Minimum Wage

[madanthonywayne]

A democratic attempt to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour was recently defeated. Do these idiots actually think they would be helping ANYBODY by raising minimum wage? Simple economics shows that if something, say labor, costs more; you buy less of it. So a mandatory increase in minimum wage would simply result in fewer jobs.

Furthermore, the last time minimum wage was raised I was working my way through college and one of my jobs was at seven eleven. I had been there a while and had gotten a few raises based on performance. Then the idiot congress goes and raises minimum wage and suddenly the bonehead I'm training is making the same pay I am! This pissed me off.
The owner said she couldn't afford to give me a raise, what with having to pay the new hires so much.

Minimum wage is a training wage, only about three percent of the population earns it. If you keep a job for any length of time, you will soon be making more than minimum wage. Isn't an unskilled worker, like a high school or college kid, better off with a job at the current minimum wage, than unemployed at the new one?

[dixonmassey]

A democratic attempt to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour was recently defeated. Do these idiots actually think they would be helping ANYBODY by raising minimum wage?

There is no minimum wage on Florida tomato fields. Labor and employers "negotiate" their own terms without meddling of pesky government. It's pure free market, unlike to the sheltered (of the holy free market) existence you have. The fact that mutually "agreed" wage is something like $10-20/day is not important. Its holiness "free market" is all that counts. It's too bad that your free market deity likes hungry and desperate labor force; it's too bad that given free hands the rightwing deity drives wages to the bare minimum (sufficient for physical survival) in a heartbeat. It's too bad that we live in a oppressive hierarchical society ruled but the wealthy (for time being) and their chain dogs. It's too bad that the majority is chronically incapable of organizing to stop exploitation by parazites.

To suggest that untamed plutocracy, backed by all the power of the state, and isolated labor units can negotiate fair wages is so insane that only the most "bright" (and sheltered of free market, I might add) rightwinger can buy into it.

Simple economics shows that if something, say labor, costs more; you buy less of it. So a mandatory increase in minimum wage would simply result in fewer jobs.

It's simple rightwing bullsh*t for braindead. Capitalist economy is a gigantic pump sucking up the labor and sweat of many in the pockets of the few. It's true that without "turning down" the valve, increase of minimum wage will be largely eaten by inflation. Thus, increase of minimum wage should be accompanied with slowing down the wealth deluge going to the top. In other words: increase of minimum wage without true mini redistribution of the wealth pie is just cheap gesture of the spineless libs. Printing more green paper to increase minimum wages WILL NOT CUT IT.

[dixonmassey]

Have you heard about "black plague" in mediaval Europe? 30% of the labor force died out then, which forced nobility to shed some serious dough to the bottom (forced voluntary redistribution of the wealth) to get necessary labor force. That was time of incredible rise in living standards of plebeians.

OK, now let's assume that black plague has never happened and that Jesus appeared in nobilty's dreams 600 years ago and said: "biatches, are you ever going to take my Sermon on the Mount seriously?" Fear stricken nobility out of kindness of its heart threw twice as much "dough" to the bottom... The effect would've been just the same.

Humanity must destroy hierarchy of the wealth (or any other hierarchy) if it wants to advance anywhere. Giving up labor to make rich richer and richer and expecting crumbles in return (no matter their size) ain't smart or just.

Furthermore, the last time minimum wage was raised I was working my way through college and one of my jobs was at seven eleven. I had been there a while and had gotten a few raises based on performance. Then the idiot congress goes and raises minimum wage and suddenly the bonehead I'm training is making the same pay I am! This pissed me off.
The owner said she couldn't afford to give me a raise, what with having to pay the new hires so much.

I leave your obvious thirst for higher perch in a hierarchy of life without comments. However, would you care to think slightly why an increase in minimum wage back then did not lead to the higher sales in junk food sold at 7/11, so that owner could pay you few cents more, so that you could feel more superior to the bonehead you were training, so that your life would be more full of meaning and accomplishment?

Minimum wage is a training wage, only about three percent of the population earns it.

And another 20% gets minimum wage + few dimes :), which is about the same. Remember about them too. Training for what? What is the employment structure in the USA? How many spots for "trained" and how many for "untrained"? What about those who simply cannot be trained for better paying jobs? Let's assume that the obvious nonsense "if everybody works hard he can advance in a hierarchical capitalist society to infinity and beyond" is true. Besides, in a free market, training doesn't have a squat to do with salaries of laborers. Supply and demand does. Ponder about those things in the short breaks between Rush and Hannity shows then rewrite the above sentence to reflect the reality of life not the propaganda staples sitting in your head.

If you keep a job for any length of time, you will soon be making more than minimum wage. Isn't an unskilled worker, like a high school or college kid, better off with a job at the current minimum wage, than unemployed at the new one?

Yeah, $6.50/hr will make a huge difference in one's life :) What skill should have to do with anything? Person A is doing job X. Job X is in demand by society. That means job X should pay bare minimum necessary for decent existence. Whether job X is janitorial or teaching, for example, is absolutely IRRELEVANT. Whether job X could be done by a high school student or a Mexican or a prisoner for much less is IRRELEVANT.

Some people can't get more lucrative skills because they are lacking mental abilities. Some people are DOOMED to be losers in life's rat race because we are living in a piramidal hierarchical society with broad base, narrowing middle and extremely narrow top. Somebody must be at the bottom NO MATTER how everybody tries. That the world we live in. That's why universal living wage is a matter of justice and mere decency. If it will be universal, if it will be enforced, there is no reason whatsoever why employment should drop.

If it will not be universal that certainly will keep business owners on the move in the search of the most desperate and cheap. Profit is a king, after all.

[Fraggle Rocker]

We pay ten bucks an hour to do unskilled labor like mowing the lawn and simply helping with chores with direct full-time supervision. We don't work people very hard, lots of chat breaks and soda and cookies, even free lunch. Yet we can't get any Americans to do it. We've only been able to start getting help around the place since the immigrant community has spread far enough north that it's reached our town. Mexicans think we're saints to pay them that much.

American children all think they're going to grow up to be investment bankers, so they don't need to bother working their way up from the bottom. Even though there isn't a single one of them who can make change for a dollar without a calculator. Their parents support this notion by buying them cell phones, cars, and $300 sneakers, sending them to the prom in limousines, and letting them live with them for free. They all think they're little princes and princesses.

That is the problem with labor in this country.

[madanthonywayne]

Humanity must destroy hierarchy of the wealth (or any other hierarchy) if it wants to advance anywhere. Giving up labor to make rich richer and richer and expecting crumbles in return (no matter their size) ain't smart or just..
Humans are naturally hierarchical. Even under communism, the system you seem to thirst for, where people can't compete economically. They competed for political power with bloody purges and massive sufferring. Better to let them compete economically, it's a lot less bloody.


However, would you care to think slightly why an increase in minimum wage back then did not lead to the higher sales in junk food sold at 7/11.
The seven 11 was on the bad side of town. Most of the customers were on food stamps, disability, or were criminals. Wage levels had no effect on them.


Training for what? What is the employment structure in the USA? How many spots for "trained" and how many for "untrained"?
Every job requires training. All spots are preferably held by trained employees. You may start at minimum wage, but before long you should either get a raise or get fired.

Let's assume that the obvious nonsense "if everybody works hard he can advance in a hierarchical capitalist society to infinity and beyond" is true.
Obvious nonsense? Sounds like a lazy man talking. I've held a lot of jobs over the years, in every one of them hard work allowed one to move ahead.

Besides, in a free market, training doesn't have a squat to do with salaries of laborers. Supply and demand does.
The greater the level of skill, the lower the number of people likely to possess it Therefore, one should be able to command a higher salary.


What skill should have to do with anything? Person A is doing job X. Job X is in demand by society. That means job X should pay bare minimum necessary for decent existence.
Job X should pay what it's worth, no more. If you mandate a minimum salary, then job X may not get filled.

Some people can't get more lucrative skills because they are lacking mental abilities. .
And by creating an artificial minimum salary, you may be dooming these low ability individuals to unemployment.

[Sci-Phenomena]

But Job X should pay no less than what it is worth....

[dixonmassey]

Humans are naturally hierarchical.

Naturally??? What does it mean naturally? Is hierarchy insribed into human brains by Allah, Jesus, Zews? Is it genetical? Or, hierarchy is product of human cultures and being transmitted from generation to generation like religions and lots of other things. If we are indeed hierarchical animals what are the parameters humans build hierarchy upon? It was not always wealth. BTW, North American Indians were pretty much non hierarchical that's one of the main reasons why they were exterminated by hierarchical Christian brethren.

Even under communism, the system you seem to thirst for, where people can't compete economically.

I still didn't figure out what communism is to thirst for it. What does it mean compete economically? How workers can compete economically? I don't get it. They can sell themselves at lower prices. However, in the most of the cases, they just take what is offered (or starve under bridge). Isolated workers have no power to compete economically. Sure, once hired they can engage into superior's as$ kissing, backstabbing, office politics, etc. to climb on the higher perch. You can call it economic competition.

If you think USSR was as communist as you can get, I can tell you that official incomes of workers, managers, scientists, etc. could differ LEGALLY as much as 1:10. Lot's of space for a rat race. That's certainly not 1:400 American CEOs enjoy, but it's mighty significant for a commie state. In the undeground economy, one could become soviet millionaire provided the right staff. The only significant difference between USSR and USA was that in USSR money could not buy mega power and power could not buy mega wealth.

They competed for political power with bloody purges and massive sufferring. Better to let them compete economically, it's a lot less bloody.

Who are "they" - people? Soviet people competed for political power because they could not built an economical perch? Common, that's silly. Russian revolution won because and only because the Russian peasants (80% of population at the time) supported it or, at least, were neutral. Why? One of the reasons: tsarist government has decided to build an economic perch in quite egalitarian Russian villages by encouraging creation of the large&medium farms (a la USA), which would had resulted in massive displacements of peasants into city's slums and concentration of the "dough" in the hands of the fewer and fewer people. You see, world is/was not made in the image of the USA. Unfortunately, that's changing.


Every job requires training. All spots are preferably held by trained employees. You may start at minimum wage, but before long you should either get a raise or get fired.

Training could be accomplished in 10 mins. Who said that one should get a raise? Is that a law of nature? Besides, as a said, $5/hr and $7/hr have one thing in common - one can't live decently on that.

Obvious nonsense? Sounds like a lazy man talking. I've held a lot of jobs over the years, in every one of them hard work allowed one to move ahead.

you sound like a man who stuck face in a full trough (sweet success) who doesn't want to look on the society as a whole system. Your personal job rewards means nothing in the great scheme of things. I repeat, current society is a wealth piramide. Had it been populated exclusively by your clones, some of them still would be digging in a garbage can.

The greater the level of skill, the lower the number of people likely to possess it Therefore, one should be able to command a higher salary.
Lots of trades and professions make pretty darn sure that the number of skilled folks in the field is limited. Doctors, dentists and pharmacists are prime examples. In the fields without birth control supply of the highly skilled is so large (relatively to demand) that correlation between absolute rarity of a skill and income is quite weak. This planet is quite crowded :)

Job X should pay what it's worth, no more. If you mandate a minimum salary, then job X may not get filled.

Who decides what job X is worth? Yup, I would have definitely hired 20 folks (no kidding) to do errands had they be willing to work for $.1/hr. What a shame 20 jobs are lost because of the damned minimum wage and not sufficient level of desperation around me. It freaking TWENTY jobs lost. Think about that. I bet you could create 1000 jobs at that rate. If a job cant provide minimum decent living, I couldn't care less if it's not filled. Filling of a job is not a goal in itself.

And by creating an artificial minimum salary, you may be dooming these low ability individuals to unemployment.

Yeah, I would create 40 jobs for low ability folks willing to work for $.05/hr. Damned minimum wage. Having a job is not the goal in itself.

Your dream economy was already created in the past. Just read history of 19th century England and USA with emphasis on the life of working people, and enjoy. Lemme guess, you think that this time it will be different :) Dream on man.

[dixonmassey]

American children all think they're going to grow up to be investment bankers, so they don't need to bother working their way up from the bottom.
I think kids have realistic expectations. They just don't believe as much in the "blue dream" anymore to start rat race at the bottom, buy an apple, wash an apple, sell an apple, and yadda, yadda, yadda. They rely more on luck.


Even though there isn't a single one of them who can make change for a dollar without a calculator.

Rule #1: No matter what you do, no matter what calculator you use to calculate change, most likely, your socio-economic status will be just the same as that of your parents (this is especially true for the very top and the very bottom). That's statistics.

Can't get obsession with math. From what I seen, knowledge of math and arithmetics doesn't help much financially. It's rather income lost. Most trades and professions require bare minimum of math once per year. There are engineering fields where one could be a quite successful professional if he knew (barely) four basic operations of arithmetics. Unless one likes math, wasting time on it is just that - waste, useless in everyday life.


Their parents support this notion by buying them cell phones, cars, and $300 sneakers, sending them to the prom in limousines, and letting them live with them for free. They all think they're little princes and princesses.

Does that include parents in trailer parks, inner cities, depressed and rural areas? You should leave your gated community once in a while.

A a foreign observer, I must say American family ties are quite weak or even non existent by the average world's standards. Kids are not princes and princesses. They are rather just a line on the "to do in life list". Amount of stuff kids get is not a sign of super love, it's rather pay off to buy some free of kids time.

That is the problem with labor in this country.

I think American Aristocracy is the problem :) Once one got to the top 5%, he stays there no matter what. Then one makes top 5% babies, babies go to ivy league schools and get the most desirable jobs (with minimum work and maximum pay). The number of aristocracy members grew, the number of desirable spots didn't grow as much. Thus maintaining the myth from "rag to riches" is more and more difficult, kids of working and middle class slobs don't buy into it as much as their parents did.

[madanthonywayne]

Rule #1: No matter what you do, no matter what calculator you use to calculate change, most likely, your socio-economic status will be just the same as that of your parents (this is especially true for the very top and the very bottom). That's statistics.

That's crap. My grandfather came to this country from Cuba with nothing, not even a knowledge of english. Did he have an advantage over the poor downtrodden lower class people you keep talking about? He worked his whole life, raised four kids, and retired a fairly wealthy man in Florida. I worked my way thru college, and now make many times what my father or grandfather ever did. I have a cousin whose parents were wealthier than mine, lived in a great neighboorhood with a huge house. Now she's on welfare and just barely escaped being sent to prison.

People have free will. They are not pieces of driftwood being tossed about on the sea of life. Sure, sometimes people get dealt a really bad hand. Some people are physically or mentally disabled and can't make it on their own. They are a minority. The vast majority of people should be able to stand on their own two feet.

[dixonmassey]

That's crap. My grandfather came to this country from Cuba with nothing, not even a knowledge of english. Did he have an advantage over the poor downtrodden lower class people you keep talking about? He worked his whole life, raised four kids, and retired a fairly wealthy man in Florida.
That's not crap, that's STATISTICS. Again, you don't see the whole picture while keeping your head down in the trough of your/your family success. Logic: "Gee, if everybody been like me, everyone would be living in relative luxury like me" doesn't apply to hierarchical, capitalist societies. You won - congrats. However, there are folks who worked equally hard and lost in a rat race.


I worked my way thru college, and now make many times what my father or grandfather ever did.

I knew folks who worked hard through college, graduate school ... to become virtually unemployable. No large houses and incomes there.

People have free will. They are not pieces of driftwood being tossed about on the sea of life.

Again, people with free will are greatly constrained by societies they live in and yeah they definitely can be tossed as pieces of sh*t on the sea of life. After, all they are not Gods having every parameter of existence under their control. There is lots of stuff that even you cannot control. You can respond to changes in environment (if you'll have time and means). Chinise central bank can definitely wreck your savings/investments:) Can you control/predict that? If you can, lots of folks on Wall Street would be glad to talk to you.

Do you suggest that had everyone had as much free will as you do,there would not be janitors, cachiers, cab/truck drivers, laborers, unemployed..... There would be just highly compensated paperpushers living in burbs. Had everyone been just like you . Claiming that all those folks at the bottom could be future CEOs, doctors and paper pushers working through college cannot be true in this society.

I think that while working hard through college you've missed trigonometry lessons, and concept of piramide is absolutely out of your touch.

Its projection in 2D it looks something like this:

*
* *

* *

* * * *

Rat racers on the bottom physically CANNOT all move up to the top, no matter how hard they will try and how much of free will they will exercise. That is constraint society imposes on them (and you). Some win, much more lose. F*ck losers, they deserved it. After all, had they been fluffy just like you they would have won.

[Dr Hannibal Lecter]

Yes; the minimum wage increase proposal was defeated in the US Congress - yet they did manage to find it in their hearts to give themselves a pay raise. That fat six-figure salary apparently wasn't enough for them to make ends meet.

Of course, this is the same group of 'public servants' who, though whilst enjoying full health care benefits themselves, have repeatedly rejected all proposals to provide health care to their downtrodden constituents. So this is the type of government they are trying to impose on Iraq? No wonder the insurgency is growing by the day.

Dixonmassey is spot-on. The system is fatally flawed, and for every success story, there are countless stories of unconquerable ennui and glass ceilings based on non-meritorious factors.

[madanthonywayne]

I think that while working hard through college you've missed trigonometry lessons, and concept of piramide is absolutely out of your touch.

Its projection in 2D it looks something like this:

*
* *

* *

* * * *

Rat racers on the bottom physically CANNOT all move up to the top, no matter how hard they will try and how much of free will they will exercise. That is constraint society imposes on them (and you). Some win, much more lose. F*ck losers, they deserved it. After all, had they been fluffy just like you they would have won.
Of course everyone can not be "at the top", but it's not a zero sum game. In my experience, in every job I've held hard work pays. I've worked at 7/11, a lumber yard, a factory, a grocery store, a restaurant, a hospital, even for the government. In all these jobs those who put forth the effort and applied themselves moved up. Those who didn't didn't.

Had society been populated exclusively by your clones, some of them still would be digging in a garbage can.
Since I believe in free will, you're probably right. Still, it seems to me from watching my kids that a lot of your personality is inborn, so I'd expert a low percentage of homelessness among my clones. Did you ever see that special on twins seperated at birth? There was a set of twins who'd never met. Grew up in different parts of the country. Until they met at a firemen's convention. Their wives even looked alike. Wierd.

[dixonmassey]

Of course everyone can not be "at the top", but it's not a zero sum game. In my experience, in every job I've held hard work pays. I've worked at 7/11, a lumber yard, a factory, a grocery store, a restaurant, a hospital, even for the government. In all these jobs those who put forth the effort and applied themselves moved up. Those who didn't didn't.

Agree, some people are better than the others in selling themselves. Some people are willing to work harder, some people are more gifted, etc., etc., etc. However, that's not the point. Had everyone been identically gifted in the above areas, there would be still people digging in garbage cans. Hierarchical capitalist system simply cannot accomodate everybody on the top or in the middle. Thus, system's promise "work hard and you'll make it" is simply a lie to keep social peace. Thinking globally, working hard, etc. alone is not enough. Sure, one can follow your example and think locally: "I can run hard in a rat race and I can make it". Sure you can. Also you can make a jack pot providing the right choices of numbers. However, you CANNOT extrapolate your local experience on a hierarchical society as a whole and say "gee, if only everybody made right choices as I did, there would be no $5/hr janitors". That would be a lie. Sure, one can say - "everybody cannot make the right choices. Everyone deserves what he gets." However, it's a straw because, as I said, had everyone made the right choices there would be still poors. That making the right choices alone is not the answer.

The "right choice" argument is quite absurd if one would think deeper. In this argument, the hierarchical system apriori is assumed to be just and fair, allowing "unlimited possibilities" (even Bill G, has his limits) for everyone making the right choices. If one "made it" in the system, that is yet another automatic proof of system's fairness. If one didn't make it, obviously it's because he's made the wrong choices along the way. the system can do no wrong. What a killer argument. Sounds like yet another religion where deity can do no wrong.

You see, an hierarchical society cannot exist without some kind of enforcement of hierarchy. People do not accept eagerly and voluntarily that 5% own 95% of the wealth. After all people are greedy and want a greater share of action too. Thus masses needed to be put under control. Masses must be convinced that such 5/95 distribution is fundamentally just, divinely ordained and virtually anyone can join 5% :) Of course, in the primitive societies, rude force is far more important than brainwashing. However, in the USA rude force alone would not fly, plutocracy needed to create a temple/myth of "Unlimited opportunities for everyone. It aced the project. Western Democracy without brainwashing is like a cowboy without a handgun.



Since I believe in free will,

Generally speaking, humans cannot ascertain whether or not they have free will. It's impossible. They can believe they have it. However, Bible, to put it mildly, is very ambiguous in this regard. Calvinists would disagree with your pick.

[madanthonywayne]

Agree, some people are better than the others in selling themselves. Some people are willing to work harder, some people are more gifted, etc., etc., etc. However, that's not the point. Had everyone been identically gifted in the above areas, there would be still people digging in garbage cans. Hierarchical capitalist system simply cannot accomodate everybody on the top or in the middle.
What does a homeless guy digging in a garbage can contribute to society? How is the position, "bum", integral to the success of a hierarchical capitalist system?

We may need ditch diggers and janitors, but we don't need bums. And what about a society of high tech super genious's, couldn't they build robots to do the scut work? I myself own a vacuuming robot, the "Roomba".

[S.A.M.]

What does a homeless guy digging in a garbage can contribute to society? How is the position, "bum", integral to the success of a hierarchical capitalist system?

We may need ditch diggers and janitors, but we don't need bums. And what about a society of high tech super genious's, couldn't they build robots to do the scut work? I myself own a vacuuming robot, the "Roomba".


As a point of interest what DO you suggest we do with the bums in society?

[Nasor]

One thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that almost no one actually makes minimum wage. Only 3% of full-time american workers make the minimum wage. Of those, about half are under 18 and haven't graduated from highschool yet.

[baumgarten]

Naturally??? What does it mean naturally? Is hierarchy insribed into human brains by Allah, Jesus, Zews? Is it genetical?
Yeah. It is.

Or, hierarchy is product of human cultures and being transmitted from generation to generation like religions and lots of other things. If we are indeed hierarchical animals what are the parameters humans build hierarchy upon? It was not always wealth. BTW, North American Indians were pretty much non hierarchical that's one of the main reasons why they were exterminated by hierarchical Christian brethren.
Even among native Americans, children are not equal to their parents. Elders and chieftains command respect. Hierarchy permeates human society, be it formal or informal. A few are always privileged, be that privilege given or taken.

