Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We hire people weekly. They have freely applied. Of that group, we interview some, hire amongst them, make offers. Some accept, some decline.
In your fantasy world, we could dictate they work for us, no capability to decline. We could demand they apply. We'd love to, but we can't.
1. You hire people, you take control over their labor, and they work FOR the needs of personal profit of the boss, because otherwise they wouldn't make money and starve. Forcing people to give up control over their labor to work or having their heads bashed by state police is force.
2. Freedom does work, it was what was natural before the age of empires. People produced among themselves, they labored on land, and worked together when need be to produce more. There was no artificial profit that gave people power beyond their physical abilities, or control of capital that they did not use.
The Free territories, farmers in Chiapas, Catalonia in the 1930s, people want to produce and live in peace, not be controlled by some outside force. But capitalism teaches us that production for the needs of maximizing profits and the collectivization of labor under a few businesses is the only way to go, we must have private powers controlling our labor. But no, these rules are against human nature and keep people oppressed.
1. You hire people, you take control over their labor, and they work FOR the needs of personal profit of the boss, because otherwise they wouldn't make money and starve..
Wrong. We hire people already employed. We lose staff to other employers. No force-they willingly quit past employers, they willingly quit us at some point, also.
If we controlled labor, we would not need recruiters. We would just walk onto the street and pick who we wished to work for us. We can't.
I have quit several jobs over many years. My employers countered 4 times. I said no 4 times.
USA has 6 million jobs open. Employers , at this time, fear voluntary attrition. We have 3 roles open where we will, no doubt, pay more due to supply-demand favoring supply, and we will get a less skilled employee than the employees who quit.
Because he is a communist and therefore an idiot whos ideals will destroy America if given a chance.
America has always been destroyed more or less. The destruction already came form within (Just like forefathers predicted) . If you compare it to the 1950s for instance, its a freakin MESS
Wrong. We hire people already employed. We lose staff to other employers. No force-they willingly quit past employers, they willingly quit us at some point, also.
If we controlled labor, we would not need recruiters. We would just walk onto the street and pick who we wished to work for us. We can't.
I have quit several jobs over many years. My employers countered 4 times. I said no 4 times.
USA has 6 million jobs open. Employers , at this time, fear voluntary attrition. We have 3 roles open where we will, no doubt, pay more due to supply-demand favoring supply, and we will get a less skilled employee than the employees who quit.
Ok, let's go through this:
1. I wasn't speaking of you alone, yes workers have some choices on who to sell their labor to, but no matter what, without ownership of capital, they have to give up their labor to someone else
2. You can find someone with a specific skill, but you still give them confines in how they work, what they work on, etc. as they are operating on YOUR capital
3. Being offered a job doesn't change the dynamics
4. Demand of employees comes from the needs of the executives, not the needs of the individual
5. Bottom line, whether workers are in demand or not, they work by the needs of their employer, and given the nature of capitalism, they're not given a choice.
, and that also lets them choose salary ranges acceptable to them, benefits same way, industries, hours, skill sets they can acquire, etc.
No, because businesses are all alike in nature. Their goal is to manipulate labor to maximize profits, many times that is limiting production/work hours so work that is not profitable is cut out, or keeping workers without any significant say in production. Either way, they're controlled.
No, under production of needs are purposeful done by executives of a company to keep prices artificially high. And most none-needs production (useless stuff) is over produced (at the expense of resources that could be used otherwise) to help build demand for their supply (marketing, product placement, etc.).
If you had a free society of voluntary production, people would make what they need without the confines of executives who abuse labor to benefit their bottom line.
I can see you've never worked with the public. Why do you think MBAs receive such high salaries compared to an all too common unskilled shift worker? Even wildlife have hierarchies in their societal groups, with some members having more access to the group's production and the fruits of their labor than others. It's nature's way.
I had to laugh at that, too. Clearly, he's never worked with the public or has very little experience doing so, has never had to manage production schedules, coordinating with supply chain schedules, etc., and has never owned a business. Posts as if he's an inexperienced kid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and that also lets them choose salary ranges acceptable to them, benefits same way, industries, hours, skill sets they can acquire, etc.
Why do you think MBAs receive such high salaries compared to an all too common unskilled shift worker? Even wildlife have hierarchies in their societal groups, with some members having more access to the group's production and the fruits of their labor than others. It's nature's way.
