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.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

empty rhetoric, I am sure your Facebook account did none of this, nor did twitter, starbucks, etc...

A lot of these internet companies are all about selling your personal data. They are effectively stealing your privacy. They know where you live, who your friends are, what porn you surf for, what hobbies you have, what car you drive, where you vacation, and on and on.

Have you seen those Ancestry.com ads on TV? What a scam. They'll give you a general overview of your DNA's markers, and charge you for the privilege - and then they have your DNA effectively forever in their database to sell as they please.

As for Starbucks, who are they stealing from? For starters, their employees. With wages between $7.63 to $10.63, baristas aren't making a living wage. At top rate, they're barely above what's considered the poverty level for the USA. ($10.60). For a company with 2.88 billion in net income (i.e. after taxes and expenses), they can afford to pay better. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sbux/financials

Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.

You got proof of that? Because they pay the minimum wage which is meant to be a "living wage" for the people there. They are careers and that is what they are intended to be. That is why you have to click the "careers" button to put in an application.

would you consider research like what the chicago tribune has done as "proof"
?

 thekingofkings wrote:
would you consider research like what the chicago tribune has done as "proof"
?

Since establishments like Sheetz actually pitch their job offers as 'Careers' I'm gonna have to say that they claim they are, regardless of the reality.

thekingofkings 747122 9759073 wrote:Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.

Exactly. These are not real jobs, they're training opportunities for kids to learn basic skills and get a little money for their fun expenses. That's why businesses like McDonalds are closed during the hours that high school students are normally in class or sleeping.

Oh wait...

Ye, you can’t say any job is “intended” for any group unless it is very clear. There are plenty of adults working in McDonalds and Starbucks. To claim any job is “meant” to be low wage and aimed at a section of society that can get away with low wages is demeaning to those who do these jobs, and these jobs trap people. When you all the work you can get is in a low paid service job and you have to work long hours it leaves no time to do anything else, like education and training. Even if you start with an education and have to take a low paid job (for example to fit round school or childcare needs, or because you were employed by a major employer that has closed, as an example see Detroit) after a year it can be hard to convince employers that you can return to an old job. It took me 7 years to work back to a graduate level position after having to take a low paid job in a shop for a year.

And you can't just say it's the low skill and low knowledge jobs that are minimum wage. I prepare taxes for people. Every year, the pay structure has gotten worse and worse and it's not to the point that I make minimum wage doing that. And I'm not even close to the only one.

(It's actually less than minimum wage as we have to do 18 hours of unpaid training to work there, which we have to pay for...)

 skyth wrote:
And you can't just say it's the low skill and low knowledge jobs that are minimum wage. I prepare taxes for people.

Minimum wage is standard for us (various higher education levels, from STEM to social sciences). In practice, your wage and hours will correlate with how indispensable the leading person sees you rather than the merit of your work. It's sort of paradoxical, at one hand it's rather common to hear the HR crying that they need people in various departments but they're simply not willing/allowed to hire or train anyone. It has become somewhat a standard practice to employ people on a limited contract and simply cycle through the list of candidates until they find someone who's capable and desperate enough to go through whatever the company needs and is willing to pay him/her for it. I'd like to point out that it's rather frequent that the company/leadership doesn't know what it needs and even less of an idea of how it should be achieved.

I find it ironic that a man posting with a name Thekingofkings would make the true King of Kings balk at the sheer abusive nature of his writing.

I am a janitor. I make bairly above minimum wage and I scrape by every pay. It's nice to know I'm doing a job that doesn't deserve any respect.

People like you are the worst sort. The first to scream if your fastfood order is wrong, last to say thank you when extra care is taken in cleaning your office.

A lesson my dad taught that you desperately need. "I do not look into my neighbors bowl to see if he has more than me, I look to see if he has enough."

 thekingofkings wrote:

They are not stealing your privacy and you agree by using their products that they can sell your information.