[Alejandro]

i am surprised that adult mexicans can survive on $220 a week, wonder what they eat?

[baumgarten]

Ramen and Easy Mac, maybe?

[dixonmassey]

Yeah. It is.

If so, what kind of hierarchy is genetical? 1% owns 10% of the wealth, or 1% owns 99.9%. Could it be even more natural, if the most deserving ones hold everyone else in slavery?

I did observe that many common (i.e. little $) folks derive lots of their self-worth from the number of population/language/class/economical status .... groups they feel superior too. There is defite longing (among many but not all) to place oneself on the higher perch of life, whether it's real one (with cash value) or imaginary. However, ALL of the "superiority reference points", I'm aware of, are inherited from the previous generations. Which makes me wonder if some other factors than Zews and genes are involved.

It would be really interesting to study mechanisms of creation of hierarchy ladders in the human groups. Once the ladder is created it's relatively easy to maintain. However, the geneses of hierarchy is another matter. Why and how majority accept domination by the minority, if majority doesn't benefit much (or at all) of the ladder existence? It's even more interesting because it appears that minority doesn't do much of the "domination work" itself. It just transforms the lesser ones into their own jailers. Is that genetical too?


Even among native Americans, children are not equal to their parents. Elders and chieftains command respect. Hierarchy permeates human society, be it formal or informal. A few are always privileged, be that privilege given or taken.

There was no hierarchical ladders (meaning the system transforming sweat of the many into the "wealth", and "pumping" that wealth to the top) among North American Indians. I do realize that some people have larger fists and muscles, some are more likable, etc. which is genetic. However, even the most husky fellow (or suck up) is not capable to create the ladder on his own. Thus, the ladder is rather social/cultural than genetic.

[dixonmassey]

How is the position, "bum", integral to the success of a hierarchical capitalist system?


Sure he/she is. Hierarchichal society = top leeches + rat racers + scarecrows (showing why one should run in a rat race in the first place). Rat racers, in their turn, are divided in those who are: having a carrot in front of them, having an abyss behind them.

Hierarchical society revolves around maximizing the cash flow to the top while keeping the relative social peace. One can hold significant chunk of population on the bottom and maintain control (and keep rat racers running).

The class composition of the society reflects the one providing maximum upward cash flow in the given historical/cultural/social circumstances. Needless to say that " historical, etc. circumstances" are diligently shaped to provide maximum cash flow to the top.

For example, mighty police/prison system, 2 millions of inmates (not sure about the number) + 5% of the populace on the very bottom of life (most likely to join 2 millions in prisons) is cheaper (for plutocracy) than lesser police/prison system, 1 millions in prisons and 2% on the bottom. Thus, extra cash could be pumped up. Reagan took bold steps to make poors poorer and rich richer because plutocracy felt that society will absorb the blow without getting out of control (propaganda investments do pay).

Rule of thumb: great wealth is impossible without great poverty. There is no a single country, single historical period, where that rule did not apply. "Tide raises all boats" is good for Rush show, however, in reality, tide sinks many boats too. Besides, real tide raises all boats on the same level, while propaganda "tide" raises large boats much more than smaller ones (those ones it didn't sink).

[madanthonywayne]

Rule of thumb: great wealth is impossible without great poverty.
I don't buy it. Your premise is that all wealth is stolen so if one has much, many must have little.

But how does Bill Gate's wealth take anything away from anyone else? If anything, his wealth has resulted in increased wealth for practically everyone due to the efficiency allowed by computers, such as the one's we are conversing on right now.

Wealth can be CREATED. It doesn't have to be stolen. Someone getting rich by creating something great hurts no one and enriches many. Truly a rising tide that lifts all boats.

[madanthonywayne]

As a point of interest what DO you suggest we do with the bums in society?
Charity, churches, etc. My point was simply that it's not necesary that some people dig in the garbage for society to function. Dixon is of the opionion that we need them to scare everyone else into working.

[baumgarten]

If so, what kind of hierarchy is genetical?
The basic behavioral pattern of groups of humans having leaders. The rest is just detail.

[Nasor]

i am surprised that adult mexicans can survive on $220 a week, wonder what they eat?
Are you kidding? I easily lived on less than this for years when I was in college. My room mate and I would spend about $100/week on groceries between the two of us, so it worked out to about $50/week per person for food, and we ate pretty well. Three eggs, two slices of toast, and a glass of orange juice for breakfast costs something like 80 cents. Pasta, pasta sauce, and some garlic bread runs you about $1 for a one-person serving. Even a steak diner complete with baked potato, a beer and a miscellaneous vegetable side only costs about $6 when you cook it yourself.

It's actually kind of amazing how much money you save when you buy ingredients for food and prepare meals yourself.

[S.A.M.]

Are you kidding? I easily lived on less than this for years when I was in college. My room mate and I would spend about $100/week on groceries between the two of us, so it worked out to about $50/week per person for food, and we ate pretty well. Three eggs, two slices of toast, and a glass of orange juice for breakfast costs something like 80 cents. Pasta, pasta sauce, and some garlic bread runs you about $1 for a one-person serving. Even a steak diner complete with baked potato, a beer and a miscellaneous vegetable side only costs about $6 when you cook it yourself.

It's actually kind of amazing how much money you save when you buy ingredients for food and prepare meals yourself.

Well what about the family, children, schooling, housing, etc.

After all, you are assuming that each and every member of the family is working right?

[Nasor]

Well what about the family, children, schooling, housing, etc.

After all, you are assuming that each and every member of the family is working right?
No, I was just pointing out that you can easily live on less than $220/week. I did it for almost four years. Obviously I was only supporting myself, not any children etc.

[Sci-Phenomena]

Miiniiimummm waaaaaage high-YA! *whip crack*

[sderenzi]

After reading all the comments made regarding minimum wage I've come to post my opinions as well.

I do think most of the Capitalist society is just plain wrong. The problem comes into play when money becomes the objective and not function. With the environment being destroyed simply to fill workers pockets what we see is although it gives them what they require, in essence it will lead to ruin later. If societies only organize around increasing profit then what we find is eventually they'll ruin themselves.

Capitalist systems haven't had enough time to develop into failures, only because they continue on the same course, making money. When the environment has suffered enough an there are no more resources then everyone will really see what Capitalism has done.

---------------

What's the ideal thing to do then?

I would suggest that unless society begins serving the basic need of FUNCTIONING over MONEY that nothing much will be gained that has already materialized. If you only work because you're paid instead of the idea you are needed there to fullfill a function you become blind. People can take on different functions but money isn't the primary goal, the function itself should be.

Currently I would like a world in which money is never again used, but instead people are given degrees of importance based on their functioning in society. If someone cannot really survive on what you're paying they will not function to their utmost potentional, thus it hurts us all.

It is true some people choose to limit their functioning because of alcohol addiction, drugs, etc... those people need to really be in a place where functions are important not all this other nonsense society thinks.

So in truth, Capitalism has failed, it will eventually destroy the resources in the United States to a point where they have none. I see a time when everyone is arguing over who did what instead of trying to fix the problems. Each sees themselves more important, more regarded then another. Functioning within this system is nearly impossible already.

------------

So let's look at it this way. Pay everyone what they need to live based on the areas they live in, but not the bare minimum. A little more then the minimum needed so as to provide a comfortable way of life. In Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs we can see that when someone does not have a certain aspect in the pyramid they cannot progress onward. Thus while some are able to skip and get right to education, others are always feeling the need to acquire the bare minimum first then progress.

Anyways it's all about function and logic. It's not logical to pay someone so much that they are able to live beyond another person that's homeless.

[Sci-Phenomena]

sderenzi

I like your points, and I have something to add. Technology is being invented which will allow each human on our earth to become more independent without consuming a whole ton of resources. For example: A machine which can pack dirt into bricks. This has been invented, it will slowly start to spread through the market, now you'll be able to build your own home without tearing down whole forests for lumber. I feel that this is just the tip of the "Iceberg of Technological Independence." Hopefully I'm right, otherwise, we may be in for a nice hard breaking. (which is the stop of a fall, mind you)

[dixonmassey]

There is such a thing as "correlation". There is a correlation between bare skin exposed to sun at noon and skin burn, for example. 99.9% of people don't understand the exact mechanisms behind sun burning skin red, but 100% knows that the above described correlation exists.

Same with mega riches and mega poverty. Show me a multibillionaire, I'll show you slums, inner cities, abject poverty. Any time period, any continent, any country - correlation between mega riches and mega poverty exists. Exact mechanisms differ (in not so essential details).

I do understand that you live in the Imperial Metropoly, so correlations are somewhat hidden (especially, if you are in the upper portion of a piramide). For general education you may read http://www.robinupton.com/people/WizardsOfMoney/. Your standards of Imperial Living is a lot (indirectly) due to the mechanisms of sucking third world dry described on that site.

I don't buy it. Your premise is that all wealth is stolen so if one has much, many must have little.

Darn YES, for one to have MUCH more - many must have much LESS. Isn't that an obvious arithmetics ?

What is "Stolen" in one society/culture/circumstance/ etc. isn't stolen in another. "Stolen" is culturally, etc. relative word.

Analogy: there is a single possible pass through a river. Everybody must use the pass to keep on living. There is a band of "toll collectors" charging arbitrary sums of money for people using the pass and doing nothing else. Is that stealing/racket or a wonderfull example of free enterprise?

Same with society you live in. Hierarchical Society based on money, employment and driven by profit. All work horses must use (or rather being used by) employment, money to survive. There is no other way around (even Amishes must have $ on hands). System's "Toll collectors" (owners of means of production, bankers, "investors") charge work horses arbitrary sums, throwing "bones" to the chain dogs guarding the toll booths and themselves (army, police, prisons, lawyers, politicians), throwing slightly less bones into "education" of populace that such an arrangement is the only possible, maximum just and efficient. Sounds like racket, a.k.a. stealing, for me. But in your cultural coordinates that's just and fair because toll collectors provide an "efficient" passage that only they can do. Only toll collectors can define how much value is in that passage. Horses are too dumb, lazy and shall have no say on that.

You'll say that work horses are free to look for a "kinder" collector or join the collector band. However, until horses will have say on "how much" collectors should fleece them, such a system looks like disguised racket. Silent acceptance of collector's "charges" doesn't constitute justice.

Preemptive remark, it's absolutely impossible for all horses to join the collector band and its support services.

Lastly, humanity must find another way to run economy, toll collectors must go or, at least, become work horses in charge of collector booths.

[dixonmassey]

But how does Bill Gate's wealth take anything away from anyone else? If anything, his wealth has resulted in increased wealth for practically everyone due to the efficiency allowed by computers, such as the one's we are conversing on right now.

So tell me how much an average income of an average Joe have increased in the last 20 years? Doubled, tripled, or stayed, for all practical purposes, the same? I do understand you've done really well, but try to look on the whole society. Productivity (whatever that means) doubled or so, if one believes statistics, corporate profits grew, the wealth of Bill G grew by hell knows which order of magnitude. While an income of an average Schmo was not affected much. It's really peculiar tide :) Where did dough go? Sorry for the obvious question.

Sounds like neo liberal version of capitalism, revived by Reagan & Co, has efficiency coefficient less that that of the most primitive steam engine, if one will decide to use it to improve average worker's income. I'll not touch the subject of quality of life that income brings.

I really don't know how could you tell that Bill Gait's wealth increased wealth for everyone, if it enabled insane, unsustainable globalization of capital and all the related "good" stuff - rust belts, dead plants, lots of dead end jobs, sweatshops, destruction of traditional way of life in 3rd world countries, which cannot even feed themselves anymore, ... endless list.

Efficiency = wealth for the already rich. Efficiency means mostly pink slips and dead end jobs for the rest of mortals (including few representatives of overseer class).

Wealth can be CREATED. It doesn't have to be stolen. Someone getting rich by creating something great hurts no one and enriches many. Truly a rising tide that lifts all boats.

I really want to see how BG would create all those software himself.

You should have said, "BG made himself rich mostly by overseeing overseers who put/control tens of thousands people producing various software. BG exerted heavy premium for his overseeing powers. Tens of thousands of people making software took whatever $ they where given and had no say how much $ they would give BG for his overseeing services".

That's the problem. From a capitalist point of view, labor is just a two legged commodity to be discarded once not needed. That capital and overseeing is salt of the Earth making things possible. Only capitalist can decide how much his services are worth. Some capitalists are more generous than the others in pay department. However, ALL of them indignant when labor try to establish its own price. That's an absolute blasphemy not to be tolerated (even if it doesn't cost much).

[dixonmassey]

Dixon is of the opionion that we need them to scare everyone else into working.

I think that even you will not deny that driving force of capitalism is maximization of profits by any means, even if it means selfdestruction.

From a profit maximization standpoint, labor costs are profit lost (no matter what corporate PR department says) and thus must be minimized. On the other hand, capitalists do realize that without labor they are not capitalists :) Thus, they cannot drop wages below subsistence level of work horses. Labor obviously wants a few finer things in life than a shack and a piece of dry bread. Thus, labor should be properly trained, intimidated or dumbed down to take what is given and never, ever demand anything from a capitalist. Labor doesn't earn, it's capitalist's mercy give whatever he/she desires to labor.

Capitalists both need poors and are afraid of poors. They need poors to keep wages low (supply demand things). Does Wal Mart (the largest employer) benefit from the immense of people at the bottom willing to work for $7/hr or so? Capitalists need poors to "encourage" those who's not at the bottom yet to run as hard as he can without much thinking about the system which makes keeps him running. Capitalists must keep workers few paychecks away from the financial disaster; that will prevent unlikely chances of the dumbed down labor to organize and strike. Most humans naturally tend to choose "a bird in the hand", after all.

Of course, ruling elites are not so dumb as to apply force alone. Divide and conquer still works well. Fairly numerous worker's aristocracy was ingenious invention to keep cost of maintaining order minimal. It provides a carrot for the working majority who thinks: "if I only work slightly harder slightly longer, I'll work my way to a WM manager. I don't need to struggle. If I'll not make it, I'm a loser who deserves no better". Nice training I must say. And there is an education myth. Racial division is still doing its trick. Etc.

And lastly, old good state sponsored terror is as good as always. Have you ever notice that framework of a police state is in its place in the USA? I bet not because proto police state is waging a war against poors in ghettos. War on drugs, 2 millions in prisons is nothing but intimidation of the poors, ... In the time of trouble impetus of the police state will be beeffed up to include suburbs and campuses, no doubt. Vietnam war tought the ruling plutocracy a few things.

What a magnificent social structure plutocracy has created.

[wesmorris]

Same with mega riches and mega poverty. Show me a multibillionaire, I'll show you slums, inner cities, abject poverty. Any time period, any continent, any country - correlation between mega riches and mega poverty exists. Exact mechanisms differ (in not so essential details).

Show me a multibillionaire, and I'll show you millions of people who have benefited from what they offer, be it employment, products or services. They wanted what the person had to offer. The person was smart/lucky enough to be in a position to offer it. What a crime.

Your standards of Imperial Living is a lot (indirectly) due to the mechanisms of sucking third world dry described on that site.

The third world doesn't have to deal with us, but they want what we offer. "sucking them dry"? That's an intentionally negative skew to support your premise which is generally "buying the myth of fairness", like a child.

Darn YES, for one to have MUCH more - many must have much LESS. Isn't that an obvious arithmetics ?

No, it isn't. It's "I hate capitalism" stupidity. Think about what you've said above. "more" doesn't exist unless it is produced. When MORE is produced, there is MORE to go around. Were in not for the individual or group intelligent or lucky enough to be able to produce goods, there is not MORE or LESS. There is NOTHING.

Analogy: there is a single possible pass through a river. Everybody must use the pass to keep on living. There is a band of "toll collectors" charging arbitrary sums of money for people using the pass and doing nothing else. Is that stealing/racket or a wonderfull example of free enterprise?

Your analogy is simply WRONG. It's more like "before these other guys came along, there was only one river that everyone was trying to go through, and only a few made it because it was so crowded. This guy created a bypass and said, "uh, hey if you help me out with a loaf of bread you can use the bypass I created", and he ended up with so much bread he started offering that bread to the passers through for other items of trade. Oh shit I forgot to support your retarded non-premise.

Your goddamned rhetoric and propaganda is tired and misled. It's just fucking sad.

By your logic, that I spent four years struggling my sorry ass through college should result in YOU getting the same job I can get, even though you don't understand a goddamned thing about what it's about. By the fact that you breath and take up space, you entitled to the fruits of everyone else's labor, as much as you desire.

I think that a "modern society" should ensure that all its members are sheltered, fed and treated if injured. If you want more than that, generate yourself an opportunity or shut the fuck up and appreciate those motherfuckers who are working their asses off to make sure you get fed and sheltered.

[dixonmassey]

Show me a multibillionaire, and I'll show you millions of people who have benefited from what they offer, be it employment, products or services.

As I said in the analogy, "people must cross the river to live(not under bridge)". There is no way around of the goods and services produced by billionaire's owned companies. There is no way around toll booths. One must "benefit", willingly or not, or die under bridge.

Besides, billionaires offer only capital and/or their coordinating/controlling services, or speculation expertise like Trump, etc. I'm quite sure there would be software without BG.

Yes, it's true that many people (overwhelming majority in the Western countries) are gladly using "toll booths" thinking that one day they will be collecting the toll too or, at least, that they'll always have cash to pay off the toll.

I was born in USSR, I remember cursed perestroika. I was in my early teens, but I remember how workers were were transformed into isolated greedy units to rob them later by aspiring (now well established) toll collectors ala Rus. Seduction lane was something like this: you see socialist economy is crumbling, that's because there is no "private ownership and joblessness". People are not scared of starvation/homelessness so they don't work as hard as they are told. Let's privatize and throw 10% of lazy bums out. Aspiring soviet consumers, salivating for joining the Wester temple of consumption, readily agreed. Obviously, nobody of them ever thought of being jobless and starving. That's reserved for those lesser human beings somewhere outside of their families. Darn sure lots of them found out how they were wrong. They later have found out that one could work a lot and be paid a little or not at all.

The moral: working people lost little solidarity they had, they were prepared to throw week and otherwise unfit into a garbage pile in order to pick up the fatter crumbles thrown to them by the masters. Same with people benefitting (greatly) from billionaire economy. They benefit, knowing (or feeling, or suspecting) once in life time at least that their benefitting somewhow is related to somebody's living under bridge or working in a sweatshop.

The final point. It all the matter of the philosophy mankind builds societies upon:
1) maximizing pleasures/consumption/control/power of those fitting well into "toll booth" economies
2) minimizing suffering of ALL people in the world just because they are people not labor/consumption units.

To build society of greed and fear or on solidarity, this is a question.

[dixonmassey]

No, it isn't. It's "I hate capitalism" stupidity. Think about what you've said above. "more" doesn't exist unless it is produced. When MORE is produced, there is MORE to go around. Were in not for the individual or group intelligent or lucky enough to be able to produce goods, there is not MORE or LESS. There is NOTHING.

I can't get it. You argue that 1 apple is NOT much less that 1000 apples as long as someday there will be 10000 apples? And there is no way to get 10000 apples as long as apples are not divided in 1 to 100 ratio? 1:100 ratio of apples is the sole driving force behind economies? Gee, how people lived for 100,000 years prior to industrial revolution? I greatly doubt they can live 100,000 years more on 1:100 ratio. I guess everybody will just commit suicide if CEO will not make 400:1 kill. That's really sad world, if it's true.

First, "tide rise everybody" doesn't work voluntarily under capitalism. Whatever "tides" workers had were fought for. No fighting = to tide for all (as skewed as it was). Whatever seeming improvement bottom had/have is largerly due to the technology offering cheaper, not lasting, frequently dangerous for the health junk. Recent tides were so shallow on the lower side of a piramide, so they are not worth of mentioning. And tides do sink many boats.

Second, there will be a moment when production of 10000 apples will not be physically feasible (damn the limited planet we live on).

You assume that the only way for common Joes to get 10 apples back is to produce 10000 (under indispendible, visionary, you may add your own epithets, leadership of all kinds of MBAs, etc.) and to give 9990 apples back to "visionaries" and their owners? Thankfully, engineers didn't think that way about the heat engines, or you wouldn't go far in a car having 0.1% efficiency coefficient. Oh, sorry, it's 99.9 efficiency, if one is looking from the top :)

[dixonmassey]

Your analogy is simply WRONG. It's more like "before these other guys came along, there was only one river that everyone was trying to go through, and only a few made it because it was so crowded.

Classic apologetics . Of course, toll collectors provided value to the stupid mob, how else? Mob is soooooo stupid. I bet you could argue that even thieve and rapists provide "value" by teaching victim a lesson.

Observation:

I'll use your analogy. when soon to be new toll booth guys came to England in 16 century (or rather feudal aristocracy reinvented itself), the number of people crossing the river of subsistence plummeted compared to that crossing under aristocratic fleecing. How else it could be? Capitalism became possible ONLY and ONLY because lots of people crossed subsistence river under feudalism. Add there development of the production forces (big surprise, capitalism is not the only system where such development is/was possible). In two words, feudals did not fleece mob to starvation, mob proliferated, mechanical loom and manufacture were invented = mob lost its value to feudals, wage slavery became possible. Whatever had peasants under feudals, slum dwellers had it worse. It the STRUGLLE against capitalism made living standards better. Regretably, largerly on the expence of extermination/exploitation of colonies.

Your representing of fleecer as saviors, deserving lion's share of loot, is servile and plainly wrong. Besides, it's not lion's share fleecers take is horrible, it's disempowerement of the people terrible. Toll booth system transforms them into servile mob fighting for crumbles of the pie they've made in the first place and thinking of nothing else.

[dixonmassey]

Your goddamned rhetoric and propaganda is tired and misled. It's just fucking sad.

Propaganda? What exactly did I propogandize, bright communist future? I've made a few observations on the hierarchical, profit driven capitalist system. Unfortunately, reality is much sadder than that, if you cared to pull out your bright head out of the arse.

By your logic, that I spent four years struggling my sorry ass through college should result in YOU getting the same job I can get, even though you don't understand a goddamned thing about what it's about.

