane...

If they had the power, then they'd have the money. Seriously, that's what people do when they get the power. This shouldn't be something I have to explain to you.

I believe Doctor Tony Montana said it best,

Tony Montana wrote:In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.

lol... wow... economic theory from movies... really...

so
when walmart says its ROI from paying workers 15$/hrs isnt enough, thats wrong right?

when walmart workers say their ROI for trading 1 hour for 8$ isnt enough, thats right, right?

 easysauce wrote:
lol... wow... economic theory from movies... really...

No, not really, calm your tits dude. what Sebster said reminded me of the quote, but it's not hard to see that there are people in power that want to keep their power because it's power and gives them the ability to be better than other people, something we've struggled with for the ~7,000 years of society we've had while on this dirtball.

and 7000 years ago we all started equal then?

so reset the button ever 1000 years? 100? 10?

so how did they get to the top in the first place? blind luck I assume?

my point still stands,

when walmart says its ROI from paying workers 15$/hrs isnt enough, thats wrong right? cause 1% hurrrrr

when walmart workers say their ROI for trading 1 hour for 8$ isnt enough, thats right, right? cause 99% durrrr

both are perfectly allowed to say what they will, or will not, consider a proper ROI for their investment, weather its hours for the workers, or millions of $ for the investors/shareholders/ect

 easysauce wrote:
and 7000 years ago we all started equal then?

Of course not. The biggest/strongest ruled the day. Of course, back then, we didn't have electricity or any modern inventions. Things change. We "evolve"

so reset the button ever 1000 years? 100? 10?

so how did they get to the top in the first place? blind luck I assume?

my point still stands,

What if we work toward a system where a reset button is unneeded? It's not necessary that everyone be making the same amount of money, just simply that the people who have the most money can't use that money to generate for themselves an exponential feedback loop of wealth to the detriment of everyone else?

when walmart says its ROI from paying workers 15$/hrs isnt enough, thats wrong right? cause 1% hurrrrr

when walmart workers say their ROI for trading 1 hour for 8$ isnt enough, thats right, right? cause 99% durrrr

You're playing yourself out to be petulant.

Wait, how do the biggest and strongest not rule now?

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait, how do the biggest and strongest not rule now?

Well, is Hulk Hogan the President of the World? The answer to my question is the answer to your question.

 easysauce wrote:
yup, more 99% double speak... if you really think that 99% of people have no power over 1%, simply due to monetary imbalance, you are insane...


...

The 99% have power by strikes and other things.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
yup, more 99% double speak... if you really think that 99% of people have no power over 1%, simply due to monetary imbalance, you are insane...


...

The 99% have power by strikes and other things.

It's really disappointing that Walmart chooses to fire workers that engage in protest. If they're going to give them more work they can handle at wages they can't afford they can at least give them the ability to speak up about it.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
It's really disappointing that Walmart chooses to fire workers that engage in protest. If they're going to give them more work they can handle at wages they can't afford they can at least give them the ability to speak up about it.

Well, I imagine Walmart has a different perspective on those latter bits

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
yup, more 99% double speak... if you really think that 99% of people have no power over 1%, simply due to monetary imbalance, you are insane...


...

The 99% have power by strikes and other things.

It's really disappointing that Walmart chooses to fire workers that engage in protest. If they're going to give them more work they can handle at wages they can't afford they can at least give them the ability to speak up about it.

Weren't the only ones dismissed the one too irresponsible to let someone know they were going to be missing work to strike? AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. It is not, however, illegal to fire someone for poor attendance.

Sacking them on a legal pretext is sacking them nonetheless.

 cincydooley wrote:
AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. .

..... I totally did not know that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Sacking them on a legal pretext is sacking them nonetheless.

Exactly. They'll always manage to find a way.

 cincydooley wrote:
Weren't the only ones dismissed the one too irresponsible to let someone know they were going to be missing work to strike? AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. It is not, however, illegal to fire someone for poor attendance.

Are you legally required to give notice that you will be striking?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Weren't the only ones dismissed the one too irresponsible to let someone know they were going to be missing work to strike? AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. It is not, however, illegal to fire someone for poor attendance.

Are you legally required to give notice that you will be striking?