Actually, they don't tell you they sell your information. They mention in their data policy https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/ that they 'share' or 'transfer' data with third parties. but the worlds 'sell for money' don't show up. Mostly (that we know of) Facebook uses that info to sell targeted ads, but that database is too valuable to not sell for other purposes.

Ancestry .com using publicly available information that anyone can get, they are charging you for their effort in providing it.

Ancestry.com is providing a service, yes (checking your DNA costs money), but the upshot is that now Ancestry.com HAS YOUR DNA. And yes, you can pry it out of their hands if you need to (no idea how difficult that is, but they mention up to a 6 month persistence of data), assuming they actually delete the data - how can you prove that without successfully taking them to court? All they have to do is anonymize the data and it'll be basically impossible to prove anything.

Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.

It's that kind of sentiment that makes the exploitation so easy. Their labor isn't valuable? Last I checked, these companies make billions in profits. Paying a living wage isn't going to make Starbucks UNprofitable, just less insanely profitable.

Don't forget wage theft for how a lot of employers take from the low income earners, illegally too. Wikipedia has this pegged at over 19B in the US, and a detailed study shows that 2.4M workers in 10 states have had 8B stolen.

 Formosa wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.

European countries are not socialist, they are still driven by capitalism they just have more government intervention. But it is true there have never been "true" socialist or "true" capitalist societies. The USSR devolved very quickly into an oligarchy, same with China, led by their respective communist parties (Stalin and Mao were not the ones farming were they?). On the other side, the US is not completely free market since there are regulations on businesses (notably monopolies) but even then we are still plagued by elites and corporations running the show. Basically corruption will always ruin a good system and Socialism is just easier to abuse since everything is centralized. (Monopolies are already bad, giving the state a monopoly in everything is even worse)

Lastly, you say that the only difference is that in China the state abuses you whereas in India it's the rich. But in China, the state is run by the rich so now you have the rich using the state to abuse you.

Hmm, I live in the UK, the UK is pretty Socialist, let me check my map..... yep UK is in Europe, so got to say, yep, this European country is Socialist for the most part, would be pretty hard to hide our free healthcare and benefits system

From Investopedia:

"The standard spectrum of economic systems places laissez-faire capitalism at one extreme and a complete planned economy (like socialism or communism) at the other. Everything in the middle could be said to be a mixed economy. The mixed economy has elements of both central planning and unplanned private business. By this definition, nearly every country in the world has a mixed economy, but contemporary mixed economies range in their levels of government intervention. The U.S. and the U.K.. have a relatively pure type of capitalism with a minimum of federal regulation in financial and labor markets, sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon capitalism, while Canada and the Nordic countries have created a balance between socialism and capitalism. Many European nations practice welfare capitalism, a system that is concerned with the social welfare of the worker, and includes such policies as state pensions, universal healthcare, collective bargaining, and industrial safety codes."

Read more: Capitalism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp#ixzz52TungDKX

Universal healthcare by itself does not make a nation socialist any more than public education does. The economies of European countries still rely on capitalism to grow.

"In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines output and pricing levels of these goods and services."

Read more: Socialism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#ixzz52TyToFnE

Long story short, the vast majority of countries operate under a mixed economy; excluding Cuba, Venezuela and a few others. Which is why it's important to really define exactly what policies you want.

There is not much difference between being poor in China or India.

It is not all true to say they are the same. As it happens, in India something like 40% of the country's population has to poop outside on the ground. In China only about 2% don't have sewerage.

In China this is possible because China is a socialist country that can make social decisions. They have decided that in twenty years, they won't have gasoline powered cars. They have decided that they are going to reduce average individual meat consumption. They can do these things because the people own the controlling shares in the largest companies. The party has cadres on the board. They can decide that something is good for the people and make it happen. In most of India there is no such thing except! bizarrely, in West Bengal/Kolkata and Kerala, which are at least notionally coontrolled by elected communists.

Long story short, the vast majority of countries operate under a mixed economy; excluding Cuba, Venezuela and a few others.