What your fuck&ng college has to do with something? It seems that diploma (certificate in boredom tolerance and obidience training) makes you darn proud and self-important, and you think you deserve bigger piece of pie. Sorry, you are a just the same commodity as a janitor and it's not up to you to decide what you are worth. All you can do is to take it or leave it. I have two college diploma, including a Ph.D., so what? I do know what kind of brain dead, futile job education will get you, if the field on your educational level is overcrowded. Yup, me and others stupid were cheaper than a technicians with HS diploma, who did nearly nothing all day long because WE, educated slaves, did all the brain dead work, we were so cheap (relatively speaking).

The times when college diploma was a ticket to a higher paying job with a certain level of control are long time gone. Lemme guess, you are one of a kind guy:)


If you want more than that, generate yourself an opportunity or shut the fuck up and appreciate those motherfuckers who are working their asses off to make sure you get fed and sheltered.

It's you who keeps me fed and sheltered? Thank you very much. Shut the fu*ck up with "opportunity" BS. If all janitors turned into real estate speculators (that's where real "value" is created) you would float in sh*t. One needs fair (meaning enough to live on) pay for a job he does, not pie in a sky, from rag to riches BS. It's not a lottery, it's life with more or less fixed number of opportunities and non-opportunities without which "opportunities" will turn into nothing.

[wesmorris]

As I said in the analogy, "people must cross the river to live(not under bridge)". There is no way around of the goods and services produced by billionaire's owned companies.

That is simply defeatist. There are a few companies that I'll grant you, are hard to avoid. The majority however, are easily skirted with a little effort. If you choose not to avoid them, you made your choice.

There is no way around toll booths. One must "benefit", willingly or not, or die under bridge.

So it's either use microsoft products or die eh? Lol. Okay.

Besides, billionaires offer only capital and/or their coordinating/controlling services, or speculation expertise like Trump, etc. I'm quite sure there would be software without BG.

That they were able to gather such tremendous resources and allocate them skillfully authenticates at least to some degree, that they are qualified to control them. If you don't like BG's style, why not outcompete him instead of moaning like a little bitch about it?

Yes, it's true that many people (overwhelming majority in the Western countries) are gladly using "toll booths" thinking that one day they will be collecting the toll too or, at least, that they'll always have cash to pay off the toll.

It's the constant reshuffling of resources like that which keeps things going.

I was born in USSR, I remember cursed perestroika. I was in my early teens, but I remember how workers were were transformed into isolated greedy units to rob them later by aspiring (now well established) toll collectors ala Rus. Seduction lane was something like this: you see socialist economy is crumbling, that's because there is no "private ownership and joblessness". People are not scared of starvation/homelessness so they don't work as hard as they are told. Let's privatize and throw 10% of lazy bums out. Aspiring soviet consumers, salivating for joining the Wester temple of consumption, readily agreed. Obviously, nobody of them ever thought of being jobless and starving. That's reserved for those lesser human beings somewhere outside of their families. Darn sure lots of them found out how they were wrong. They later have found out that one could work a lot and be paid a little or not at all.

The moral: working people lost little solidarity they had, they were prepared to throw week and otherwise unfit into a garbage pile in order to pick up the fatter crumbles thrown to them by the masters. Same with people benefitting (greatly) from billionaire economy. They benefit, knowing (or feeling, or suspecting) once in life time at least that their benefitting somewhow is related to somebody's living under bridge or working in a sweatshop.

What a horrifically skewed perspective you cast upon the world. I work and I get paid fairly for my work. So clearly your example isn't universally applicable.

The final point. It all the matter of the philosophy mankind builds societies upon:
1) maximizing pleasures/consumption/control/power of those fitting well into "toll booth" economies
2) minimizing suffering of ALL people in the world just because they are people not labor/consumption units.

All "modern societies" of any maturity have elements of both. The amount of each will be pendulous.

To build society of greed and fear or on solidarity, this is a question.

All economic systems are capitalistic. Only the degree of freedom within the system is in question. To summarize the capitalism as purely "greed based" is to overlook how the entire system really functions.

It's basically an advanced barter system with a "value" unitized to facilitate transactions.

It is people who are fucking greedy. Some people. Not all.

The chief failing of "pure socialism" is that it pretends such a thing isn't true.

In effect, any capitalistic system of which I'm aware has elements of socialism mixed in to appease the social conscience.

[wesmorris]

What your fuck&ng college has to do with something?
Well yeah, it does actually. It improves my market value and as a bonus, gave me a lot of practice at thinking in a productive way. Oh, and it helped me to understand a lot of things I previously didn't even fathom could possibly exist.

It seems that diploma (certificate in boredom tolerance and obidience training) makes you darn proud and self-important, and you think you deserve bigger piece of pie.
No, the market thinks I deserve a bigger piece of the pie because I've shown aptitude - something you apparently do not comprehend. You are a sour and ignorant individual indeed to assert that a college degree is necessarily a certificate in boredom tolerance and obediance training. What a sad, pathetic view of education. No wonder you're so easily swayed by propaganda promising you some fantastic "fair deal" as if there exists such a thing. *sigh* It's sad really. Your negativity is rampant.

Sorry, you are a just the same commodity as a janitor and it's not up to you to decide what you are worth.
That's right, my worth is settled by a negotiative process whereby I say "I want this" and if someone is willing to provide it, I provide them the requested services. How terrible unfair.

All you can do is to take it or leave it.
If you have nothing to offer a prospective employer, I suppose that would be the case yeah. Have you nothing to offer? If so, why do you think you deserve more?

I have two college diploma, including a Ph.D., so what?
Exactly. Apparently, they are wasted on you.

I do know what kind of brain dead, futile job education will get you, if the field on your educational level is overcrowded.
Well, bad career choice eh? So you deserve more but aren't willing to negotiate or find a means to get it besides attempting to get the government to provide it for you eh? You're a loser because your defeatest attitude overwhelms your capacity to actually do something productive. You are great at bitching and moaning though. If you weren't such a commie dipshit you might have a bright career as a lobbyist.

Yup, me and others stupid were cheaper than a technicians with HS diploma, who did nearly nothing all day long because WE, educated slaves, did all the brain dead work, we were so cheap (relatively speaking).
Sorry it didn't work out for you, but if you're so fucking bright I'd expect you wouldn't be such a whining loser, so the pity factor is negligible.

The times when college diploma was a ticket to a higher paying job with a certain level of control are long time gone.
Look, bright boy... who the fuck gave you a gaurantee of anything and why did you believe them? If you understood a fucking thing about "education" in general, you should understand that "being educated" doesn't count for shit if you're a whining, bitchy cunt who brings everyone down with their shit attitude. Who would want to work with your sorry ass even if they thought you were qualified? It sucks that your career plan didn't work out, and it sucks even worse that you're too stupid to compensate in whatever ethical means necessary rather than bitch and fucking whine about how you got a raw deal. Fuck you, get your shit together, offer someone something and most likely if you do so in good faith, you'll eventually be handsomely rewarded, that is, if you offer something that is marketable. If you don't, you'll be stuck doing shit work and blaming the world for your problems, refusing to comprehend that it's really your shit attitude and lack of flexibility that keep you sucking hind tit.

Get your shit together.

Lemme guess, you are one of a kind guy
Of course I am. Aren't you?

- Bitter dumbasses (like yourself) are a dime a dozen. Get your chip off your shoulder and get resourceful.

[madanthonywayne]

Wes,
Thanks for picking up the ball. Well said.

[wesmorris]

Sure no problem. I don't consider it particularly well said actually, but it'll have to do as it's history now.

[te jen]

I know a guy out here in rural America who makes a living at cutting and delivering firewood. He says he needs help in the business, offers $8 an hour for guys to load, drive and drop the wood to customers, and can't get anybody to take the job.

So much for minimum wage.

[Clockwood]

I know a guy out here in rural America who makes a living at cutting and delivering firewood. He says he needs help in the business, offers $8 an hour for guys to load, drive and drop the wood to customers, and can't get anybody to take the job.

So much for minimum wage.
Indeed. Minimum wage sets itself.

[dixonmassey]

That is simply defeatist. There are a few companies that I'll grant you, are hard to avoid. The majority however, are easily skirted with a little effort. If you choose not to avoid them, you made your choice.

OH yeah, please, try to avoid using green bills made out of the thin air by federal reserve system (owned by the most parasitical billionaire crowd; actually, they "own" everybody.)

So it's either use microsoft products or die eh? Lol. Okay.
There are no problems in avoiding MS products personally. However, it's simply impossible not to pay for those products indirectly and not be affected by them.

That they were able to gather such tremendous resources and allocate them skillfully authenticates at least to some degree, that they are qualified to control them.

What are those "resources" they've allocated? Labor of the people locked up in the monetarized employment system, which simply cannot be avoided?Slaveowners skillfully allocated slave labor resources too. Actually, even you can "skillfully" allocate resources given a pile of cash. If you don't have IQ80 to allocate them yourself, you can hire others who'll allocate it for you. Who's established heavy premiums on allocation services and how? The anwswer is obvious though - allocators. Why? Because they could. Why " unit labor capitalist" selling his arse to employers cannot do the same? Because he/she can't. Why? Because he's at the bottom of the "piramide" tuned up to service those at the top.


If you don't like BG's style, why not outcompete him instead of moaning like a little bitch about it?

The system is sickening, dehumanizing and selfdestructive. I've wrote only about "materialistic" stuff, "who gets what part of a pie." Me becoming one of the leeches will not change that. This is not to say that I want/could become one.

It's the constant reshuffling of resources like that which keeps things going. [/qoute]

Capital roaming around and seeking the highest returns on investment. Nothing new. Too bad that capital have NO other considerations than return on investments. And that is going to hurt everybody rather sooner than later.

[quote]
What a horrifically skewed perspective you cast upon the world. I work and I get paid fairly for my work. So clearly your example isn't universally applicable.

I didn't try to squeeze my "perspective" into a few sentences. You live in 2/3 - 1/3 society transforming itself into 50-50 society. I vaguelly remember you belong to overseer subclass. Plutocracy is not that dumb not to compensate its overseers. Divide and conquer. Just keep in mind that police terrorizing poor black slobs in ghettos, etc. and your fair compensation are related.

All economic systems are capitalistic. Only the degree of freedom within the system is in question. To summarize the capitalism as purely "greed based" is to overlook how the entire system really functions.

The legacy of "great depression" is being discarded, capitalism becomes purer and purer. Plutocracy invested great deal of $ into non monetary social control techniques, which broadly could be branded as "manipulation of consciousness". It's time to reap monetary benefits.

It's basically an advanced barter system with a "value" unitized to facilitate transactions.

That would be fine. However, it seems you've missed that nowadays 98% or so of "returns" are made in all kinds of financial speculations having nothing to do with "material" world except expecting to buy "real" stuff one day. If that day will come, we're fu*ckd. And sure thing speculation $ can buy as much power as productive $.

It is people who are fucking greedy. Some people. Not all.[/qoute]
You imply that a human is just an atomized fly independent of the society it lives in, surrounding, culture, rules of the game, etc. The system, non greedy unit lives in, can not only encourage but also demand "greed" of its units (in the middle or on the top, at least), no matter their personal level of greed. It's just business, nothing personal. To pretend that everything is about "personal stuff" is to delude oneself.

[qoute] The chief failing of "pure socialism" is that it pretends such a thing isn't true.

I've smelled soviet socialism of the period of decay, it stunk. Bureaucratic rule could be more or less effective (in the sense of reproducing social order) only and only if bureaucracy does not form a closed caste with well established rules of the office games. That's challenging to do without bloodletting, if ever possible.

However, in the period of crisis nothing is more effective than state bureaucracy. The chief advantage of socialism is that has 1) societary conciousness besides monetary one, 2) it doesn't allow mega accumulation of the wealth (=power), which eventually negates many of the capitalist advangages. Thus, that's "socialism" is called to the rescue when sh*t hit the fan.

To be fair, USSR was not originally about "improved consumption of goods and services". That's the shift of degenerated elite's priorities to the consumption race with USA, killed the country.

In effect, any capitalistic system of which I'm aware has elements of socialism mixed in to appease the social conscience.

You forget to mention that "mix ins" were rarely voluntary.

[RAW2000]

Minium wage sucks there should be help for folks who get stuck on minium wage, like there is for junkies.

[Hapsburg]

In addition, they should raise the minimum wage amount. Say, eight bucks an hour?

[dixonmassey]

Well yeah, it does actually. It improves my market value
Not every college degree improves "market value" (whatever that abstraction means). Many are obvious financial loss. Others have enormous "opportunity costs". If one is seeking a degree/university to "improve market value", he'd better be looking really good and have some serious cash ready. It's getting really crowded out there.
and as a bonus, gave me a lot of practice at thinking in a productive way.
Send that line to Dilbert. Hone your "corporenglish" more, you'll suck your way farther up that way.
No, the market thinks I deserve a bigger piece of the pie because I've shown aptitude - something you apparently do not comprehend.
Market is an abstraction, it doesn't think. So far you've shown aptitude to speak in stereotypes, stuffed in your head. Stereotypes, you've never questioned or analyzed.

You are a sour and ignorant individual indeed to assert that a college degree is necessarily a certificate in boredom tolerance and obedience training.
Let's try to wake up your questioning/imaginative abilities squashed under the piles of delusions of grandeur and "good schooling". Slowly, withdraw you head from the full trough you enjoy and look around at the surrounding world. Look on the jobs most people do. What does distinguish most of those jobs? That's right, drudgery, repetitiveness, having no say. Big surprise, lots of those jobs are done by the college graduates. Now imagine that colleges produce only imaginative, creative, free thinkers, having social consciousness, not used to boredom and jumping as high as boss said. That is not going to be good. What would business say to its agents sitting on the boards of trustees?

First and foremost, colleges are social institutions called by the elites to maintain the existing social order by churning out just the right kind of graduates (and providing ideological support). System happened to be hierarchical, where fair compensation and having a say is reserved for relatively few. The System happened to promise “unlimited possibilities” for everybody who works hard. Thus, “cooling down” of expectations is a must too. Obviously, colleges are doing something “right” to please those who counts.

[dixonmassey]

What a sad, pathetic view of education. No wonder you're so easily swayed by propaganda promising you some fantastic "fair deal" as if there exists such a thing. *sigh* It's sad really. Your negativity is rampant.

Wow, what an “advanced” logic, “those who've grasped the true meaning of education, cannot be swayed by the pesky social, etc. concerns. They cant observe and question. They should be “hot piss” happy to run in the most just and the only possible capitalist rat race, not thinking where it leads.” That's sounds indeed as propaganda solidly nailed to your head. It missed your attention that most of education in the USA should be renamed into “advanced professional training, which most likely will improve one's life time earnings”. “Improved earnings” is the driving force, getting a broad prospective, developing critical thinking, opening one's mind, questioning force fed staples... is in a way. No time for that, and no need too.


That's right, my worth is settled by a negotiative process whereby I say "I want this" and if someone is willing to provide it, I provide them the requested services. How terrible unfair.
Classics apologetics again. Being an overseer, your “worth” is determined by sheer belonging to a power ladder. That's basics of maintaining of hierarchical structures. For the great many of slobs it's “take it leave” kind of negotiating.


If you have nothing to offer a prospective employer, I suppose that would be the case yeah. Have you nothing to offer? If so, why do you think you deserve more?
Speak for the f*ck sake in your own words, if you have them, not by parroting some workshop guru. What are criteria of “Having to offer”? Having a job you wish? If I was chosen, that's cause I have so muchhhhh more to “offer” than the other slobs, right? WRONG. Even if it's soothing to your ego, that's wrong. I could just talk just the right kind BS, HR manager was taught to want to hear (very subjective thing). And yeah, there are discrimination things. To represent employers as unbiased Gods making the right, the most just choice each time is to distort reality beyond recognition.

I have two college diploma, including a Ph.D., so what?
Exactly. Apparently, they are wasted on you.
Why is that? Because I'm not a narcissistic puss bomb stuffed with propaganda, never thought about, stereotypes as you are?

[dixonmassey]

Well, bad career choice eh? So you deserve more but aren't willing to negotiate or find a means to get it besides attempting to get the government to provide it for you eh? You're a loser because your defeatest attitude overwhelms your capacity to actually do something productive. You are great at bitching and moaning though. If you weren't such a commie dipshit you might have a bright career as a lobbyist.

Listen I didn't mention a word on a compensation subject. I didn't mention me, government, who owns me, I didn't bitch, I didn't moan. Got it? Can you put two thoughts together without questioning “legitimacy” of the opposing side. That's the only way you can “argue”. Had I been a loser, a bum, whomever, what does it matter? Could I a freedom to think the way I do? What is the personal income level, which, in your opinion, allows one to have a thought without being called a loser and otherwise question my right to think&feel? Land of the free indeed.

Sorry it didn't work out for you, but if you're so fucking bright I'd expect you wouldn't be such a whining loser, so the pity factor is negligible.

Well, I see the fine product of “education”. Instead of accepting the info and thinking/inquiring about it, or ignoring if no interest. Reject it, blame the messenger, just because the info doesn't fit one's comfy pathetic worldview. Closemindness at its best.

[dixonmassey]

Look, bright boy... who the fuck gave you a gaurantee of anything and why did you believe them?
Unbelievable, man, you are just like a robot zombie perceiving reality according to the records in your head. Matrix is alive? Where in the hell did I mention that I believed some guarantee capitalist society gives. What I was hinting at advertising campaigns colleges (and the rest social institution) pay for. Such a rosy detached from reality picture where once diploma is earned exciting, highly paid jobs are just round the corner .... for everybody. Sadly, lots of slob truly believe it. Colleges can't lie, can they?


If you understood a fucking thing about "education" in general, you should understand that "being educated" doesn't count for shit if you're a whining, bitchy cunt who brings everyone down with their shit attitude.

Broken human CD record is going to teach me a thing or two about education? LOL. So far, it's you who's bitching just because I think not as you do, just because I experienced things you didn't, just because I told about them as they are, without fake, vomit inducing enthusiasm so dear in the corporate world. And that's truly depressing. You are an Alfa male, aren't you:)? And yeah, you may twist it as rosy as you like, you may spin it as you like, but fact remain the fact. Universities deliberately overproduce Ph.D.s to cut labor costs, to get more bang for a research buck; those sweatshop calculation dooms tens of thousands, way brighter than me, folks on being low paid exploited grunts with not very bright future. Few Ks in savings on technicians and human lives? What institutions, priding themselves on being an ethic beacon, would choose? Stupid question. Fortunately, most of Ph.Ds are quite unmarketable in the real world (outside of their narrow fields as lab grunts). Yup, it's not only black and old folks who's being discriminated. I know, it doesn't fit in your bright picture of whips and carrots. So don't overload your brain with pessimistic facts, “don't worry be happy, take your blue pill”.

Preemptive remark, I could not stand Academia for many reasons=no intentions to work there=no bitterness for not working there. Clear?

Who would want to work with your sorry ass even if they thought you were qualified? It sucks that your career plan didn't work out, and it sucks even worse that you're too stupid to compensate in whatever ethical means necessary rather than bitch and fucking whine about how you got a raw deal.
Man, I truly believe you live in the matrix. You see/read what you want to see. You've read mere statement of facts connected with simple casual links without much of the emotional interpretations and you see bitching. I didn't wrote “ME”, btw, I wrote “WE”. Even if I wanted to bitch, I do know what world I live in. Nobody gives a fuck for me, my thoughts, my feelings or my bitching. So why bother?

Fuck you, get your shit together, offer someone something and most likely if you do so in good faith, you'll eventually be handsomely rewarded, that is, if you offer something that is marketable.

Fuck yourself, it's cheaper. Do janitors offer something marketable :)? Leave crap of “handsomely reworded” for the feeble minded. The thread was about the system, not about me. All I wanted to say in this thread is that in a hierarchical system everybody cannot be “handsomely rewarded” no matter the relentless efforts everybody will put in. Thus, the main promise of the system is false, it should be rewritten something like this, “work hard, develop “people's skills” (very negative connotation) and you will have a chance to push another guy away from a trough. If you won't, another guy will push away you. It's not very pleasant to be away from a trough. So run hard, and don't think about the only possible, the most just system making you to run. Don't think about consequences for the surrounding world of you running. Keep in mind, the places next to trough are getting scarcer every year. Hurry up....” That would be an honest message.

If you don't, you'll be stuck doing shit work and blaming the world for your problems, refusing to comprehend that it's really your shit attitude and lack of flexibility that keep you sucking hind tit.

You can't believe how flexible one can become with a job/wife&stuff gone, $100 in checking account left and zero of chances of finding a job in the field. I didn't blame a world. You are imagining things again. World don't give a fuck about me as a pile of rocks doesn't. I don't really give a fuck about the world either. Isn't the way it's supposed to be according to the Book of Life? Why should I blame the pile of rocks? Why should pile of rock blame me? I had a run in a race, I've lost BIG (few people could “beat” me), I should realize my inferiority and crawl under the rock, have no say, no thoughts, no feelings until I run and win? OK, now you can feel better.

[wesmorris]

LOL.

Nice tyrade.

You should put a bandaid on that exposed nerve.

[wesmorris]

"Universities deliberately overproduce Ph.D.s to cut labor costs"

LOL. OMFG dude. That's simply RICH. Good stuff there.

As IF Ph.D.s have no fucking choice but to do as the university commands. As if people must enroll in the program.

You're damaged man. Very damaged.

[dixonmassey]

"Universities deliberately overproduce Ph.D.s to cut labor costs"

LOL. OMFG dude. That's simply RICH. Good stuff there.

As IF Ph.D.s have no fucking choice but to do as the university commands. As if people must enroll in the program.

As little as you know, you still think you know it the best. Isn't it a sign of some kind of a mental disorder? Maniacal pomposity? It makes a good managerial material though. You'll suck your way far up. Market truly rewards such talents (no kidding).

Outside of the ladder, try to use all those aptitudes you've shown to google shit prior to letting out the "sacred" flow of stereotypes, insults and general conclusions based on the pompous ignorance. Once "mother ship" filled your tabula rasa, it doesn't mean that you don't need to update the database once in a while.

You're damaged man. Very damaged.
To be named "damaged" by you and likes is the same as to hear a praise.