Over here, yes you are, no idea about the US. You have a right to strike and no employer can take any action against you for exercising that right, but you have to give a strike notice to let your employer know when you are on strike. Otherwise you would just be skipping work...

PhantomViper wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Weren't the only ones dismissed the one too irresponsible to let someone know they were going to be missing work to strike? AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. It is not, however, illegal to fire someone for poor attendance.

Are you legally required to give notice that you will be striking?

Over here, yes you are, no idea about the US. You have a right to strike and no employer can take any action against you for exercising that right, but you have to give a strike notice to let your employer know when you are on strike. Otherwise you would just be skipping work...

My wife's union have told her and her colleagues that they do not need to give notice that they are striking and that the place she should not ask her if she is striking.

If you are not part of a union, you can't strike. They are absent.

If you are not part of a union, you can be fired for not coming to work in most US states. These Walmart people can call it a strike, it isn't a strike and if they are employed in an "at will" state they can be fired. There is no legal protection for "blue flu" only real strikes which are part of the organized labor agreement (if one exists).

Walmart has no union, it is perfectly legal to fire every one of them in the "at will" states.

nkelsch wrote:
If you are not part of a union, you can't strike. They are absent.

If you are not part of a union, you can be fired for not coming to work in most US states. These Walmart people can call it a strike, it isn't a strike and if they are employed in an "at will" state they can be fired. There is no legal protection for "blue flu" only real strikes which are part of the organized labor agreement (if one exists).

Walmart has no union, it is perfectly legal to fire every one of them in the "at will" states.

I thought that was true but now I'm not sure - it seems there is an implicit right to strike and once one is in play the employees can be replaced, but not fired. I had previously thought at will was pretty much the bottom line.

But that says if the employees are replaced, they are discharged. That means fired to me.

And a strike has to be part of collective bargaining, not blue flu. Nothing I have seen shows the Walmart "strike" to be part of a legal strike. (Like everything someone can contest in court, but the law has minimal teeth for non-unionized protection, especially for unorganized blue flu strikes ion at will states)

And regardless, at will you can terminate anyone for any reason. It may seem like retaliation, but because there is no reason needed, it doesn't matter. You are employed until you are not. I don't see how they have the expectation of protection from "at will" as no reason is needed, so how can you claim someone who "strikes" is now immune from at will employment? For how long? How do you prove it?

Strikes are for unionized labor. Outside that you risk your employment in "at will" states. You can't not show up to work and call it a strike and have protection.

It looks like even actual labor lawyers don't agree on this.

 Ouze wrote:
It looks like even actual labor lawyers don't agree on this.

Yep. Have fun proving it in court that this activity met the legal thresholds of a coordinated activity, then prove the terminations were a result of the strike. A non-legal strike is just absences. They can claim they have met the requirements of an organized coordinated activity but that is a huge grey area with no teeth for non-unionized workers.

Almost all the people fired had previous records which means it will be easy to show justified firings in at will states.

It is a weak law which has no teeth and requires people with no money to prove the unprovable in expensive court to political leaning judges.

Good luck with that. Which is why you don't strike when not in organized unions. You hate your job, go get another one and just quit.

 easysauce wrote:
lol... wow... economic theory from movies... really...

The point was obvious enough to have ended up a famous movie quote.

But you only posted that response to avoid coming up with any kind of real response. Because there is no defence for your claim that the 99% have the power, because if that were true they would taken the money.

so
when walmart says its ROI from paying workers 15$/hrs isnt enough, thats wrong right?

when walmart workers say their ROI for trading 1 hour for 8$ isnt enough, thats right, right?

If we could do nothing but stare at press releases then you'd have a point. But given we know about wages around the world and what retail companies can sustain, and we know a rate much higher than $8 can be paid while making a strong rate of return, you have no point.

And think about this - 10 or 15 years ago walmart was among the most profitable us companies, and then underwent reforms to develop RFID and JIT inventory management, resulting in massive overhead savings. More revenue per staff, or higher profit per unit sold are both ways of measuring productivity. And yet despite that productivity increase, walmart never looked at wages above the legal minimum. And now they're claiming they can't pay a higher wage and maintain sufficient profits. And you believe them...

Well, I was sorta right . I wonder how many employees with exemplary records that went on strike were "discharged".