Venezuela is the epitome of mixed economy. Seventy percent of companies are private, most people are employed by private companies, most economic output is private. Chavez was elected in a multi-party liberal democracy, and he did not expropriate most companies from their owners like Cuba did, and he definitely didn't jail them or kill all the landlords like revolutionary China. They elected a socialist party, but we have elected both republicans and democrats and in that time they have managed to ban neither guns nor abortion. PSUV, the Venezuelan socialists, have been just as unsuccessful in banning rich people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh here is a comprehensive, informal review of how a full on Marxist party can be in long term power in an successful region of India, without it being a communist state.

Dandelion wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.

European countries are not socialist, they are still driven by capitalism they just have more government intervention. But it is true there have never been "true" socialist or "true" capitalist societies. The USSR devolved very quickly into an oligarchy, same with China, led by their respective communist parties (Stalin and Mao were not the ones farming were they?). On the other side, the US is not completely free market since there are regulations on businesses (notably monopolies) but even then we are still plagued by elites and corporations running the show. Basically corruption will always ruin a good system and Socialism is just easier to abuse since everything is centralized. (Monopolies are already bad, giving the state a monopoly in everything is even worse)

Lastly, you say that the only difference is that in China the state abuses you whereas in India it's the rich. But in China, the state is run by the rich so now you have the rich using the state to abuse you.

Hmm, I live in the UK, the UK is pretty Socialist, let me check my map..... yep UK is in Europe, so got to say, yep, this European country is Socialist for the most part, would be pretty hard to hide our free healthcare and benefits system

From Investopedia:

"The standard spectrum of economic systems places laissez-faire capitalism at one extreme and a complete planned economy (like socialism or communism) at the other. Everything in the middle could be said to be a mixed economy. The mixed economy has elements of both central planning and unplanned private business. By this definition, nearly every country in the world has a mixed economy, but contemporary mixed economies range in their levels of government intervention. The U.S. and the U.K.. have a relatively pure type of capitalism with a minimum of federal regulation in financial and labor markets, sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon capitalism, while Canada and the Nordic countries have created a balance between socialism and capitalism. Many European nations practice welfare capitalism, a system that is concerned with the social welfare of the worker, and includes such policies as state pensions, universal healthcare, collective bargaining, and industrial safety codes."

Read more: Capitalism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp#ixzz52TungDKX

Universal healthcare by itself does not make a nation socialist any more than public education does. The economies of European countries still rely on capitalism to grow.

"In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines output and pricing levels of these goods and services."

Read more: Socialism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#ixzz52TyToFnE

Long story short, the vast majority of countries operate under a mixed economy; excluding Cuba, Venezuela and a few others. Which is why it's important to really define exactly what policies you want.

So most countries have a mix of socialist and capitalist policies then? Which is exactly what I was saying. You can’t say socialism has failed and capitalism has won. Most countries have a mix of socialist and capitalist politics that keep them growing but also working for the good of their people.

Hmm... it seemed to me that you were calling European countries socialist which is why I felt the need to clarify. I just see people throwing the word "socialism" around a lot without realizing its nuances in particular the part where the state owns all the industries. It's therefore important to specify exact policies instead of saying "socialism works!" or "socialism is garbage". Each case is unique.

I tend to lean on the side of less intervention because I'm extremely unimpressed by the government's fiscal responsibility, and I dread the thought of corruption in such a powerful entity.
BUT, I really like public services (schools, police, courts, ...) and regulations of the market to reduce abuse and monopolies as well as encourage safety. So, allowances must be made.

Dandelion wrote:
I tend to lean on the side of less intervention because I'm extremely unimpressed by the government's fiscal responsibility, and I dread the thought of corruption in such a powerful entity.
BUT, I really like public services (schools, police, courts, ...) and regulations of the market to reduce abuse and monopolies as well as encourage safety. So, allowances must be made.

The old chestnut is that government is supposed to do what the people cannot do for themselves (individually or in small collectives). Regulating large businesses is one of those things that individuals simply cannot do.