[wesmorris]

As is necessary for your damaged mental state, you dehumanize me in an attempt to negate my relevance in your mind. Such is the way.

A non-human like myself can't possibly think for themselves or be relevant in any way. We are just tools in a machine intent on destroying everything you hold to be true and righteous.

Onward commie soldier, destroy enemy.

[wesmorris]

For example:

As little as you know,

You have established absolutely nothing to this end, yet produce is as a known fact that I know very little. So this is meaningless, yet an apparently important foundation of your attack.

you still think you know it the best.

I've presented statement contrary to your own, yes. Whether those are "best" or not is not for me to decide except in how I relate to it. Apparently you are completely non-pomous in inferring that I should simply defer to your superior, yet completely lacking argument.

Isn't it a sign of some kind of a mental disorder? Maniacal pomposity?

A fallacious accusation based on a random assumption on your part. You've to even establish a basis for the criticism yet seem to take it as gospel.

It makes a good managerial material though. You'll suck your way far up. Market truly rewards such talents (no kidding).

So now you draw a conclusion about me based on pure fallacy. To what end? Merely to destroy my character I suppose. As you wish. You'll find it's impossible, but feel free.

Outside of the ladder, try to use all those aptitudes you've shown to google shit prior to letting out the "sacred" flow of stereotypes, insults and general conclusions based on the pompous ignorance.

Please demonstrate this pompous ignorance. Have you noticed the text you quoted which it would seem you're trying to respond to doesn't have anything to do with what you've said? The point made was quite valid. People choose to undertake a Ph.D. program. Universities don't force them. Thus to say they "deliberately overproduce Ph.D.s to cut labor costs" is a clearly skewed, insufficient respresentation of reality, as it completely ignores the volutary nature of the program. This is not pompous nor ignorant, but does expose those qualities in your rambling, hateful statements.

Once "mother ship" filled your tabula rasa, it doesn't mean that you don't need to update the database once in a while.

More non-sequiter nonsense. It's really quite pathetic that you can't offer something substinative or reasonable to support your point. Please, do try.

To be named "damaged" by you and likes is the same as to hear a praise.

And now, I'm thrust into "my likes" as a member of a collective whom you apparently loath - as to hear a negative criticism from "them" must necessarily indicate you're "right", as they are so fundamentally flawed as to establish an inverse relationship with the real correctness, of which you alone are privy.

*sigh*

[Absane]

Minimum wage needs to be dropped. Having a MW cuts jobs so there ends up being more people looking for a job than are available. Everytime I get into an argument with people about this (mostly family... I seem to be the guy in my family that has to disagree with everything :rolleyes: ) I ask this: Would you rather make $4 an hour or nothing an hour? It's better to have some job than no job. You can use that very low paying job to get experience to find an even better job.

This applies to "price gauging," too. It's classic supply and demand. If there is a hurricane and people need electrical generators, you raise the price since the demand outweighs the supply (for various reasons...).

[wesmorris]

Unbelievable, man, you are just like a robot zombie perceiving reality according to the records in your head. Matrix is alive? Where in the hell did I mention that I believed some guarantee capitalist society gives.

You said "The times when college diploma was a ticket to a higher paying job with a certain level of control are long time gone."

What I was hinting at advertising campaigns colleges (and the rest social institution) pay for. Such a rosy detached from reality picture where once diploma is earned exciting, highly paid jobs are just round the corner .... for everybody. Sadly, lots of slob truly believe it. Colleges can't lie, can they?

You obviously did, hence the undeniable applicability of the comment you pretend isn't relevant. So, you fell through the cracks or as you would likely put it - gaping holes in the system. You believed and now you're pissed - it's obvious, yet you're trying to tell me it's not true. You're a liar. It's as simple as that. What's funny is that college never promised you a job, they just promised you increased odds at a job. What's worse is that you don't realize that what's keeping you from being employable is your... how did you project it before?... Ah, "Maniacal pomposity". Yes, you are captain asshat and no one wants to have to deal with you, so no one will hire you. Your attitude is cancerous, your understanding of business and well, everythign apparently is so fucking negatively slanted to support your "poor me" and thus "the system is flawed, so lets tear it down" attitude that you are virtually worthless to any organization that isn't intent on catering to your over-sized ego - which is unfortunatley for you - not a profitable business venture.

Dumbass.

Broken human CD record is going to teach me a thing or two about education? LOL.

LOL. "broken human CD record" eh? Please show me how this is true. Oh, apparently you could use some education about education because as it would seem is representative of your entire world-view, you have shown a very disgusted, horrific portrayal of it and is generally indicative of the maturity level of the average 8th grader in my experience.

So far, it's you who's bitching just because I think not as you do, just because I experienced things you didn't, just because I told about them as they are, without fake, vomit inducing enthusiasm so dear in the corporate world.

LOL. I think were you to review our exchange thus far you could recognize that you're at quite the bitchy advantage, but as you wish. I have rejected your claims because IMO, they are obviously lacking in clarity and representative of ideology that supports your emotional pain for "the system having let you down", which like a dirty little bitch, you play to your advantage rather than "relying on yourself" to resolve your own pathetic maturity problems.

I work for a small private company by the way, and for personal clients for whom I provide computer support services. The corporations didn't want to hire me. I don't really like the idea of working for "the big boys", but you assume I'm an ass kissing corporate whore so I must really be and I don't realize it.

And that's truly depressing.

You were depressed way before I said anything.

You are an Alfa male, aren't you:)?

Rhetoric! Yeah!

And yeah, you may twist it as rosy as you like, you may spin it as you like, but fact remain the fact.

Fact EH? Lol. Prove your facts then. Show me the evidence. Explain how it doesn't matter that Ph.D programs are completely voluntary.

those sweatshop calculation dooms tens of thousands, way brighter than me, folks on being low paid exploited grunts with not very bright future.

Prove it.

Few Ks in savings on technicians and human lives?

What are the opportunity costs of the opposite? Further, I'd think that a jolly commie like you wouldn't want money in return for your service right? Shouldn't enough money for the essentials and the satisfaction of serving the research needs of mankind be enough to fulfill you? Who's the greedy asshat? I think it's you, you hypocritical dumbass.

What institutions, priding themselves on being an ethic beacon, would choose? Stupid question.

Indeed, the way the question is written makes no sense. "what institutions would choose"?

Fortunately, most of Ph.Ds are quite unmarketable in the real world (outside of their narrow fields as lab grunts). Yup, it's not only black and old folks who's being discriminated. I know, it doesn't fit in your bright picture of whips and carrots.

Support this crock of shit. Show me the evidence. The Ph.D's I know all have great jobs you moaning panzy. Please, present the actual facts to support your assertions above. Oh, and "whips and carrots"? Man you really, really are just a suckass person eh? Lol. Sad.

Perhaps you're of the impression that anyone with a P.h.D. in "latvian orthodoxy in the mid 19th century" should be able to start as an executive for google? Do you understand why they can't?

So don't overload your brain with pessimistic facts, “don't worry be happy, take your blue pill”.

YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW EVEN ONE OF YOUR ASSERTIONS TO BE FACTUAL. Lol. Have you considered that it could be your pessimissm that is responsible for your interpretation of "facts" as pessimistic, dipshit? LOL. Attitude isn't necessarily sympomatic of circumstance. In fact I've noticed it's usually the other way around - you pessimistic commie bastard.

Preemptive remark, I could not stand Academia for many reasons=no intentions to work there=no bitterness for not working there. Clear?

So far you don't seem to be able to "stand" much at all. I was talking about your bitterness about not working in general, when you sure as hell could find or constrew something to do I'm sure - were you to actually rely on yourself rather than trying to manipulate the world to suit you.

Man, I truly believe you live in the matrix.

Then you're truly dumb.

You see/read what you want to see.

Lol. Ah so since I'm not a cancerously pessimistic asshole like yourself, I'm totally full of shit and can't think for myself. The hypocracy is delicious. Mmm... that's tasty discord.

You've read mere statement of facts connected with simple casual links without much of the emotional interpretations and you see bitching.

No, I read statements of your sorry, skewed, negative opinion that doesn't represent really much of shit besides the meditations of a sour grape with the depth to match.

I didn't wrote “ME”, btw, I wrote “WE”. Even if I wanted to bitch, I do know what world I live in. Nobody gives a fuck for me, my thoughts, my feelings or my bitching. So why bother?

Yet you persist.

Do janitors offer something marketable :)?

They may, yes. People hire janitorial services all the time. You should know, right?

Leave crap of “handsomely reworded” for the feeble minded.

Uhm... I did.

The thread was about the system, not about me.

You pessimistic and unrealistic take on the system points to YOU as the problem.

All I wanted to say in this thread is that in a hierarchical system everybody cannot be “handsomely rewarded” no matter the relentless efforts everybody will put in.

First, not everyone will put in "relentless efforts". Second, it's obvious that not everyone can be hugely rich. Most people however, can be fairly comfortable without even working that hard, depending on how you look at it and where you live. If you're so "socially conscious", you shouldn't mind not being "handsomely rewarded" because you work for social harmony and materialism is unimportant. It seems to me you're pissed because you've been unsuccessful and rather than actually continue working towards something better - you shit on the whole system as broken because it didn't work for you and your sorry attitude. Yet the obvious solution "the system doesn't reward sorry attitudes" never seems to occur to you.

Oh, and you seem to fail to consider that it takes a lot of time and effort to improve your station. At the beginning of your endeavor, you will be "at the bottom" of the heirachy as you put it. You are free to attempt to climb the heirarchy to whatever level you desire. You may not make it. You might. That is what the system offers.

Thus, the main promise of the system is false,

Clearly you're confused and incorrect.

The system makes no promises, you fool. It provides potential. Take advantage of it or continue your whining until you die. Simple. Seems like you tried, failed, gave up and blame the system. I think you're a probably just a huge whiny fool.

it should be rewritten something like this, “work hard, develop “people's skills” (very negative connotation) and you will have a chance to push another guy away from a trough. If you won't, another guy will push away you. It's not very pleasant to be away from a trough. So run hard, and don't think about the only possible, the most just system making you to run. Don't think about consequences for the surrounding world of you running. Keep in mind, the places next to trough are getting scarcer every year. Hurry up....” That would be an honest message.

And you can't see how that is not fact, but your horribly skewed opinion which is only represenative of a sub-section of the reality of the system. I can see already that explanations to the contrary are completely wasted on you, as you're a huge douche. Lol, if you ever get a job worth a shit I'll be impressed - and it would be a testament that contradicts your current stupidity, so you can't even try or your whole world-view goes to shit. My what a predicament you've created for yourself. I'd think someone who could manage to obtain a Ph.D. might be smart enough to avoid such a connudrum. Hmm.. what a tragedy.

You can't believe how flexible one can become with a job/wife&stuff gone, $100 in checking account left and zero of chances of finding a job in the field.

The first step towards being cured is to admit you have a problem. It's pretty obvious no matter how much you refuse to admit it. You have a problem. You have a shitty attitude. Admit it to yourself so you can try to get back on track, well - or you could just wallow in misery about how the sytem is stacked against you. How fucking pathetic. Tzun Tsu shits on your head because you're too much of a pussy to stop him.

I had a run in a race, I've lost BIG (few people could “beat” me), I should realize my inferiority and crawl under the rock, have no say, no thoughts, no feelings until I run and win? OK, now you can feel better.

No you're allowed to bitch all you want, and I'm allowed to call you out on your shallow, pompous, retarded whinings and attempt with little patience to illuminate the issue for you more clearly, which you clearly think isn't possible given your 20/20 vision on all this. I'd prefer however, that you do something productive instead of spouting off about how fucked up the system is when your comprehension of it is clearly skewed by your harsh feelings for having lost whatever previous contest and have yet to win shit, apparently. You may have the potential to be a great dude, but ATM - you pretty much suck ass as far as I can tell. Lucky for you my opinion is irrelevant to you. It leaves you with less to deal with, and in continued avoidance of the reponsibility required to pursue success.

[Tnerb]

go wes :)

[dixonmassey]

As is necessary for your damaged mental state, you dehumanize [me in an attempt to negate my relevance in your mind. Such is the way.

You dehumanize yourself by being an asshole with mania of grandeur. Common man, order a philipino bride or something, you certainly have to much of the unreleased dirt on your mind/soul. You need a real relief valve, Seems typing tonnes of BS on internet doesn't help you much.

[dixonmassey]

We are just tools in a machine intent on destroying everything you hold to be true and righteous.

Itellectual "giant" stuffed with tonnes of the unthought about stereotypes and dirt, is capable of destroying anything? So far you've not be able to make a single solid argument. BTW, the things one holds the true and righteous are not solely intellectually derived.

[wesmorris]

You dehumanize yourself by being an asshole with mania of grandeur. Common man, order a philipino bride or something, you certainly have to much of the unreleased dirt on your mind/soul. You need a real relief valve, Seems typing tonnes of BS on internet doesn't help you much.

Can you at least mix your pointless insults with a hint of substance? No?

[dixonmassey]

You have established absolutely nothing to this end, yet produce is as a known fact that I know very little. So this is meaningless, yet an apparently important foundation of your attack.
What do you want me to establish? Shall I publish a testimonial with signatures of those involved to count my experiences as a fact? Sorry, I don't care about the subject of an argument much to do that. Don't give a rat arse. So take it or leave it. You, on the other hand, have no direct experiences nor do you have the desire to learn those of others which is readily available on Internet. All you have is a collection of stereotypical BS stuffed in your head, preconceived hell knows how and when, + unexplainable mania of grandeur.
Merely to destroy my character
You manner of conveying supposedly profound thoughts and opinions you have destroys “perception” of your character. You pass as a little angry , hell knows why, bitch having no guts to find a relief valve in the real world.
Please demonstrate this pompous ignorance. Have you noticed the text you quoted which it would seem you're trying to respond to doesn't have anything to do with what you've said?
Wow, lets use the exactness of text quoting as an argument. Nope, it's you who haven't noticed that I responded correctly to the quoted text by saying in a convoluted way, “Preconceived ideas and sucked out of the arse rationale aside, you don't know what you are talking about.”

[dixonmassey]

Can you at least mix your pointless insults with a hint of substance? No?
there are no insults, just statements on your condition. Since you "care" so much about mine, it would be inconsiderate for me not stretch a helpful hand in return.

[dixonmassey]

The point made was quite valid. People choose to undertake a Ph.D. program. Universities don't force them.
Many don't care about the chances, they want to run period. Isn't that a commendable free rat race spirit? I thought you are “go get it” kind of a guy, on the paper at least? Many don't think about the chances, until it's too late. Many are mislead by professors , promising whatever it takes to lure a soul. And the largest group – foreigners from poor countries (need I explain more?).

But again you didn't catch the point . You've lost zero point of an argument in the sea of the insulting dirt you've wrote. Universities/professors/PIs PLAN to substitute as many “highly paid” grunt jobs as possible spots with Grad students and postdocs. That's economics. The pressure to publish and to get funded is causing even more drudgery than a low wage labor as a Ph.D. Holding technician, etc. Thus, if you one is planning on pursuing a career in science, he/she should be prepared to do lots of brain dead job for many, many years if his luck is an average. That's was the point - a college degree may get you lots of low paid drudgery , which may never be rewarded with a stable , interesting, career and income. Sure, as long as nobody has forced you to pursue that particular path, that makes everything alright.

You 'll say, “Ph.Ds are free to quit to roam the real world in the search of an opportunity.” Laugh. Maybe if one is still a graduate student, having no regrets over losing a few years on the fruitless pursuit, one has a chance to quit and “explore” the real world. But if a Ph.D. Is already earned, that's it, the circle of “opportunities” becomes extremely narrow. Real world doesn't like to see Ph.D.s anywhere but in the labs or in the lab related services. lots of Ph.Ds simply are not qualified to get into the industrial labs(normally, one must do industry related research to have a slim chance) . Gee, a Ph.D. Can't even teach in HS without going back to school for 2 years more.

Fresh Ph.D. In engineering = entry level engineering jobs are off limits, some nasty employers even write in the job adds “this is not a Ph.D. Position”; as though we don't understand, but willing to take it anyway given a fat chance. Earning a Ph.D. In engineering doesn't count as an engineering experience by industry. if your research was on some obscure subject of zero interest for $making = you'll have much more painful catch 22 than BS will eve r have = goodbye engineering, good morning postdocing (in the best case).


I wrote the above not to whine and bitch but to show that quitting is not easy. Spare the spite if you can hold it (unlikely, but maybe). To show that if people stay and keep on muddling through the postdoctoral swamp, that's not because of their irrational exuberance. It's rational realization that they are essentially unemployable outside of the swamp. There is definite anti-Ph.D. bias in the real jungles. Having Ph.D. Is not a sign of aptitude . It's rather a sign of a loser, who quit/kicked out of such a wonderful, highly paid :) career path and have a nerve to apply.

More non-sequiter nonsense. It's really quite pathetic that you can't offer something substinative or reasonable to support your point.
Man, you argue using a set of unregurgitated stereotypes as though your “matrix” was programmed at some point in your life and never has been touched again.

And now, I'm thrust into "my likes" as a member of a collective whom you apparently loath - as to hear a negative criticism from "them" must necessarily indicate you're "right", as they are so fundamentally flawed as to establish an inverse relationship with the real correctness, of which you alone are privy.

Criticism of what? My thoughts? Are you thought policeman/ homogenizer/great inquisitor trapped in the human body? Criticism of my life? Who in the hell are you and what you know about it?

[wesmorris]

Itellectual "giant" stuffed with tonnes of the unthought about stereotypes and dirt, is capable of destroying anything?

Being a bit brighter than yourself on a particular topic does not constitute a claim like "intellectual giant". Counter my "unthought" if you can. Lol. Oh, and it looks like it didn't take much for the system I was referring to, you know, the giant conspiracy against you that's not just me, who of course conspires against people ALL the time... it didn't take much for them to destroy your spirit, as you allowed them er... us easy access, - apparently.

So far you've not be able to make a single solid argument.

How persuasive.

BTW, the things one holds the true and righteous are not solely intellectually derived.

Ah, the sweet misdirection of an apparently unavoidable non-sequiter. Cool, crisp - refreshing.

[Tnerb]

dixon, at least you deserve it
*confused*

[dixonmassey]

dixon, at least you deserve it
*confused*
One more of those "who's figured it out" and just can't fucking hold it to share sacred knowledge and mania of grandeur with the world? Kind of early for 21 y.o. It must be acceleration. Wes has developed the decease in the riper age, if profile doesn't lie. Damn hormones in children's food.

[dixonmassey]

First, not everyone will put in "relentless efforts".

Don't weasel out.

Second, it's obvious that not everyone can be hugely rich.
No unlimited opportunities (synonym for the hard cash round here) for everyone as promised? How sad :(

Most people however, can be fairly comfortable without even working that hard, depending on how you look at it and where you live.
You are talking as though the wonderful edifice of the market hierarchical society was not around the block for quite a while to prove you wrong. In your utopia, what $ Florida's tomato picker, for example, are going to make to live comfortably? Lemme guess, you'll redefine "fairly" and "comfortably" for each income group to keep promises.

Level of development of the productive forces, demographics, unlimited competion, atomization, human limitations (an average human lacks the unlimited life span/energy/health, savings, resilience, etc. to respond effectively to ever faster changes driven solely by the profit maximization motives. Many will inevitably fall out of the race. I know, Fuck the losers. ). All those things + human greed and lust for the power demand poverty in the "winner takes all" world.

Some argue that one big, happy, uniformly developed global market system is impossible in principle. There must be "center" and "global periphery" for the system to be barely stable.

[dixonmassey]

If you're so "socially conscious", you shouldn't mind not being "handsomely rewarded" because you work for social harmony and materialism is unimportant.

Too leave all the dough to the "social unconscious" for whom materialism is very important? That would be socially unconscious. "Social harmony"? What is that? Lower classes that are brainwashed to believe that them and they are of the same blood and swim in same boat? I don't work for the social harmony. That's Rush Limbaugh's, etc. business. And they are paid rather pretty penny for doing that.

It seems to me you're pissed because you've been unsuccessful and rather than actually continue working towards something better - you shit on the whole system as broken because it didn't work for you and your sorry attitude.

It seems to me that you are a homemade psychoanalyst who's preparing himself for the lucrative career of a thought control manager and attitude adjustor in the First American Reich. Staying ahead of a game, huh?

So what is the net worth which would allow one to ponder obout the system one lives under and to to be "Psychoanalyzed", called nasty names, etc. by the infallible deity's worshippers? Do you imply that there is universal, the only way of thinking and everything else is a result of some kind of brain damage as a result of being "left behind" or having the wrong kind of attitude, etc.?

You have no clue about my current situation. If my situation would be a priority #1, the dumbest thing would be trying to change the system. I wouldn't not live that long to enjoy the fruits of the labor, which is increadibly more difficult (and dangerous too) than running in a dull rat race, failing and running again. To blame, shit on the system for the misfortunes I had is kind of irrational too. After all, I have never have bought into its official promises to feel betrayed. System is not built to keep my interests close to its "heart", nothing personal. Keep on honing those psychoanalytical proclivities you have.

I dislike the system because I feel with with every cell of my body that it destroys mankind, environment, itself, dooms billions of people to subpar existence so the few providers of the resource allocation services would wallow in luxury. It changes definition of being human from sapience to homo manipulatedcus. Matrix may become real one day.

And, please, don't read wall posters about "attitude". One more piece of the premanufactured insight, you have no capacity to think about, and your brain may boil.

You are free to attempt to climb the heirarchy to whatever level you desire. You may not make it. You might. That is what the system offers.

That's your paraphrase of system's offers. The actual offerings are slighly different than your version. Unlimited opportunities for everyone willing to work hard. Hmm, now I wonder now what do they mean under "opportunities"? After all, one who's willing to work hard has an opportunity to a lift a tractor trailer, to stop running train with bare hands, or sire a third kiddie with Britney. I see the LIGHT now. the original promise is TRUE. Halleluiah.

[wesmorris]

Don't weasel out.

So stating facts which are wholly relevant is "weaseling out"? Well, you're the "brains" of this operation so I suppose I have to accept what you say because I'm incapable of independent thought. I just can't find the inspirational poster that tells me how to respond.

:confused:

No unlimited opportunities (synonym for the hard cash round here) for everyone as promised?

LOL. Didn't I ask you who promised you and why did you believe them? You said you didn't say that and now you say it again. Make up your mind. Whatever.

Anyway, opportunity is NOT cash, Mr. Ph.D. How hard is that to comprehend? Opportunity is potential. It's amazing that this requires explanation.

And the potential is there. You just have to figure out how to sieze it if you want it. You might fail. You might not. Such is reality. Sorry if it's hard to you to accept.

How sad :(

Indeed.

You are talking as though the wonderful edifice of the market hierarchical society was not around the block for quite a while to prove you wrong.

Oh? Show me where I've been proven wrong rather than making an unsupported claim and we might have a debate. Otherwise you're just talking shit in the same manner of which you accuse me.

In your utopia, what $ Florida's tomato picker, for example, are going to make to live comfortably?

Utopia? Lol. So that's what you're after? I made no claim of utopia. Utopia is indicative of idealism. I'm a realist.

You see, wages are set by the negotiation and agreement between the employee and the employer. They are generally based upon numerous factors, one of the main factors being profitabilty. Picking tomatoes is a low skill job that you could possibly train a monkey to do. As such, the reward for the labor/skill provided is generally correlated to the demand for it. Since basically any functional human could pick tomatoes, the wage is reflective of the supply.

If for instance however, a person has not managed to garner any skills superior to tomato picking - they can get a few room-mates to cut expenses and live a pretty comfy existence, sacrificing a smidge of privacy for non-existant job skills.

I'm sure you'll be offended at the thought.

Why do you think, for instance... that a florida tomato picker should be entitled to the same stake of resources as someone who has sacrificed years of their life and tons of their resources to gain understanding of and knowledge of things of which the tomato picker couldn't be bothered to fuck with?

Lemme guess, you'll redefine "fairly" and "comfortably" for each income group to keep promises.

They are subjective terms, Mr. Ph.D. It's fucked up how simple shit has to be explained to you because your emotional reaction to what I surmise must be your personal failure has apparently overwhelmed your capacity to comprehend such simple things.

Level of development of the productive forces, demographics, unlimited competion, atomization, human limitations (an average human lacks the unlimited life span/energy/health, savings, resilience, etc. to respond effectively to ever faster changes driven solely by the profit maximization motives. Many will inevitably fall out of the race. I know, Fuck the losers. ).

No, not fuck the losers. A loser at the game played today can live to win tomorrow so long as he doesn't take his lessons from sorry ass perma-losers like you. I admire that they played the game at all. I admire when they wipe themselves off from the loss, get up and go find a new game to play - or figure out how to win at the one they just lost at. I admire the spirit of competition and fair play. I sympathize with those who lost and will get with them to help them strategize for the next round, in whatever form it comes. But I have no tolerance for someone who basically quits, as you seem to have done. Regardless of your personal success (of which you're quite correct, I've completely presumed) - your attitude towards the entire system, as is reflected in your commentary here - is juvenile and basically disgusts me to the core.

All those things + human greed and lust for the power demand poverty in the "winner takes all" world.

My, what a powerful oversimplification to twist reality to support your stupid assumptions. Some humans are greedy. Some lust for power. What a surprise. You sound like one of either who is simply scorned. The world is neither good nor bad. It just is.

What have the winners taken from you, that angers you so to the world?

That some humans are greedy and some lust for power does not preclude you from being a "winner". You do, but you're too much of a dirty bitch to accept it. Again, Tsun Tsu shits on your head.

Some argue that one big, happy, uniformly developed global market system is impossible in principle. There must be "center" and "global periphery" for the system to be barely stable.

I don't think so. I think the system must be allowed to balance itself for stability - and that's what capitalism does. "here are the resources, vie for control". It's the way of nature. People even play by rules and everything for the most part, of course those who gather enough resources can control the rules... but that's another story and in that particular vein we might actually agree on a few things.

[dixonmassey]

So stating facts which are wholly relevant is "weaseling out"?
Let's see. First you postulate/assume that invisible hand of Goddess of the free market spread the dough among the worshipers in the direct proportion to the intensity of the relentless efforts on their part. Then you say, “not every worshiper will worship the Goddess with the same intensity of the relentless efforts.” It could be so. The question is, “how to measure the intensity of the relentless efforts to make sure the above postulates are true?”. The answer (yours), “measure the amount of dough, divide by the Affinity Coefficient of the dough and you'll get the intensity of the relentless efforts.” It sounds like a third postulate closing the circular loop and giving no understanding for a nonbeliever.

To be short - Goddess is infallible, it's gives what one's deserved, if you didn't get the dough, that's cause you are not relentless enough. Goddess is just and infallible. Allah is great too. Three impossible to verify circular postulates, it sounds like “weaseling out” for me but for you it's a fact. I do agree that it's a fact for you. The resurrection of Jesus is a fact for believers after all.

Besides, is it humanely possible that Donald Trump's effort are 1000 times more relentless than those of such a successful and relentless guy as you are?

I'll add a pinch of a blasphemous thought, “is it possible that Goddess differentiate the dough not only according to the intensity of the efforts, but also by the kind of the efforts ?”

Observation, “It seems that the only way to be megarewarded by the Goddess is to put others to work for you, directly or indirectly. There is no other way to the megasalvation.”

[dixonmassey]

LOL. Didn't I ask you who promised you and why did you believe them? You said you didn't say that and now you say it again. Make up your mind. Whatever.
I's a staple of the subtle from cradle to grave propaganda. I didn't say I believe that. However, even you shall agree that “blame yourself”, by the sheer coincidence, is a really convenient tool of the crowd control for the ruling plutocracy. Look back in time on all those revolts, revolutions, strikes, civil wars. Versus - Atomized human dust is toiling, not raising head above the trough to think about the society it lives in cause “it's all about them running hard”, and blame yourself if toiling doesn't bring the desired fruits; because “if you work hard, you'll make it” is written in their subconsciousness. If you didn't make it, it's the sign of the personal rot. Ingenious American invention.

Anyway, opportunity is NOT cash, Mr. Ph.D. How hard is that to comprehend? Opportunity is potential. It's amazing that this requires explanation.
Potential for doing what? In overwhelming majority of cases, it's understood as a potential to make more $ than thy neighbor. “Upwardly mobile” is coined for those who a) are getting better in better in carpentry, teaching or even engineering; b) are making more and more $ by moving through corporate ladder, etc.?

And the potential is there. You just have to figure out how to sieze it if you want it. You might fail. You might not. Such is reality. Sorry if it's hard to you to accept.
Aren't society too generous by allowing those who's lost get a dead end job or welfare and count their teeth rotting by? Maybe slavery or shooting squads would be better? I still can't get why probability of one's breaking it to the top 5% or 50% is more cherished than little bit more decent life for everybody?
Freedom is not probability, it's certainty. Until, there will not be freedom of want (of basic life supporting things), people will be disguised slaves/subservient rats, running on Prozac and reading “attitude” adjusting scrolls to escape reality.

[dixonmassey]

You see, wages are set by the negotiation and agreement between the employee and the employer.They are generally based upon numerous factors, one of the main factors being profitabilty.
#1 deciding factor is the level of desperation of an employee and employer. Rule of thumb, employer is much less desperate than workers, in most of the cases because it has “capital” and access to credit. Thus, it almost always dictates the going wage. Workers are lacking resources to convey (in an assertive way) their ideas about the market value of their labor to employer. There is something really rotten&depressing about economies run solely by profit margins for the “haves” and desperation/rat race for the rest.

Picking tomatoes is a low skill job that you could possibly train a monkey to do.

Monkey could do some of the highly paid jobs too. And sure as hell every monkey could be a rentier. There are many actual cases when rich folks mention pets in their deeds. Dog, cats, parrots, etc. do have investments portfolio larger than you'll ever have.

Since basically any functional human could pick tomatoes, the wage is reflective of the supply.
Able is not enough. Able and willing. You are able to pick up tomatoes, but not willing because you can find a better paying job (cause you are such a smart and skilled guy). Life is a bitch though, and one day desperation may wake up willingness to do unimaginable (for the time being) things. Thus, the correct formula “Able and willing (a.k.a desperate). BTW, what was supply of Mexicans in Florida circa 1965? One things for sure, it was less than now. Thus, the industry was not satisfied with the level of desperation of Florida's locals (which is something like $8-9/hr). That was too much to bear. You should pay attention to Florida tomato fields. That's the place of the freest market on the USA soil. Employer and employee negotiate the going wage one to one, face to face. Miraculously, it's fairly close to the Mexican subsistence level .. proving Ricardo's law is correct. Even that is not enough. Recently, there have been three prosecuted cases of slavery on Florida fields. Gotta love sweet invisible market's hand.

You are too generous to tomato pickers by thinking that they should make enough to shackle in a room. Actually, many of them live in “the wild”.
.
If for ienstance however, a person has not managed to garner any skills superior to tomato picking - they can get a few room-mates to cut expenses and live a pretty comfy existence, sacrificing a smidge of privacy for non-existant job skills.I'm sure you'll be offended at the thought.
Unexplainable American disdain for manual labor. What is job skill? One does need specific skills and lots of stamina to pick up tomatoes. You wouldn't last on a field as skilled and knowledgeable as you are. Do you think one actually works and sweat while doing “low skilled” jobs? You are not paid for your skills, diploma, smart arse. You are paid because you are working. And if you are working, you must get paid enough to provide for the bare minimum of your life necessities. If a job doesn't do it, it's not a job, it's neo slavery (I know, anyone is free to quit and to become the second BG anytime. That's why it's “neo slavery”.). All the BS about skills, etc. is just to sanctify/legitimize the status quo.


Why do you think, for instance... that a florida tomato picker should be entitled to the same stake of resources as someone who has sacrificed years of their life and tons of their resources to gain understanding of and knowledge of things of which the tomato picker couldn't be bothered to fuck with?
Because tomato picker is a human. Because products of his labor feed a snob who's gained understanding of hell knows what just to remain a greedy, selfish bitch measuring it's self-worth by putting down desperates.

[dixonmassey]

your personal failure has apparently overwhelmed your capacity to comprehend such simple things.
Mr. Freud reincarnate . You remind me a pig whicy thinks that its trough at a feedlot is the center of Universe and the measure of it all. You see nothing except the trough in front of you. You don't want to think about why it's full and how, at what price, for what purpose, who'll benefit eventually of it. You don't want to know about eroded fields soaked with chemical, rotting Mississippi, gigantic ponds of waste. You don't want to see trampled piglets and skinny deceased pigs who can't fight their way to the trough. All you can see a trough and the gulp of swill you can make. And the amount of a gulp, an ability to win “strategic” location around of trough are the true meanings. But that's not enough. You need to put down any other pig who's trying to raise a head above a trough and look around to make a judgment as imperfect as it's. You announce such a deviant desire to be a result of a failure to gulp as much swill as you do.

No, not fuck the losers. A loser at the game played today can live to win tomorrow so long as he doesn't take his lessons from sorry ass perma-losers like you.

I repeat (in vain) - humans lack infinite work life span, infinitely good health, infinite energy; dead end jobs are really slow way to accumulate bit of $ to start over. Family, social,state support networks are dying off. Losers, don't get easy credits in banks, etc. Even taking lessons from pompous “winners” as you are will not help to beat those limitations every time.

I admire that they played the game at all. I admire when they wipe themselves off from the loss, get up and go find a new game to play - or figure out how to win at the one they just lost at. I admire the spirit of competition and fair play.
Did they have a choice not to play? You would admire rats eating each other in a barrel instead of putting little rat minds together to think how to get out.

Regardless of your personal success (of which you're quite correct, I've completely presumed) - your attitude towards the entire system, as is reflected in your commentary here - is juvenile and basically disgusts me to the core.
About attitude. Why would office dwellers love to display “attitude” narratives in their cubicles? After all, the things are pretty much as they supposed to be - pay is fair, their contributions are valued and recognized, opportunities are abundant, etc. etc... If not, they can easily move on to seek better opportunities. Few rainy days? Every grown up expects to have few of those. Why would one want to give up one's individuality, to lobotomize oneself into jellylike, generic attitude carrier? My wild guess – to escape this wonderful world with all its opportunities. Despite all the optimistic fuss, a worm deep down a poster child of the right kind of attitude says, “something is wrong. World isn't supposed to run like this. Is that's all to life? I feel like sh*t..” World fights back and says, “that's the end of history, humans are destined to live like this forever and ever. If you don't think this way you are a damaged loser. You'd better fake it, if you can't feel it or your arse is canned.” If one is too shitless to change the reality outside, one can change the reality inside. Thus attitude mantra is nothing but synonym for escapism, same as Prozac, TV, Hollywood, all kind of “stars”, junk food, shopping, drugs, Internet

[wesmorris]

It's strange how you don't notice your own disgusted spin on every scenario you depict. It's all hopeless. It's all rotting pigs. It's all your disgust for the world exposed in your interpretation of your perception.

Perhaps that you find yourself "above" those attitude posters on the wall that exposes why you're below them.

I hope someday your grapes are less sour for you.

[wesmorris]

Let me ask a simple question:

If I try to manipulate you to uhm... I dunno, maybe wash your hands before eating. Yeah that. I do everything I can to manipulate you to wash your hands before dinner. I put posters in your office about it and everything. You get sick of it because you can't stand the manipulators, blah blah because you're so super-cool and smart.

Does that make washing your hands a bad thing?

According to the reasoning you've provided, it mostly definately does.

[wesmorris]

I dislike the system because I feel with with every cell of my body that it destroys mankind, environment, itself, dooms billions of people to subpar existence so the few providers of the resource allocation services would wallow in luxury.

Well then, we have nothing to discuss besides your feelings eh?

If you feel this way, every single piece of data you encounter will be skewed to support your assumption. This is what I've been telling you. This is what you deny and I suspect, will continue to deny - as if you are above it. This is the root of your pompousness, and the source of your continued hatred.

I do not feel with every blah blah that capitalism is right. It seems so to me and I haven't seen an argument that overcomes its parallel to nature. Nor have I seen anyone refute that all economic systems are fundamentally capitalist.

Capitalism is nature.

You hate nature, because you think it "unfair".

You expect your "goddess" to which you repeatedly refer to make it right.

And then you seem surprised and disspointed that she does not.

*sigh*

[dixonmassey]

It's strange how you don't notice your own disgusted spin on every scenario you depict.

It's all in your head :) We see things (and words, I might add) as we are not as they are.

It's all hopeless. It's all rotting pigs. It's all your disgust for the world exposed in your interpretation of your perception.

Can't quit Freudalizing, can you? Chew on this then, "To demand that we feel well in the world which we live in is an insult to the human dignity." It's impossible to insult guys like you...


Perhaps that you find yourself "above" those attitude posters on the wall that exposes why you're below them.

I value genuineness. It makes human world colorful and interesting. It's harder and harder to find. Lobotomizing oneself into a generic two legged being by means of scrolls, etc. is not a sign of enlightment, au contraire. It's sign of weakness, greed and shitlessness. "Free market" can be more totalitarian than the most totalitarian state. It imposes uniformity of thoughts and attitudes solely by the economical means supported with horse doses of marketing and advertising. Conform or you'll be one of those at the bottom, whom we "trained" you to despise. Besides, I don't give a dime for being above anybody.

[dixonmassey]

Let me ask a simple question:

If I try to manipulate you to uhm... I dunno, maybe wash your hands before eating. Yeah that. I do everything I can to manipulate you to wash your hands before dinner. I put posters in your office about it and everything. You get sick of it because you can't stand the manipulators, blah blah because you're so super-cool and smart.

The first premise - "The end justifies the means." If so, would it be OK to "lobotomize" everybody instead of manipulating? Or, would it be OK to populate the Earth exclusively by your clones, having the most right kind of the attitude one can imagine?

The second premise - officially approved generic attitude is the same or better as improved circumstances. That's very questionable, to put it mildly. The connection between clean hands and lesser chances to get diarrhea is much more straightforward and proven. That's where your analogy breaks down.

Having "downloaded" the officially approved attitude into a matrix IS NOT the same as making world/circumstances better. If you'll get raped (shit happens:)) what would you do first, a) adjust your attitude to get as much pleasure (orgasm ideally) as possible from such an unexpected encounter, b) look for the possible ways to improve your actual circumstances by fighting back etc.? Escapism + defeatism = attitude adjusting under "managed" pressures of "free world".

[dixonmassey]

Well then, we have nothing to discuss besides your feelings eh?
We can discuss your mania of grandeur any time.

If you feel this way, every single piece of data you encounter will be skewed to support your assumption.
Unlike to the physical world, being an "unskewed" observer of the social world is not only impossible, but also undesirable (unless you are a social scientist... on the payroll of mighty ones... which precludes even an attempt of being unbiased. LOL.) To conclude that whatever we have now is "natural", "the end of history", etc., to dig out/notice only rosy happenings as an excuse for status quo is extremely PESSIMISTIC, I can't come close to that darkness. Humans have thin paint of ethic, "ideals", morals, solidarity, etc. over selfish, greedy trunks. They should at least attempt to grow that layer thicker each generation, and to do that they must be BIASED, badly BIASED. (BTW, the use of "should" implies bias. For great many folks, it's "shouldn't). Otherwise, they'll see only trough "half full" with swill in front of them. Every social order provides an "opportunity" (albeit different in magnitude) to get close to the trough and partake. You propose to see just that opportunity as the only natural driving force and to call that particular view "being unbiased".

But let's play Freud on you. Do you have assumption about the social world? Do you encounter "data" in every day life? Can we consider your insistence on the onlyness of the most natural order Universe ever knew as a result of "feelings" on your part? How come you've got that kind of "feelings"? Is that because you've made it to a certain perch and seeking "legitimation/consecration" of such an achievement? You, not some dirty tomato picker, got there. Which is a proof of you fitting in the "natural order of things", being chosen by Providence, being fitter, being better, etc. Glory to Wes, the anointed. Naturall, every loser questioning the ladder is indirectly questioning your being "....er". Naturally, the only explanation of one questioning the ladder is that he's envious lowlife from lower perches. Who wouldn't want to be as high on a perch as you are? Who wouldn't want to be such a illustruous But, they can't, because you are "...er", so the only remedy for them is to drow in their envy and to bark on the wonderful edifice built specifically to reward such Blue eyed Arians as you. How was my Freud?



This is what I've been telling you. This is what you deny and I suspect, will continue to deny - as if you are above it. This is the root of your pompousness, and the source of your continued hatred.

Seeing a billionaire's yacht, seeing enourmous material riches in the West, seeing opportunities for carriers of the right attitude to suck one's ass up the corporate ladder vs. seeing sweatshops, ghettos, dog eat dog world ruled by brain manipulations, etc. As I said, I'm biased. I never pretended to be unbiased. Neither should you.

I do not feel with every blah blah that capitalism is right.
Didn't look that way.
It seems so to me and I haven't seen an argument that overcomes its parallel to nature.
In nature, every bison can stand, eat grass, drink water without paying up to those up the bison's ladder. In the capitalist nature, that's absolutely impossible. Soon, we'll be charged for the right to breathe.

BTW, that's Adam Smith's works inspired Darwin, not vice versa. I.e. humans ideas on economics were transplanted on the nature. In reality, Nature is not all about competition for resources. It's also about symbiont coexistence. Nature is not about suicide, nature is not about hooking up one THIRD of all squirrels on Prozac, nature is not about consumption beyond one's physical needs, nature is not about a sparrow claiming rights on 10000 grains while the rest 1000 of sparrows enjoy 100 grains, Nature is not about a sparrow using 10000 grains it has to put to work 1000 sparrows so that they could bring 10000 grains more to the master. Competition aside, there is little "natural" about capitalism.

Nor have I seen anyone refute that all economic systems are fundamentally capitalist.

What does it mean fundamentally capitalist? People are using money for exchange of goods, I guess :)? But let's assume, it is. So what? Evolve or die off. Isn't that "natural" too? Extrapolate current social, economic, human trends into the intermediate future. If you are not going to lie to yourself, there is little there but gloom and possibly doom.

Capitalism is nature. You hate nature, because you think it "unfair".
As I said, there is little natural about capitalism. Just before capitalism, feudalism was "natural" and kings were ordained by God. Before feudalism, Roman senators were as "natural and divinely ordained" as their American counterparts. "Natural", "genetic" are substitutes of a phrase "divinely ordained" for the modern age. The same as appeals to the divine, they are called to legitimate whatever is needed with "higher powers".

You expect your "goddess" to which you repeatedly refer to make it right. And then you seem surprised and disspointed that she does not.

*sigh*

As far as I remember, first, you've claimed that the Goddess will make it right and give each according to his efforts. And if everybody will love Goddess with all heart and soul, then life will be comfortable and meaningful for everyone involved in the worship. Later on, you've redefined the meaning of "comfortable" as a function of one's blessings; effectively saying that, "even a penniless bum can be comfortable under the auspices of the Goddess, if he'll share the space around a heating pipe with another bum(s)". And now, you seems renegade to the phrase "to each his own" written above the entrance of a nazi death camp. Remarkable evolution, I must say fluidity, of thoughts. Mania of grandeur and "to each his own" look well matched though. Stick with this one.

[spuriousmonkey]

Capitalism is nature.


Capitalism is only nature if you define it so that everything humans do is nature. But then communism would be nature too. And dixonmassey has already given some excellent analogies on how natural feudalism was

Therefore I assume you mean a more strict definition of nature. That this is how nature is meant to work (outside human society). Maybe I have to enlighten you how nature really works.

Currency:
There is no money in nature. No goods are used to trade between specimens of the same species. There are a few species that use gifts during mating rituals. But that is rather exceptional. Hence capitalism is not natural, since capitalism depends on exchanging a currency.

Competition: Members of a species are mostly not in a direct competition with each other. They are most often competing with the environment. As you know more specimens of any given species are born each generation than that can possibly survive (unless there is a change in circumstances). This leads to the demise of most of the new generation. How? Because they are outcompeted by fellow specimens of the species? No, mostly it is their own siblings. Or other species culling them. Such as bacterial infections, viral infections, predators etc. And there is the environment, droughts, wet periods, clod periods, hot periods etc. In conclusion most die not because of competition with members of their own species, but mainly other species, siblings and environment. A condition that is far removed from the ideas capitalism.