Most governments are terribly corrupt. Up here in Canada, we've got plenty of problems with government crony-ism (most government contracts go to people with friends in power), but mostly it's a matter of getting something done for more than it should cost, and it still gets done (I could list examples of where this has failed, there are plenty). Sometimes it's just bureaucratic inefficiency, sometimes it's a change of government priorities, sometimes it's plain old corruption. Governments are inefficient, and get more inefficient the bigger they get...but we still need them to do stuff we can't do on our own.

OTOH, I look at the US government right now, and you yanks are -screwed-. Trickle down economics didn't work for Reagan, and if the 2018 elections don't go well you might have full on class warfare if the American populace finally decides to get of its butt.

There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.

 John Prins wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I tend to lean on the side of less intervention because I'm extremely unimpressed by the government's fiscal responsibility, and I dread the thought of corruption in such a powerful entity.
BUT, I really like public services (schools, police, courts, ...) and regulations of the market to reduce abuse and monopolies as well as encourage safety. So, allowances must be made.

The old chestnut is that government is supposed to do what the people cannot do for themselves (individually or in small collectives). Regulating large businesses is one of those things that individuals simply cannot do.

Most governments are terribly corrupt. Up here in Canada, we've got plenty of problems with government crony-ism (most government contracts go to people with friends in power), but mostly it's a matter of getting something done for more than it should cost, and it still gets done (I could list examples of where this has failed, there are plenty). Sometimes it's just bureaucratic inefficiency, sometimes it's a change of government priorities, sometimes it's plain old corruption. Governments are inefficient, and get more inefficient the bigger they get...but we still need them to do stuff we can't do on our own.

OTOH, I look at the US government right now, and you yanks are -screwed-. Trickle down economics didn't work for Reagan, and if the 2018 elections don't go well you might have full on class warfare if the American populace finally decides to get of its butt.

There has been a class war going on for decades. unfortunately, only the top realized it. What do you think reviving Reagan's failed policies, creating an entire media wing to sell "conservative news", and pushing a scam artist billionaire who suddenly finds "Christian values" is all about? Even that "socialist" Obama made sure the top were doing great while the middle and lower classes continued to be man the wars. The United States economic boom has not diminished the wealth gap. The top has been strangling the golden goose for decades while trying to keep the focus on those lazy poors and dangerous immigrants/Muslims/others of generally darker skin tone.

 Crazyterran wrote:
There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.

So, soon then? What with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws and all, the big telecoms are slavering to jack up the price of everything internet related.

 Crazyterran wrote:
There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.

Since food prices are rising, and both TV and the Internet are taking hits, It's not that far off.

 John Prins wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.

So, soon then? What with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws and all, the big telecoms are slavering to jack up the price of everything internet related.

You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.

 totalfailure wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.

So, soon then? What with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws and all, the big telecoms are slavering to jack up the price of everything internet related.

You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.

Show us on the doll where the evil Government touched you?

Relatively speaking it is getting a bit worse. In a good deal of the Western world the 'baby boomer' generation has lived on checks that will have to be cashed by their children. Its an unpopular opinion amongst the obvious parts of society, but all the hard work you do gets you (far) less in life than it did your parents. Yeah sometimes that sucks, but our lives will still be generally enjoyable if a bit more modest, but who knows what technology will bring us in the future.

 totalfailure wrote:
You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.

This comes across as more of a "back in my day we could just say [this or that slur] without repercussions, kids these days!" then anything else..

 totalfailure wrote:

You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.

How's that baker vs gay couple supreme court case going in the USA? Since you've brought up Thought Police...

Or we could not get into US Pols in response to what I hope is a joke post, or at least certainly reads like one and I think gave us all a good laugh

 John Prins wrote:

How's that baker vs gay couple supreme court case going in the USA? Since you've brought up Thought Police...

Well, ruling in Oregon is in. Seems that all people are to be equal under the law, and discrimination is just not going to be tolerated.

Nah, actually, I think we're done here.