Socialism:
Social animals live in social groups and what kind of economical systems do they do have in place you may ask? It is all very diverse. At one side you have the ultimate socialists like the wild dogs of africa. They hunt in packs. They all bring the food home to give to all. Injured dogs are not expelled from the pack but kept alive by the group. In short, a bunch of pinkos. Then you have the dictators of course, such as the naked mole rat. The queen keeps the others submissive by pheromones. They all work for her, and only she can reproduce. And within this system there is a cast difference of workers and bigger protectors. A feudal system.
I could of course go on and on for hours, but without EVER mentioning a capitalist system.

In short. Capitalism is not natural. Socialism is. Feudalism is. But not capitalism.

[wesmorris]

We can discuss your mania of grandeur any time.

Lol. Were it existent, it would have little to do with the topic - while your confession of "how you feel to the core of your being" (to paraphrase) is quite telling as to your "argument".

Unlike to the physical world, being an "unskewed" observer of the social world is not only impossible, but also undesirable (unless you are a social scientist... on the payroll of mighty ones... which precludes even an attempt of being unbiased. LOL.)

I agree and stand corrected. I should have been more specific. I meant horrifically and negatively skewed. My bad.

To conclude that whatever we have now is "natural", "the end of history", etc., to dig out/notice only rosy happenings as an excuse for status quo is extremely PESSIMISTIC, I can't come close to that darkness.

Lol. How might you interpret from what I've said that my only capacity is to notice only "rosy happenings"? I notice human activities and find the current state of affairs could be nothing other than natural. There is plenty of greed, violence, etc. and all kind of other horrific bullshit happening all the time it seems. It is my opinion however, that such horrific bullshit is a symptom of the human condition. A nation's choice of economic system merely alters the expression thereof, in the end all the same petty horseshit will come to pass - as it is what people come to value that is the core of the issue.

Humans have thin paint of ethic, "ideals", morals, solidarity, etc. over selfish, greedy trunks.

What do you expect from complicated apes?

They should at least attempt to grow that layer thicker each generation, and to do that they must be BIASED, badly BIASED.

My, how kind of you to ignore how human nature actually IS in favor of how you think it should be. In time, circumstances always arrive that require this layer is shed. Divergence of value is a bit of a sticky wicket. But you think you know "how it should be" apparently, so please - impose your BIASED, badly BIASED perspective upon all those you survey, because you're "not into being superior" or whatever the hell lie you tell yourself.

(BTW, the use of "should" implies bias. For great many folks, it's "shouldn't).

Because of course, I'm too stupid to understand - getting all my "fake wisdom" from posters and such. What a pity I am. Pity me, won't you? Lol. So you're saying that "shouldn't" applies as in "They shouldn't at least attempt to grow that layer thicker each generation, and to do that they must be BIASED, badly BIASED."? So you're saying people both are, and aren't ethical enough for you, or rather, some are just ethical enough (I presume those who suck your dick when you drop your dogma on them) for you, and shouldn't bother trying to be more ethical in future generations? Feel free to straighten out your mess.

Otherwise, they'll see only trough "half full" with swill in front of them.

*sigh*

Anything to do with capitalism is all swine and swill eh? LOL. That doesn't sound like the propaganda that was shoved into your skull as a youthful little commie at all. Thank you for showing me what "clear, independent thinking" is all about. How sad you are. If you want to have an argument that could ever possibly persuade anyone, you might want to disguise your hate with more palletable terms... hmm.. but then again, you couldn't pursuade other haters without giving them something to hate. What better to hate than dehumanized people... neo-zombie pigs to be slaughtered for their want of swill. They're not people, trying to get along in a complicated world... they're pieces of shit that threaten you and everything you stand for, so we'll just call them the piggy swine fucktards who want to rape your daughters that they are. Make them a threat so you don't feel so bad when YOUR "paint of ethic, "ideals", morals, solidarity, etc." finally peels away and your primal, violent nature and bloodlust - sanctified in the pure waters of your miserable failure - allows you to become the murdering fuck you've always dreamed of being... but only for those who don't suckle from your idealistic tit. Those who do are quite human and quite above all these swill seeking pig zombies.

Right?

Lol.

Every social order provides an "opportunity" (albeit different in magnitude) to get close to the trough and partake.

No, it doesn't. The "caste system" for instance, puts the fucko on all that. It's beside the point however, and I'd agree that most systems have at least a smidge of lattitude.

You propose to see just that opportunity as the only natural driving force and to call that particular view "being unbiased".

No, that's just wrong. First, the opportunity is not a driving force. It's taking[i] the opportunity that drives things. It is "being unbiased" because it [i]does not judge, as you have - all participants to be swine for your slaughter. It facilitates each to find what they can in the system if they so choose. I don't think my perspective is particularly biased - as I'm simply looking at it from a "system of distribution" perspective, without the judgement you've applied.

But let's play Freud on you.

I doubt you're skilled enough, but feel free to try.

Do you have assumption about the social world?

You'll have to be more specific if you want an answer.

Do you encounter "data" in every day life?

I encounter anicdotal (mispelled I'm sure) evidence in every day life.

Can we consider your insistence on the onlyness of the most natural order Universe ever knew as a result of "feelings" on your part?

You could if you like, but it's really the result of my studies in industrial engineering and philosophy. Surely there are feelings associated with them, but given that I used to consider myself a socialist and that via an attempt at a rational analysis of systems over time and my increased comprehension thereof given my education - I do not think it would be a fair characterizaiton to summarize my reaction to what I see as your fundamentally flawed, dogmatic position as either "insistence" or "the onlyness of the most natural order blah blah". But a rebuttal intended to expose what I percieve as significant flaws in reasoning and a negative attitude on your part. In case you're not so english oriented, or too narrow minded to open your brain "attitude" is not something from an inspirational poster. It is a general propensity to see things one way or another regarding a particular topic, or "life in general". As it is easy to see, regarding economic systems like "capitalism" leave you in a bitter flurry of seething disgust.

... to be continued.

[Tnerb]

this is a high dollar thread.

[madanthonywayne]

Currency:
There is no money in nature. Hence capitalism is not natural, since capitalism depends on exchanging a currency.
Perhaps the point was that capitalism is in line with the nature of man, not animals.

Not to mention that your point regarding there being no competition between members of the same species is patently absurd. Practically every species that reproduces sexually involves males competing for mates. Be it rams butting heads or peacocks showing off their tails. Monkeys and even merecats fight wars over territory.

Nature is chuck full of competition. Survival of the fittest is the engine that drives evolution, and capitalism.

[Oli]

Competition: Members of a species are mostly not in a direct competition with each other.
Members of the same species are that species' largest competitor for food.

[wesmorris]

How come you've got that kind of "feelings"?

Your question is moot given that its source was appropriately dismantled.

Is that because you've made it to a certain perch and seeking "legitimation/consecration" of such an achievement?

Why, what a pompous assumption. Working to help people with their computer problems and manage the petty quality and computer issues of a small manufacturing company is hardly much of a "perch" in the way you seem to mean it. Neither would I have a need to legitimize nor consecrate that which I already have. I have had all the shit jobs though, and do prefer my current scenario to some that I've had prior. I have no shame however, in any of it. I worked for it and made some decent decisions.

You, not some dirty tomato picker, got there.

Why would you begrudge a tomato picker? Why would you call him "dirty" other than he has to work with dirt? It is YOU putting him down, not I.

Which is a proof of you fitting in the "natural order of things", being chosen by Providence, being fitter, being better, etc.

So now you presume that since I feel that I make a fair wage for the services I provide, this is somehow evidence that I am elitist? Lol. Looks like my doubts as to your skill in the "freudian" regard were extremely well founded. It's important to recognize where your skills lie. Perhaps this is the reason for your failure.

Glory to Wes, the anointed.

Sheez thanks, but I don't see anyone annointing me. Do you? Can you point me in their direction?

Naturall, every loser questioning the ladder is indirectly questioning your being "....er".

LOL. It's pathetic that you're serious. Please feel free to question my "annointedness" all day long. I could give a crap. If you want to talk to my employer about offering the services I provide for a more reasonable rate, please do so. If you're the better man and can work for cheaper than I, I'll gladly step out of the way and find something else to do. Your retarded comprehensive abilities lead me to believe that I won't have to bother. If you're going to play this game, it helps if you have a clue - Mr. Phd.

Naturally, the only explanation of one questioning the ladder is that he's envious lowlife from lower perches.

No, it could just be that he doesn't understand. It could be that his world view is shallow and petty and for some retarded reason he thinks someone owes him something when he has done nothing of value in exchange for what he wants. It could be that he was indoctrinated as a child by communists who tout the social and economic injustices of all the piggies at the trough who should die for their wanton quest for more slurry. It could be that the person just doesn't understand much. It could be that no one has taken the time to explain anything to them. It could be that the person doesn't really want the responsiblity that comes with "moving up the ladder", and is making excuses to avoid it. It could be, well.. lots of stuff.

It's funny how you assume everyone must necessarily be jealous of those with lots of stuff. Project much? I like big, sweet houses with pools and blah shit lots oh stuff I guess - but that's a lot of crap to take care of and keep track of. I'm pretty much ok with what I have for now (could use better vehicles and no student loans - but that I have loans and crappy vehicles is my responsiblity). I do not envy those with great responsiblity, and I am disgusted by those who have it and abuse it. I am impressed however by those who take it to heart and have the sack to make difficult decisions.

Who wouldn't want to be as high on a perch as you are?

Lol. How stupid are you? How "high on the perch" do you think I am? Why, for chrissake, would you presume I think myself "high on the perch" and further, why would you presume that I consider those who do not occupy my particular perch to be "unhigh"? Power kind of makes me sick. I do not lust for it nor really desire it much at all. I'm a collaberator. I like to work with people and for them. I like to help out. I like to be compensated for doing so and usually ask for less than I could because I don't like putting people out. Maybe you could talk to my boss for me though. He probably doesn't realize how high my perch is supposed to be and since you have it all figured out, I'm sure you could straighten him out.

Lol. Loser.

Oh my, I just realized that if I were who you claim to be - since you are a doctor and all, I should be kissing your ass because you're more annointed than me. Damn. Sorry sir.

Lol.

*sigh*

Who wouldn't want to be such a illustruous.

So is your phd one of those mail order jobs or something? Sheez you don't seem very sharp for a "doctor". *sigh* Okay, maybe you've got math skills or something. Understanding people is definately NOT your bag.

But, they can't, because you are "...er", so the only remedy for them is to drow in their envy and to bark on the wonderful edifice built specifically to reward such Blue eyed Arians as you. How was my Freud?

Stinking pathetic. A really, really poor go. You probably still want to be paid though, for offering basically nothing of value - right? Lol. Dumbass. *snort* Sorry it cracks me up that you seem to find yourself insightful.

Seeing a billionaire's yacht, seeing enourmous material riches in the West, seeing opportunities for carriers of the right attitude to suck one's ass up the corporate ladder vs. seeing sweatshops, ghettos, dog eat dog world ruled by brain manipulations, etc.

I forget, have you even been here? Are you so sure you're not just makign shit up to bitch about from the stuff you've seen on TV? "ruled by brain manipulations"? Lol.

Here's a theory for you, I'm sure you'll dig this one: If you're dumbass enough to be manipulated by posters and shit on the wall at your work - then you fucking deserve to be manipulated by posters and shit at your work.

As I said, I'm biased.

Which renders you entirely without point in this "debate" (courtique of your lacking comprehensive ability).

I never pretended to be unbiased. Neither should you.

I can pretend to be whatever I like - but I'm not pretending here (besides the part about kissing your ass). I am very biased against negative nancies begging for handouts and offering nothign in return, and then bitching about how they got nothing. I'm biased against assholes posing as intelligent philosophers and touting nothing but dogmatic rejection of a system they don't seem to understand in the slightest. I'm biased against people who judge people as pigs without ever really trying to understand where they're coming from, or the function they serve. I biased against people whose analysis of function incessantly resorts to labelling the participants as swine who do nothign but compete for swill.

I think you're a jackass - but I'll give you this: It takes one to know one.

Didn't look that way.

With your head so far up your ass, how would YOU know?

In nature, every bison can stand, eat grass, drink water without paying up to those up the bison's ladder.

Incorrect.

The bison had to stay away from the cheetahs long enough to do so. That's about all there is to the bison's ladder as far as I know. There's probably more to it which you're ignoring, but maybe not. Here's a clue: Human society and that which they want exceeds that of bison for the most part, as we can note by your seething jealousy of boat owners.

In the capitalist nature, that's absolutely impossible.

Untrue. There are places to go if you're hungry. Or if you'd like you're free to stand around in most public places and eat grass.

Soon, we'll be charged for the right to breathe.

*sigh* Right.

BTW, that's Adam Smith's works inspired Darwin, not vice versa.

And I've stated something to the contrary?

I.e. humans ideas on economics were transplanted on the nature.

Sheez I wonder why. Could you guess for me?

In reality, Nature is not all about competition for resources. It's also about symbiont coexistence.

Ah, and you see how we capitalists are killing our neighbors to take their shit... every single one of us. I killed two of my neighbors today because their boats were bigger than mine. I stole his sweet ass mower too. *sigh* So of course you're SO right. Idiot.

Nature is not about suicide, nature is not about hooking up one THIRD of all squirrels on Prozac

Lol. Squirrels on prozac.

So no other species can commit suicide or take drugs? Hmm.. I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'm pretty sure people are part of nature... so at least part of nature takes prozac and kills themselves.

, nature is not about consumption beyond one's physical needs,

Lol. OH? And since it can be done, you are offended by it because you have not been allowed to consume as much as you like? I thought you despised that? Oh, and who the fuck are you to say what nature is about? It would appear that the existence of humans, at least in some cases - contradicts what you tout as "nature".

nature is not about a sparrow claiming rights on 10000 grains while the rest 1000 of sparrows enjoy 100 grains,

No, in nature no animals defend their territory (and thereby the resources available on it). Surely not. :rolleyes: None kill for sport, none brutalize each other. None take what is not theirs, blah blah you idealistic ... person who is really silly and idealistic.

Nature is not about a sparrow using 10000 grains it has to put to work 1000 sparrows so that they could bring 10000 grains more to the master.

You see, sparrows cannot communicate to organize such efforts. If they could, can you be sure you wouldn't be completely contradicted?

Use your fucking brain for chrissake.

Competition aside, there is little "natural" about capitalism.

Lol, so you tell yourself to justify all that which you "feel" to the core of your being.

What does it mean fundamentally capitalist?

That in all systems where demand exists (that is, a sense of need), there is competition for resources, and finite supply thereof (which in some cases is 'virtually' infinite). All factors can have a very wide range. Competition can be very simplistic or seemingly non-existent, but under the systematic view - still exists. For instance if 10 bison are drinking from a pool than can accomodate 1000 - the competition for the resource will be seemingly non-existent because the supply is "virtually infiinite". Put 10,000 bison there and you'll see competition indeed, if nothing more than "who got there first". And those without suffer until they, by their desire - find another pool to use or die. What assholes for wanting to survive. I hate bison. Lol. I don't really.

People are using money for exchange of goods, I guess :)?

No.

But let's assume, it is.

No, let's not. Since you did, I'll respond anyway.

So what? Evolve or die off.

Pretty much. Adapt or die. In human systems though, this is not really the case. There are social systems in most "modern" societies that support people who fail to adapt. Those who adapt, succeed. Go figure. One of the cool things is that you can seek what you want if you're so inclined. You can also whine and moan all you like if you don't get it. You might not however, be very happy if you choose to do nothing but that. Such is the repurcussion of your choices that you pretend you shouldn't have to deal with. Poor you. Hell you can even ask for help if you don't adapt well, and often times you'll find it! No no wait, you can't because you said nature nor capitalism don't work that way. Poor you again I suppose. Too bad. You want to destroy the system because you can't adapt to it in a way that gets you what you want. Of course you're free to try. You don't really have to, but perhaps that's just your function. The system will eventually crash itself down, to be rebuilt and crash and rebuilt and crash. Such is the nature of systems like it, regardless of the label we choose to put on it.

Isn't that "natural" too? Extrapolate current social, economic, human trends into the intermediate future. If you are not going to lie to yourself, there is little there but gloom and possibly doom.

? The future is unknown, and there is as much a possiblity of great wonders as gloom and doom, but I understand your propensity for the negative. Your attitude is shit, so the world reflects itself that way in your mind.

As I said, there is little natural about capitalism.

Which is of course, just wrong.

Just before capitalism, feudalism was "natural" and kings were ordained by God. Before feudalism, Roman senators were as "natural and divinely ordained" as their American counterparts. "Natural", "genetic" are substitutes of a phrase "divinely ordained" for the modern age. The same as appeals to the divine, they are called to legitimate whatever is needed with "higher powers".

As I've said before "without bullshit to bind us in purpose - we'd be extinct". The bullshit is always there, and there have always been some people who have seen through it. It's just that it used to be okay to kill them, and now you have to do it all secret like to get away with it. As if any economic system keeps that shit from happening. fuedalism, kings, blah blah were all the evil corporate asshats of today (and there are some that are not evil) who are trying to hang onto their station as they see it. I do not blame them for it, nor do I blame the peasants for revolting when the momentum of circumstance allows it.

As far as I remember, first, you've claimed that the Goddess will make it right and give each according to his efforts.

No, you just read it that way because apparently that's what you think I must think. It must be the only thing that can possibily make sense to you as you project your negativity onto my perspective. I think there is no goddess. I think there is a system in which individuals make decisions regarding what they think they need, and what actions they take to get it.

And if everybody will love Goddess with all heart and soul, then life will be comfortable and meaningful for everyone involved in the worship. Later on, you've redefined the meaning of "comfortable" as a function of one's blessings; effectively saying that, "even a penniless bum can be comfortable under the auspices of the Goddess, if he'll share the space around a heating pipe with another bum(s)". And now, you seems renegade to the phrase "to each his own" written above the entrance of a nazi death camp. Remarkable evolution, I must say fluidity, of thoughts. Mania of grandeur and "to each his own" look well matched though. Stick with this one.

Blah blah blah. Tell yourself what you must.

[wesmorris]

Survival of the fittest is the engine that drives evolution, and capitalism.

This was the intended point.

[spuriousmonkey]

You are all worse than a bunch of creationists. Sad fucks who use a raped version of biology to propagate your political views.

[dixonmassey]

Why, what a pompous assumption. Working to help people with their computer problems and manage the petty quality and computer issues of a small manufacturing company is hardly much of a "perch" in the way you seem to mean it. Neither would I have a need to legitimize nor consecrate that which I already have. I have had all the shit jobs though, and do prefer my current scenario to some that I've had prior. I have no shame however, in any of it. I worked for it and made some decent decisions.

that's not the absolute height of a perch that counts, that's the fact of you placing yourself above all those dirty tomato pickers and minimum wage slobs that counts.

people have maniacal need to feel themself superior to some other group/person. One doesn't need to become a megamillionaire to do so. For some the white color of their skins is all that's needed; for others, them not living in a trailer park is enough, and so on. For you, being schooled in industrial engineering and self-schooled in philosophy to uncover all those misteries of Universe seems is enough.

[dixonmassey]

Why would you begrudge a tomato picker? Why would you call him "dirty" other than he has to work with dirt? It is YOU putting him down, not I.
I've just summarized your open and implied attitudes dispersed around this thread.

So now you presume that since I feel that I make a fair wage for the services I provide, this is somehow evidence that I am elitist? Lol.

You deny lower ones the same feeling. After all, invisible hand distributed fair wages for services rendered throughout the ladder and only such educated and superior guys like you can live fairly on their wage. Those who don't feel fairness shall climb up the piramide and try to dislodge such superior guys, if they can, or they shall redefine their ideas about fairness. Obviously, there is not a shred of elitism about this attitude.


Looks like my doubts as to your skill in the "freudian" regard were extremely well founded. It's important to recognize where your skills lie. Perhaps this is the reason for your failure.
Continuous bringing up "failure", "your intellectual superiority", "my inferiority" and pompous crap like that is totally irrelevant to the subject of minimum wage, it doesn't make your argument any stronger, it doesn't bother me (I really have thick, thick skin, my Dear). All it does is to satisfy your thirst for the "higher" position on a "perch", be it real or virtual. Enjoy. Not even in my dreams, I've expected to overshadow your highness on the Freudian field.

Sheez thanks, but I don't see anyone annointing me. Do you? Can you point me in their direction?
Invisible hand, "natural" order of things, your superior comprehensive abilities/genes, and all that valuable knowledge, no tomato picker can imagine, that you've absorbed.

Please feel free to question my "annointedness" all day long. I could give a crap. If you want to talk to my employer about offering the services I provide for a more reasonable rate, please do so. If you're the better man and can work for cheaper than I, I'll gladly step out of the way and find something else to do.

How could earth worm like me overshadow your anointed highness in the front of your employer? That's impossible cause you are such a superior guy, chosen by Providence among millions upon millions of losers to be where you are now.

Your retarded comprehensive abilities lead me to believe that I won't have to bother. If you're going to play this game, it helps if you have a clue - Mr. Phd.
If one will delete pompous crap, insults, verbosity from your posts, too little will be left to comprehend. Even such a lowly being as me could get it. "I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself". Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought?

“ Naturally, the only explanation of one questioning the ladder is that he's envious lowlife from lower perches. ”

No, it could just be that he doesn't understand. It could be that his world view is shallow and petty

truly, only shallow folks can't see all your greatness perfectly built in the great natural scheme of things. Since you don't even allow the thought that people above you on the perch of life could be "shallow and petty", that's petty lowlife from below don't see all your splendour and is drowning in envy.

and for some retarded reason he thinks someone owes him something when he has done nothing of value in exchange for what he wants.
that's your retarded, sucked of arse presumption. Only lowllife from below could want something for nothing, isn't it?

It could be that he was indoctrinated as a child by communists who tout the social and economic injustices of all the piggies at the trough who should die for their wanton quest for more slurry.
Contrary to what movies about Rembo imply, communist indoctrination was extremely ineffective. Commie countries were not run by the brain manipulations, PR campains, etc. they were run by the rude, clearcut force. That's in the Western neo totalitarian states, propaganda and brainwashing have risen to the unbelievable heights of efficiency and totality.

It could be that the person just doesn't understand much.

Obviously, uderstanding is reserved only for the guys who happened to shares your social darwinistic views. Clinical case of the maniacal mania of grandeur.

It could be that no one has taken the time to explain anything to them.

Poorly hidden mania of grandeur. You've figured it out, haven't you? Discovered a tree of wisdom somewhere and sucked it dry? Societies are not rational entities to be explained, great deal of "feelings" is required to make a judgement.

It could be that the person doesn't really want the responsiblity that comes with "moving up the ladder", and is making excuses to avoid it.
If you are not completely brain dead yet, you would notice that moving up the ladder is a great way to avoid responsibility. Actually, great deal of working time of "responsible" ones is spent on covering their arses by any means necessary. Thankfully, the higher one is up, the more "arse covering" means he has.

[wesmorris]

I've just summarized your open and implied attitudes dispersed around this thread.

But you do nothing to support your summarization. You didn't quote me once. If this is what you take from my words, then perhaps there is an impossible gap of relation between us. Of course I attribute this to the fact that you have dehumanized anyone who would remotely attempt to support capitalism, as I've explained above.

You deny lower ones the same feeling.

You simply can't support that assertion. You're making shit up.

After all, invisible hand distributed fair wages for services rendered throughout the ladder and only such educated and superior guys like you can live fairly on their wage.

You miss the part where I explained that above in a manner that precludes this? There is no invisible hand. If you take a job, you've decided the wage is fair. Your personal expenses can vary greatly dependent upon your choices and that which you desire. You may have to find a way to get a higher paying job or start a business if you don't think you make enough money. How complicated is that?

Those who don't feel fairness shall climb up the piramide and try to dislodge such superior guys, if they can, or they shall redefine their ideas about fairness. Obviously, there is not a shred of elitism about this attitude.
It's not an attitude. It's a statement of how things are. If it were an attitude I'd be constantly referring to how great it is or how badly is sucks.

Continuous bringing up "failure", "your intellectual superiority", "my inferiority" and pompous crap like that is totally irrelevant to the subject of minimum wage, it doesn't make your argument any stronger, it doesn't bother me (I really have thick, thick skin, my Dear).

I have no interest in your skin. I have interest in why you think as you do. I've told you repeatedly I think it's because you see yourself as a failure. How I think of you in that regard is irrelevant. How I think of you doesn't directly impact how you see everything in your world. That you are pissed off because you think you've gotten a raw deal is what makes your perception of your own success or failure relevant.

All it does is to satisfy your thirst for the "higher" position on a "perch", be it real or virtual.

As is typical of our exchange, you completely miss the point.

Enjoy. Not even in my dreams, I've expected to overshadow your highness on the Freudian field.

Lol. Why not? It's always possible. I guessed however, that you'd be way way off. Perhaps it's just my denial? The thing is I know me pretty well, and I know that if I am better or worse than you at whatever - I don't feel inferior or superior as a person. I don't believe that a particular staged contest or its outcome to define my entire existence.

I also feel like I'm pretty good at understanding mind and humanity in general, at least to some extent. My anicdotal evidence has led me to think this is most likely true. If I have a "bag", that's probably part of it. Blah blah. That I told you before that because I may be better at comprehending one subject than you, or that you may be better than me at a particular thing - doesn't relegate either to "lesser" or "greater" as a person.

But: if it's a "delusion of granduer", let's expose it. Please feel free. You're missing so far, but maybe you'll get around to it.

Invisible hand, "natural" order of things, your superior comprehensive abilities/genes, and all that valuable knowledge, no tomato picker can imagine, that you've absorbed.

What I think I understand how little to do with your incessant demeaning of the social status of a tomato picker.

How could earth worm like me overshadow your anointed highness in the front of your employer?

Who said you were an earthworm? Do you think I mean it if I insult you? I don't have a clue who you are. I have a clue as to the words you've spewed on this board and I insult the words. You are an earthworm for skewing things to some degree where I'm "annointed" in some capacity.

That's impossible cause you are such a superior guy, chosen by Providence among millions upon millions of losers to be where you are now.

Lol. By that reasonng everyone is chosen to be where they are right now - including yourself and the guy with the boat you seem to covet.

If one will delete pompous crap, insults, verbosity from your posts, too little will be left to comprehend. Even such a lowly being as me could get it.

Then why bother? Asserting some annointedness of your own? By your reasoning that is the only possible reason right?

"I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself". Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought?

No, FOOL. This is why it's sad that you're so bitter. You skew skew skew to the bad bad bad. Let's examine the statement and modify it to what has actually been said, rather than the twisted perspective your feelings demand of it:

"I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself".

For the moment, I have a little bit of stuff. I can almost support my family comfortably. If you don't have any stuff yet - we should probably brainstorm to figure out how to help you get yours. How much stuff do you want anyway? Blah blah, anlaysis and problem solving.

Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought?

Because that's not the thought, it's how you paint the thought to justify your dehumanization of swine and their offensive swill seekage. It's because your "feeling to the core of your being" makes it goddamned near impossible to get through to you about any of this. Your disgust is thicker than your skin and makes communicating with you virtually impossible.

I've spewed thousands of words yet still you've apparently understood none of them.

[wesmorris]

And I should note: You've done nothing but denigrate a system, offering no support of a viable alternative nor reasons that it is a more efficient or "humane" system.

[wesmorris]

You are all worse than a bunch of creationists. Sad fucks who use a raped version of biology to propagate your political views.

Well then doctor monkey, you sad fuck - why don't you and your bloated knowledge of the "real" biology - poke holes in the reasoning rather than like your compatriot, attempting to dehumanize people for holding a view that you find so despicable.

Are you really taking yourself seriously? I think you're just venting. This is a good place for that.

Rail on me then monkey man. Make me your sciforums sacrificial capitalist pig.

[wesmorris]

Point of fact for my newfound commie friend:

Capitalism is not the source of your apparent lack of happiness or satisfaction.

YOU ARE.

You'd be just as miserable wealthy, or as the leader of the Communistic Republic of America (once you've killed all the swine).

I have attacked you repeatedly because bitches who whine and moan about the doom and gloom they forsee all have the same problem: they refuse to deal with their problems and instead attempt to make it someone else's.

So from the kindness of my heart - and my general annoyance with whiners such as yourself, I have attempted to expose your problem for you.

You have clearly demonstrated that you're irrational and have no real basis for you complaints about capitalism besides your "feelings" and twist any evidence you encounter to support your feelings, rather than attempt to determine if your "feelings" are misplaced or well-founded. You simply presume them indisputable, and dehumanize anyone who threatens them such that you don't have to bother to sort them out.

You have thusly decided that the problem is not yours, but mine since I've challenged you on them and repeatedly insulted them.

(which kind of demonstrates my point)

I'm sure you'll find comfort in resigning me to the status of an unfeeling pig with a "Clinical case of the maniacal mania of grandeur" and a bloodlust for swill.

*sigh*

Best of luck to you.

[zanket]

Do these idiots actually think they would be helping ANYBODY by raising minimum wage? Simple economics shows that if something, say labor, costs more; you buy less of it. So a mandatory increase in minimum wage would simply result in fewer jobs.

What brilliant logic! Why didn't I think of it? More jobs = good. Less jobs = bad. It's so simple! Sweatshops? Good! Republicans are smart!

[wesmorris]

Oh, how doubly brilliant to presume that any low paying job qualifies as "working in a sweatshop".

Please go on. I'll take notes and try to soak up some of your obvious superiority - in vain I'm sure.

I should learn to accept my lowly station.

Oh and it's doubly DOUBLY brilliant to correlate political affiliation and intellect.

*is amazed*

[zanket]

OK, if you insist... We had legal sweatshops in the US before the minimum wage law. Afterwards we did not, and now anyone who has so much as a green card can easily get a job making the minimum wage; there is no shortage of those jobs despite the minimum wage law.

Given how long it has been since the last raise, were the minimum wage raised a dollar then almost certainly anyone who has so much as a green card could still easily get a job making that wage. And then that raise would trickle up to the middle class. (Trickle up works, trickle down does not.) The standard of living of the masses would increase at the expense of the few who already have more than enough. Some businesses that heavily depend on foreign buyers would be hurt, but most of the rest would be okay because their competition would be paying the same higher wage.

Is it dumb to continuously shoot yourself? If so, then Republicans are indeed dumb. (The voters that is. The politicians who play them are smart.)

[dixonmassey]

But you do nothing to support your summarization. You didn't quote me once.
Let's say I'm too lazy to pull out “trigger” sentences/words to prove something. That's my general impressions. It's not a science paper to cite a luminary to justify my impressions. If you insist, I can pull few of those up.

If this is what you take from my words, then perhaps there is an impossible gap of relation between us. Of course I attribute this to the fact that you have dehumanized anyone who would remotely attempt to support capitalism, as I've explained above.
The above accusation of “dehumanization” coming from you sounds otherworldly. It's just the same as being scolded by Jack the Ripper for hitting a deer. You write a rare sentence without questioning my sanity, mental adequacy, successfulness, bitterness for having the views I have. I guess those things are not included in the

“ You deny lower ones the same feeling. ”
You simply can't support that assertion. You're making shit up.

Yes, I can support that assertion, if I'll raise my head above the personal trough and look on the system as whole (that includes other countries). By sanctifying pyramidal, hierarchical structure as the only “natural” you “bless” a large chunk of the “unfit to rise” to be on the dead bottom. Generously, you redefine their level of comfort as being able to share a roach infested room in slums and to split a bowl of rice once in a while. But you are too generous, real world isn't. It doesn't matter, if there is a negligible probability for one to diffuse from the bottom to top/middle. Most will never diffuse. That's impossible in principle. Bottom is not a bunch of CEOs and lawyers working their way through law schools. Bottom is fairly permanent for all practical purposes. That's statistics. Otherwise, the human pyramid would be too unstable for the mighty (and middle) ones to enjoy the life more or less peacefully. One gets to the top (or in the middle) to stay there, not to share space with upstarts or, Hell forbid, fall down.

The purer capitalism the more permanent and broader is its bottom. That's the basic instinct of the Pyramid – maximization of the profit flowing to the top, which demands as broad bottom as possible. Average westerners are enjoying a status of world's working aristocracy (subdivided within itself into super aristocracy and plebeians). That's status was fought for by the previous generations, not given by the kindness of the invisible hand (2 WW helped a lot too). Mistakingly, you think about the bottom as a ghetto/trailer parks where poor black/white folks live by on welfare, minimum wage jobs and drug sales. But that's not the right place to look, dear. That's not capitalism with its natural Hollywood grin. That's Neo Roman plebeians held in check by combination of the rude force, welfare, “mass cult”, etc.. As the Roman Aristocracy, American one doesn't have use for the great many of the citizens of Empire. Slave labor is cheaper elsewhere, or it can be brought in. You shall look into Latin American, Asian slums, where super exploitation was exported, to see the real beauty. Those slums will come here sooner or later. If that's too far too look at, you could give a fuck to learn the history of your own country.

There is no a shred of the historical evidence to support “if everybody will run hard, everybody will have a comfortable existence in a pyramid” crap, unless one will apply your “bulletproof” Jesuitical redefinition of the word “comfortable”. Then, even Hoovervilles and sharecropping, or even slavery were not so bad. I even will not touch the vast subject of “not by the bread alone”.

You never have applied your superior knowledge of the human nature and industrial engineering to the beloved Pyramid. Allah forgive, I don't call you to refute its naturalism and superiority. But at least you could give a minuscule thought about how it's being built and maintained. Is it sheer self-organization or it has elements of “creative design”? If it has elements of creative design, who're designers and major benefactors? If it's being designed anyway, why it's so blasphemous to ask to consider interests of those at the bottom, while considering interests of those on the top seems to be a must?


You miss the part where I explained that above in a manner that precludes this? There is no invisible hand. If you take a job, you've decided the wage is fair.
Or, you want to eat and sleep under a roof not under the stars.

Your personal expenses can vary greatly dependent upon your choices and that which you desire. You may have to find a way to get a higher paying job or start a business if you don't think you make enough money. How complicated is that?

It's incredible complicated for your creed, who seems is incapable to raise the head and look around systematically. It's not about a small probability of one is moving up, it's about absolute improbability of significant number of the people moving up. It's about NOT accepting a small carrot of probability of the personal “tunnelling” as a substitute for the decent (in the common understanding of the word) existence bought with one's labor. Was legal “tunneling” of a slave to the freedom possible 150 years back? Hell, yes, it was (for the right kind of a slave). There is nothing sacred about slavery, there is nothing sacred about its modern wage modification.

It's not an attitude. It's a statement of how things are. If it were an attitude I'd be constantly referring to how great it is or how badly is sucks.
Is questioning my sanity and bitterness in every other sentence equivalent to “statement of how things are” or that questioning involves a little bit of the certain kind of attitude?


I have no interest in your skin. I have interest in why you think as you do. I've told you repeatedly I think it's because you see yourself as a failure. How I think of you in that regard is irrelevant.
I don't give a fuck why you think as you do, even though I have my suspicions, but they are irrelevant. All I want is an argument. So far, all I get is “appeal to the divine (natural) + pointing to the half full trough you&Co enjoy + questioning my bitterness and sanity.” Questioning bitterness, loserness, sanity of everyone questioning the status quo, isn't that as old as Rome (at least)? Be more inventive.

How I think of you doesn't directly impact how you see everything in your world. That you are pissed off because you think you've gotten a raw deal is what makes your perception of your own success or failure relevant.

You beamed nano probes under my skull to judge? Or you've placed yourself in my shoes (the size/kind of which is quite unknown) and made a judgment for yourself? Try the third option, “there is NO natural law connecting univocally the fullness of a trough, one enjoys, with the kind of the thoughts one has.” I know, it's incomprehensible for you, but just accept it as a postulate. Add one more to your collection. Or maybe this will help, imagine yourself losing a job (I know you'll be the last one to leave the board) and finding no other for long time. Imagine me winning a lottery :). Imagine us barking on the subject of the minimum wage after that. What would change on your part?


As is typical of our exchange, you completely miss the point.
Missing the point is rather a rule than an exception among “Freudian” crowd. If I missed it, I did just as an average professional in the field, except that I didn't charge $100/hr for my “revelations.”

Not even in my dreams, I've expected to overshadow your highness on the Freudian field.
Lol. Why not? It's always possible.
Because, obviously, I don't value it as much (if at all) as you do. I understand you need that shit, Without poor ole Freud your argumentative powers would shrink N fold. Without appeal to the natural order of things – almost nothing would be left.

The thing is I know me pretty well, and I know that if I am better or worse than you at whatever - I don't feel inferior or superior as a person. I don't believe that a particular staged contest or its outcome to define my entire existence.

Let's assume you are walking on a street and see (really) hungry man begging for food/change, you just walk by while staffing a fat piece of something inside of your mouth and thinking, “gee, I don't feel superior or inferior to that man. I don't believe that a particular staged contest or its outcome to define my entire existence. Am I a good guy or what?” Actually it does define a lot in the world you live.

I also feel like I'm pretty good at understanding mind and humanity in general, at least to some extent.
I never doubted that you've partaked of the fruits of the Universal wisdom tree. You've just forgotten to “regurgitate” few thousands times to split large pieces of the premanufactured knowledge into smaller, less obvious pieces.


What I think I understand how little to do with your incessant demeaning of the social status of a tomato picker.
Is it humanely possible to demean the social status a laborer “clearing” $1-2K/year and frequently living in dug outs hidden from the “cultured” public like you? The young offspring of the cultured ones may kill/beat to selfactualize. Glorious free market on both sides of the border did demeaning, not me.

You are an earthworm for skewing things to some degree where I'm "annointed" in some capacity.
I could be skewing things. However, you anointing yourself in the center of the absolute Truth is kind of funny. You do have a thing or two with mania of grandeur. Have you ever tried Freud on yourself?


Lol. By that reasonng everyone is chosen to be where they are right now - including yourself
Being CHOSEN to be where YOU are is all that counts. The tonnes of losers chosen for the lower perches of life just underline your highness. Sure, you are not as high as BG but high enough to feel gooood. Losers from below rarely think that they are chosen to be where they are. They rather trained to perceive their place as a punishment by sweet baby Jesus. Remember, that's having somebody below on the perch is important, the absolute height of a perch is important too, but not as nearly as much.

and the guy with the boat you seem to covet.
Don't transplant your subconscious desires on me. I don't covet things of the rich per se. I really need 180 degrees lobotomy to even imagine me wanting a yaht and all the extravagant stuff rich folks pleasure themselves with. That's why I'll never be rich :)


“ "I've got mine, screw you/everybody, who didn't get his, because you've called it upon yourself". Why would you need thousands of words to express such a deep thought? ”
No, FOOL. This is why it's sad that you're so bitter. You skew skew skew to the bad bad bad. Let's examine the statement and modify it to what has actually been said, rather than the twisted perspective your feelings demand of it:
That's not skew, that's condensed summary of your posts. And it's rather closer to the truth than not. I don't pretend on the absolute truth though. Since it's absolute, and since you've figured it out already, I deduct that whatever I'll come out with cannot be an absolute truth unless its mimicking your precious revelations and pondering.

For the moment, I have a little bit of stuff. I can almost support my family comfortably. If you don't have any stuff yet - we should probably brainstorm to figure out how to help you get yours.
It's not about my stuff. It's not about your stuff. It's about looking above the personal trough and stop being a little rat (at least in one thoughts, it will hurt not be a rat in practice). There is fairly fixed (buy constantly increasing) number of non living wage jobs. You being a successful rat and getting stuff just means that somebody else will fall down the ladder. Conservation of the human mass (it's not as exact as conservation of the material mass, but it's fairly adequate in the absence of “booms” and busts). Even freaking rats are social animals. You propose to turn into an asocial rat, plan and run, run to get goodies. Why it's such a blasphemy to look at the pyramid making us to run harder and harder for less and less so that those on top would have more and more? I can't get it. You have a more or less decent chance to run and bring stuff largely because rats in the previous generations didn't consider themselves “independent” runners. Besides, the pyramid you are running in is a colossus built on sand. You running hard won't mend that.

. Because that's not the thought, it's how you paint the thought to justify your dehumanization of swine and their offensive swill seekage. It's because your "feeling to the core of your being" makes it goddamned near impossible to get through to you about any of this. Your disgust is thicker than your skin and makes communicating with you virtually impossible.
Why exactly me writing about swill is dehumanizing, while the Pyramid forcing large chunk of people to behave like swine in a feedlot is nearly PERFECT?
One needs thousands of pages and years and years of research to describe a society in all its “non dehumanizing” fullness. Obviously, I'm lacking time, desire and brain to give complete humanizing account of the people running in the dehumanizing conditions. However, allegories are never intended to be 100% or even 70% reflection of the object. They are just broad generalizations of human conduct and experiences called to underline the most unattractive features of the “object”. You don't see any value in satire too, I guess. I don't see many flaws with “pig in a feedlot” allegory. It highlights many of the unattractive sides of the consumerist societies guided by masters, who diligently “preoccupy” the pigs with race to the trough, for the pig not to pay attention to the true purpose, true masters and true benefactors of a feedlot (and Allah forbid a pig to think about the broad ramifications of its being fed on a feedlot).

[wesmorris]

"Why exactly me writing about swill is dehumanizing, while the Pyramid forcing large chunk of people to behave like swine"

No, not circular at all.

I already explained above. When you refer to people as pigs, you don't have to consider their humanity, because they're pigs - to be slaughtered for your benefit. It places you above them, in exact contradictions to the claims you make about how you feel about your station.

[wesmorris]

Your obsession with "the ladder" and a "pyramid" is based in myths and artifacts of ego, or materialism.

The fact is that organization have leaders, blah blah blah. When people group up to perform some task (like run a business or church or whatever), a "pyramid" is formed to keep the organization... well, organized. This is just a fact of life, that when groups form, leaders emerge, etc.

Those who lust for power or whatever will necessarily seek out those leadership positions, blah blah whatever.

The leaders are generally provided some sort of economic reward so to speak such that they are compelled in numerous ways to whatever on behalf of the organization, and such that they recognize the "gratitude" of the organization for their efforts. Blah blah whatever.

The issue is though, that any person can play a part on any number of pyramids, each with its own set of circumstances.

The illusion is: None of them are real except in the minds of those involved. The pyramid is wholly dependent on the participants.

Most people seem to tend to buy the illusion as reality because the consequences of the actions of the people involved are real. They are so real to most that some of them start thinking that their notch on the ladder reflects some form of absolute superiority over those who haven't climbed as high on the ladder that matters to them. This is a simple psychological trick that people use to justify their actions - to relieve them from their conscience. Whatever they have to tell themselves to maintain their sense of identity. It could be for instance, that the economic rewards for their place in the ladder instills a sense of urgency in their psyche that demands them to act against their conscience - creating cognitave dissonance which rationalizations like "i'm better than them" can stave off so long as they remain unexplored.

In reality, there are people, being people. Each person has a dynamic set of skills and some talent their are prone to. They will generally exceed each other on a variety of tasks. I'm better at guitar, you're better at chess, blah blah that kind of thing. Whatever, it's just a bunch of individuals living out their circumstance and reacting in whatever way. The pyramid only exists in their minds, but is put there as a consequence of reality. Blah blah. Organizations blah blah as above, and circumstance blah blah. When people get together to do something of purpose, some form of heirarchy emerges as the talents/skills emerge in the perceptions of the individuals involved.

Indeed, it's perfectly natural.

[wesmorris]

... and inevitable.

[spuriousmonkey]

The issue is though, that any person can play a part on any number of pyramids, each with its own set of circumstances.

http://vnuuk.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sweatshop_mumbai.jpeg
Please Sir, I want to be CEO of Ford. Please Sir, let me play a part on the top of the Ford pyramid.

[wesmorris]

So from "any number of pyramids" you presume that "any pyramid" is what was intended to be said, or somehow find that since only one person can be the CEO of ford - and it's not these guys, that's somehow dissapointing to you?

[wesmorris]

Your obsession with "the ladder" and a "pyramid" is based in myths and artifacts of ego, or materialism.

The fact is that organization have leaders, blah blah blah. When people group up to perform some task (like run a business or church or whatever), a "pyramid" is formed to keep the organization... well, organized. This is just a fact of life, that when groups form, leaders emerge, etc.

Those who lust for power or whatever will necessarily seek out those leadership positions, blah blah whatever.

The leaders are generally provided some sort of economic reward so to speak such that they are compelled in numerous ways to whatever on behalf of the organization, and such that they recognize the "gratitude" of the organization for their efforts. Blah blah whatever.

The issue is though, that any person can play a part on any number of pyramids, each with its own set of circumstances.

The illusion is: None of them are real except in the minds of those involved. The pyramid is wholly dependent on the participants.

Most people seem to tend to buy the illusion as reality because the consequences of the actions of the people involved are real. They are so real to most that some of them start thinking that their notch on the ladder reflects some form of absolute superiority over those who haven't climbed as high on the ladder that matters to them. This is a simple psychological trick that people use to justify their actions - to relieve them from their conscience. Whatever they have to tell themselves to maintain their sense of identity. It could be for instance, that the economic rewards for their place in the ladder instills a sense of urgency in their psyche that demands them to act against their conscience - creating cognitave dissonance which rationalizations like "i'm better than them" can stave off so long as they remain unexplored.

In reality, there are people, being people. Each person has a dynamic set of skills and some talent their are prone to. They will generally exceed each other on a variety of tasks. I'm better at guitar, you're better at chess, blah blah that kind of thing. Whatever, it's just a bunch of individuals living out their circumstance and reacting in whatever way. The pyramid only exists in their minds, but is put there as a consequence of reality. Blah blah. Organizations blah blah as above, and circumstance blah blah. When people get together to do something of purpose, some form of heirarchy emerges as the talents/skills emerge in the perceptions of the individuals involved.

Indeed, it's perfectly natural.

If the above is incorrect, please expose its fundamental logical flaw for the spoonfed sham that it is. Please help me to understand how it's not inevitable.

[wesmorris]

Admit your defeat you cowards.

[dixonmassey]

Your obsession with "the ladder" and a "pyramid" is based in myths and artifacts of ego, or materialism.
Me being born in December is not on the list?

The fact is that organization have leaders, blah blah blah.

What was the first, organizations or leaders? That's not a rhetorical question.

Look at the natural order of things in a monkey group. A dominant male can fuck any female he wants, kick shit out of any subservient male, take the most lavish bamboo sprout patch for himself. That's all privileges of the monkey rank. Spread your genes and stuff your barrel FIRST. Monkey dominant male DON'T make others to work for himself, don't call for higher powers to justify his privilege, don't demand veneration of his position, don't do everything possible to reserve the top position for his favorite son. Big hairy fists and chest, is all that's needed.

Millions years ago, silent disconent could have been brewing in a monkey troop. Smart ass monkey, lacking big hairy fists and chest, thought, "I want to fuck that voluptuous bitch first, I want to get that patch of bamboo sprouts for myself. I don't have big fists, what to do?" A grand idea came to smart monkey's mind, "What if I'll offer 1/10th of the bamboo sprouts to those 3 fairly strong monkeys, sneaking upon strayed females in the distant bushes. Can I topple that burly mature monkey chieftain that way?" Sure, he could. New monkey pyramide was born. That was a dawn of "civilization" as we know it.

The second gigantic "leap" for humanity came after another bright thought came to the proto human's mind, "Can I "bribe" a few strong bullies with 1/10th of the yield, so we could make the rest of a tribe to collect bamboo sprouts for us?". Sure, the second leap was an absolute success too.

The third gigantic "leap" for humanity came after a dominant monkey or protohumans gave birth to a thought, "Yeah, I can fuck any female I want, my progeny is numerous. However, if I could find a way to "reserve" dominant positions for my and only my progeny, that would be an additional safeguard in the game of life."


When people group up to perform some task (like run a business or church or whatever), a "pyramid" is formed to keep the organization... well, organized. This is just a fact of life, that when groups form, leaders emerge, etc.

Don't paint leaders with too broad a brush. "Leader" in English has a quite certain civilization specific connotation, which other languages lack (i.e. it's impossible to find an adequate equivalent). That's why leader became an international word.

There were/are? leaders chosen to fulfill common will. There are leaders manipulating/creating common will to achieve whatever is on their mind. There are leaders who are bluntly forcing their will upon others. there are all kinds of leaders.

However, little has principally changed in the human power pyramid since monkey times. Passive, isolated majority, scared of anything endangering its "bird in the hand", enforcers subclass bribed with 1/10th of bamboo sprouts, and master class, getting most of the loot. The only change since monkey times - power pyramide has got the life of its own. In other words, it's not only an assembly of humanoids creates a pyramid. The pyramid shapes humanoids also. It's symbiotic coexistence. Pyramid reprlicates itself. Humanoids are becoming less and less relevant in the pyramid scheme of things.

[dixonmassey]

Those who lust for power or whatever will necessarily seek out those leadership positions, blah blah whatever.[/qoute]

"Those who seek power are not to be trusted with it."

[quote] The leaders are generally provided some sort of economic reward so to speak such that they are compelled in numerous ways to whatever on behalf of the organization, and such that they recognize the "gratitude" of the organization for their efforts. Blah blah whatever.

Or, could it be that, "the leaders generally provide themselves (and overseer subclass) with some sort of economic reward? Passive majority generally can do nothing about it." Sometimes, it's more convoluted because "overseer" subclass can select and compensate leaders too. You speak as though "leaders", "organizations" are not results of evolution of mankind, as though they are 5 billions years old and shall die only after Sun will explode.

The issue is though, that any person can play a part on any number of pyramids, each with its own set of circumstances.

Don't you want play a part on a panhandler pyramid? "can play a part" sounds like a bulletproof promise. You live - you are a part of a pyramid, there is no other way.

The illusion is: None of them are real except in the minds of those involved. The pyramid is wholly dependent on the participants.

Pyramid is not real? That's profound thought contradicting reality. Have your mind pierced into 7th dimmension already?

Most people seem to tend to buy the illusion as reality because the consequences of the actions of the people involved are real. They are so real to most that some of them start thinking that their notch on the ladder reflects some form of absolute superiority over those who haven't climbed as high on the ladder that matters to them.

So, one who's digging in a garbage can for food thinks nothing else but this: my digging in a garbage can doesn't mean an absolute superiority of the guys throwing caviar sandwiches into trash. I would agree. However, the garbage digging guy most likely doesn't entertain himself with those kind of the thoughts.

Given that the current pyramide is more hereditary than not, relative positions of the human units in it are greatly affected by the chance of birth (even your cozy perch is not an exception). The current pyramide is prebuilt, it doesn't not reflect "absolute superiority" (whatever that means). However, you can consider yourself equally superior to those above you as long as you want, it will not change the sad fact: their actions affect your perch much more than yours will affect theirs.

Personally, I abhor the pyramid generously allowing one to dig in a garbage cans (in many localities, that's a crime) while the top is wallowing in luxury. If it's the only way for human "progress" (whatever that means), fuck that progress, it will bring no good. Either mankind will make the 4th gigantic leap, or pyramid will destroy it.

[dixonmassey]

This is a simple psychological trick that people use to justify their actions - to relieve them from their conscience. Whatever they have to tell themselves to maintain their sense of identity. It could be for instance, that the economic rewards for their place in the ladder instills a sense of urgency in their psyche that demands them to act against their conscience - creating cognitave dissonance which rationalizations like "i'm
better than them" can stave off so long as they remain unexplored.

That was stupendously profound. could you put the above in the folk English, if it's even possible.

In reality, there are people, being people. Each person has a dynamic set of skills and some talent their are prone to. They will generally exceed each other on a variety of tasks. I'm better at guitar, you're better at chess, blah blah that kind of thing.

In reality, generally speaking, your place on the wealth/power pyramid dictates whether or not you'll be able/have time to develop those sets of skills and talants. In the reality, you'll try to develop skills that, hopefully, will bring cold hard cash at some point. I reality, being homeless, working 3 low wage jobs nose to nose, or staring into TV screen for few hours after another day of a typical middle class degradation are not conducive to developing of those talents. Gee, most will never find out where those talants are.


Whatever, it's just a bunch of individuals living out their circumstance and reacting in whatever way. The pyramid only exists in their minds, but is put there as a consequence of reality. Blah blah.

Pyramid exists in the wild. It's as real as sun rise.

Organizations blah blah as above, and circumstance blah blah. When people get together to do something of purpose, some form of heirarchy emerges as the talents/skills emerge in the perceptions of the individuals involved.

Hierarchy we have today is built not on some abstract talents and skills, it's built upon ONE skill and ONE talant "putting others to work for yourself". There is no other way to get to the top. Work horses can reach just that much, and not a perch more.

Besides, as I said, hierarchy is to a great degree hereditary.

Indeed, it's perfectly natural.
Naturality is in the eyes of beholder. How could you say something is "natural", if that "something" could be found in the human world only?

[spuriousmonkey]

So from "any number of pyramids" you presume that "any pyramid" is what was intended to be said, or somehow find that since only one person can be the CEO of ford - and it's not these guys, that's somehow dissapointing to you?

These guys can never be CEO of Ford.

That's reality to them.

[wesmorris]

These guys can never be CEO of Ford.

That's reality to them.

Is that supposed to be some sort of shocking, unnacceptable revelation?

I could never be president of malaysia.

I might as well not live.

*cry*

[wesmorris]

DM,

It's my opinion that only a faith-based commitment to idealism separates people from the natural world - as if.

Please explain how people are not simply complicated apes, with an exceeding capacity for the abstract (which makes up the complicated part).

[invert_nexus]

These guys can never be CEO of Ford.

That's reality to them.

Why not?
Maybe you underestimate them?
There's certainly no law, physical or legislative, that would prevent them (only one at a time, of course) from becoming CEO of Ford.
Or is there?

[spuriousmonkey]

No, I actually know that the second guy on the right will be a better CEO than the current one of Ford. So I do not underestimate them. He will never be one CEO of anything though.

[wesmorris]

Ah, so you insist your opinion of what constitutes "better" in terms of a CEO is more relevant to ford than that of the people who choose CEOs for ford? If so, why don't you become one of them? Otherwise, your complaints are pretty empty, no?

You seriously have no reasonable leg to stand on. You're just on an emotional tyrade, as usual regarding anything to do with capitalism or america.

What pisses me off more than anything about you in particular is that you're smart enough to realize that "hating americans" and similar bullshit is akin to "hating niggers" or "hating the dutch". Of course that's you're option, but I'd think a "used to be fun" guy like yourself would get over himself and chill the fuck out.

Taking yourself so seriously as to "hate america" or "hate americans" is the kind of thing that motivates wars, which you insist are wrong, no? *sigh*

Stop hating, you asshole - and let the suave, cool monkey rule your brain would you?

[spuriousmonkey]

Is that you argument? That I hate americans?

What about addressing the issues?

That YOU need thousands of poor guys in teh third world to maintain your privileged status.

Why do you always skip this fact? Does it make you uneasy? Or do you keep deluding yourself that everybody has a fair chance.

That's what the whole discussion was about, but you rather make up things. That I hate americans.

We both know what you are doing here.

[wesmorris]

We both know you're a hateful git, dass fo sho. I read your posts in another thread. You hate americans. Apparently you don't know what YOU are doing here.

How is it that you consider my "status", "privelaged"?

Do you think I could be CEO of ford?

Do you think it bothers me that I probably couldn't no matter what I did?

I have circumstances that I deal with, like every other human.

I make choices to try to find and maintain a circumstance in which I'm fairly comfortable.

LOL. Funny that after the thousands of words I've posted here you pick "you hate americans" (which is true) as "my argument". It's an observation, asshole.

"A poor guy from a different company will never be CEO of ford". Wow. Impressive. 1 of 6 billion people are CEO of ford. Powerful argument.

Everyone should get their turn? Is that your "argument"?

If so, please explain how you find that remotely rational.

[spuriousmonkey]

So you skip the issue again to repeat nonsense?


That YOU need thousands of poor guys in the third world to maintain your privileged status.
true or false?

[wesmorris]

So you skip the issue again to repeat nonsense?

How is it that you consider my "status", "privelaged"?

Do you think I could be CEO of ford?

Do you think it bothers me that I probably couldn't no matter what I did?

Yes or no?

[spuriousmonkey]

Pussy.

[wesmorris]

Lol.

[Absane]

rofl

[Absane]

I know a guy out here in rural America who makes a living at cutting and delivering firewood. He says he needs help in the business, offers $8 an hour for guys to load, drive and drop the wood to customers, and can't get anybody to take the job.

So much for minimum wage.

Hell where is this guy? I'd fucking do it. Odds are he is nowhere around here... but by the rare chance he is.. I'll do it. :)

[Jeff 152]

Agree, some people are better than the others in selling themselves. Some people are willing to work harder, some people are more gifted, etc., etc., etc. However, that's not the point. Had everyone been identically gifted in the above areas, there would be still people digging in garbage cans. Hierarchical capitalist system simply cannot accomodate everybody on the top or in the middle.

Absolute bullshit. It is cerainly possible that everyone be at the top so long as everyone is talented and innovative enough to benefit everyone else.

In a simplified society of 4 people,lets say one makes food, one makes clothes, one makes houses, and one makes commodities. Obviously this isn't right but my point is that each has something unique to offer, each fills a niche in the system. Each person in the society needs every other person's product, so if everyone can can produce their product and then trade, each person can end up with more of each product than they would have been able to porduce by themselves. It is called specialization and it is what drives capiatlism. Take an economics class, you will learn that when you specialize in something, you increase your worth. So long as people have the creativity and talent to do something bettr than someone else, everyone will continue to benefit.

The rich are not parasites of society, teh poor are. The rich find ways to improve society by finding something that people want that will impreove their lives and providing taht good or service. By being an asset to society, society repays them with more money. The poor, who can not think of any way to contribute to society, do not receive money back from society. You say capitalism is unfair, i believe it is perfectly just.

You may say that someone always has to fill the menial jobs like a janitor, and since this person can really provide no innovation or new benefi other than by working harder, there will always be a poor class. But do you know why janitors are payed so little, becasue there are so many people who can be janitors. If a janitor wnats to be payed 100$ an hour, a million other people will volunteer to do it for less and less and less until you arrive at the natural minimum wage. Now if you are talking about a brain surgeon rather than a janitor it goes teh otehr way. If someone wants a brain surgeon to operate on him for 10$ an hour, the surgeon can say no, and since there are not millions of brain surgeons, the patient has no other otption but to raise the pay--the jobs with less people capable of doing it have more power. Maybe when you realize that you and the work you do is no more valuable than a machine or an animal then you will realize why you dont get payed more.

[Genji]

Absolute bullshit. It is cerainly possible that everyone be at the top so long as everyone is talented and innovative enough to benefit everyone else.

In a simplified society of 4 people,lets say one makes food, one makes clothes, one makes houses, and one makes commodities. Obviously this isn't right but my point is that each has something unique to offer, each fills a niche in the system. Each person in the society needs every other person's product, so if everyone can can produce their product and then trade, each person can end up with more of each product than they would have been able to porduce by themselves. It is called specialization and it is what drives capiatlism. Take an economics class, you will learn that when you specialize in something, you increase your worth. So long as people have the creativity and talent to do something bettr than someone else, everyone will continue to benefit.

The rich are not parasites of society, teh poor are. The rich find ways to improve society by finding something that people want that will impreove their lives and providing taht good or service. By being an asset to society, society repays them with more money. The poor, who can not think of any way to contribute to society, do not receive money back from society. You say capitalism is unfair, i believe it is perfectly just.

You may say that someone always has to fill the menial jobs like a janitor, and since this person can really provide no innovation or new benefi other than by working harder, there will always be a poor class. But do you know why janitors are payed so little, becasue there are so many people who can be janitors. If a janitor wnats to be payed 100$ an hour, a million other people will volunteer to do it for less and less and less until you arrive at the natural minimum wage. Now if you are talking about a brain surgeon rather than a janitor it goes teh otehr way. If someone wants a brain surgeon to operate on him for 10$ an hour, the surgeon can say no, and since there are not millions of brain surgeons, the patient has no other otption but to raise the pay--the jobs with less people capable of doing it have more power. Maybe when you realize that you and the work you do is no more valuable than a machine or an animal then you will realize why you dont get payed more.LOL!!! :p Something tells me Jeff Trump is 16 and works the drive thru at Burger King. If this is true I forgive him for his incredible naivitie

[Jeff 152]

I forgot to add, in a society where everyone had a specialized niche, yes ther would still be a need for "menial" jobs, but guess what, since there are less people available to do taht job since each is creating his own niche, guess what, the janitor's wages go up. As a matter of fact, if only one person was capbale or available to clean bathrooms, he could make so much money because there would be such a great deman and so little supply. The wage for the only janitor in the world would be higher than that of a brain surgen if there were more tahn 1 of them (assuming the demand for both is equal)

[Jeff 152]

are you going to back that claim up at all that I am naive? why am i naive? becasue I beliebe that a peson who can benefit society will prosper and those who can not contribute more than an ox will not?

[Genji]

are you going to back that claim up at all that I am naive? why am i naive? becasue I beliebe that a peson who can benefit society will prosper and those who can not contribute more than an ox will not? :rolleyes: Sigh. You have only 18 posts. When you hit 3 digits I may take you more seriously.

[Jeff 152]

hahahaha genji you are so funny. You have no responses or argument to go against what i say, all u can do is call me a trump worshipping 16 year old who works at burger king and masturbates all day. And when confronted with a direct question to qualify your opinion and attempt to invalidate mine, you back down becasue I dont have enough posts??? grow up genji, at least have the courage to say you have no response if that is teh case.

[Genji]

hahahaha genji you are so funny. You have no responses or argument to go against what i say, all u can do is call me a trump worshipping 16 year old who works at burger king and masturbates all day. And when confronted with a direct question to qualify your opinion and attempt to invalidate mine, you back down becasue I dont have enough posts??? grow up genji, at least have the courage to say you have no response if that is teh case.Learning to spell might get you that corporate suckup job shuffling papers! Better take a semester or two at Yale :p

[Absane]

Supply and demand.

[Jeff 152]

Learning to spell might get you that corporate suckup job shuffling papers! Better take a semester or two at Yale :p

HAHAHA. This is the third time you have evaded my questions with irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Are you serious? Is that really a response to my question? What if I have arthritis and I have trouble typing? And you have the nerve to call me immature?? Are you actually capable of responding to an argument, or do you just dodge the issue and talk about masturbation or trivial spelling errors? I would love to see you in a debate on television or something; the other person would be making an argument and you would tell him his shirt was ugly or something to that extent. That would be funny.

Hmmm lets see... I haven't made any spelling errors I dont think. I'm sorry if I did and your understanding of my point is therefore hindered, leaving you once again unable to respond.

Please, I am not asking for much, either respond to my direct question to you or say you have no response. I don't appreciate the insults, they are irrelavant to the thread and hurtful.

Thank you

[Genji]

HAHAHA. This is the third time you have evaded my questions with irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Are you serious? Is that really a response to my question? What if I have arthritis and I have trouble typing? And you have the nerve to call me immature?? Are you actually capable of responding to an argument, or do you just dodge the issue and talk about masturbation or trivial spelling errors? I would love to see you in a debate on television or something; the other person would be making an argument and you would tell him his shirt was ugly or something to that extent. That would be funny.

Hmmm lets see... I haven't made any spelling errors I dont think. I'm sorry if I did and your understanding of my point is therefore hindered, leaving you once again unable to respond.

Please, I am not asking for much, either respond to my direct question to you or say you have no response. I don't appreciate the insults, they are irrelavant to the thread and hurtful.

Thank youI co-hosted a late night political radio show for 4 years so yeah, I know how to debate. But using that fuel, on the clock, with ultra rightists is a waste of my time and gets nowhere. Maybe after you apply some more mileage I might find you interesting enough to engage.

[Jeff 152]

Fair enough Genji, I accept your withdrawal. And might I add that I find it equally frustrating debating with you. I dont even undersatnd why I post on this forum, nobody ever changes their mind so whats the point. I agree, this is a waste of my time.

[wesmorris]

"The rich are not parasites of society, teh poor are"

Exactly.

It's all "sinks and sources". If you're a sink, you're a parasite.

[GMontag]

"The rich are not parasites of society, teh poor are"

Exactly.

It's all "sinks and sources". If you're a sink, you're a parasite.

Perhaps you should rethink exactly who the "sinks" and who the "sources" are. The poor are the ones who actually do the labor and produce the wealth. The rich are the parasites that co-opt the wealth produced by the poor through some dubious claim of owning the means of production. They produce little to no new wealth themselves.

[Baron Max]

The poor are the ones who actually do the labor and produce the wealth.

Who forces them to do that?

Baron Max

[Nikelodeon]

Who forces them to do that?

How will they feed themselves & their family?

[Baron Max]

How will they feed themselves & their family?

I don't know ...maybe they could raise a garden and some chickens? But they shouldn't go to work for some rich guy who is exploiting them ...and if they do, then they shouldn't bitch n' moan about it.

Baron Max

[lixluke]

It is impossible for the poor to be a parasite. All the rich do all day is take take take from the poor. They sit there with their hand out, and the poor put millions and millions of money in there with no choice. This is global debt.

[lixluke]

http://investintaiwan.nat.gov.tw/en/env/land/epz.html

EPZ

Export Processing Zone
Economic Processing Zone
Other names. They are all terms for sweatshops in which slave workers live in garbage, work more than a day straight, and live in completely trashy conditions.

[lixluke]

This is a clear explanation of what the rich consider to be Economic Processing Zones:
http://www.fepz.com/about.html

[GMontag]

I don't know ...maybe they could raise a garden and some chickens? But they shouldn't go to work for some rich guy who is exploiting them ...and if they do, then they shouldn't bitch n' moan about it.

Baron Max

On what land?

Yes, no one "forces" them to do it, but saying they shouldn't bitch and moan about is ridiculous.

You and me are in a plane that crashes high in the Canadian wilderness. I have an extra thick fur coat, but you have none. I agree to give you the fur coat, but only on the condition that you agree to work for me for the rest of your life for nothing more than subsistence wages. Are you saying that you shouldn't bitch and moan about that?

[lixluke]

They have no choice. The government has installed serios prohibitions against alot of independence. You are not allowed to do this. You are not allowed to do that. Raising chickens can basically be illegal in certain places.

They do not outright participate in shackled slavery or buying and selling people in captivity. They impose regulations that prevent you from doing anything. Many involve serious consequences for speaking bad about working conditions. You are in no way allowed to complain or say anything about the working conditions. No freedom of speech.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006&q=pilger&hl=en