Another downtown protest. (Santa Maria: school, university, calculated)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by jm1982

If a company hires a worker it is with the intent to make a profit off of their labor. Is this a surprise to employees in today's world? Do people that work for Walmart or other corporations think they are working for charities or nonprofits?? There is a reason they are called FOR profits.

There are some companies that are 'employee owned' as an employee these are probably good places to work.
Here is a list
List of employee-owned companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree that people whether workers or business owners should be free to leave, picket, complain ,etc as long as they aren't harming others or breaking laws.

If Walmart or some other corporation is violating the rights of a worker , I would be the first to say they should be punished to the highest degree of the law.

Just because someone pickets, complains or anything of the sort does not mean that the employer MUST give in to their demands.

It sounds like you want a society where the employer or boss or CEO has NO rights and the employee has ALL the rights...how is this fair?

Doesn't sound like Equality to me.

One class of people will always assert their hegemony over the other. That is a fact in any society. In this society the dominant social power rests in the hands of big business. It is fundamentally a market driven society in more ways than just economic. It's not just an economic order but a social order.

So don't talk to me about equality here. The only reason why workers have any rights at all is because they tore them from the teeth of big business a century ago. It was one class asserting it's demands over the dominance of the other. It's as simple as that.

Where would the business owner really be without the state he supposedly hates so much to protect his precious property laws? No where really, yet it's when workers fight for their rights are they met with the coercive arm of the State to beat them back, as evidenced in not only the protests against big business of today but also the brutal and bloody labor battles of the early 20th century. The idea that we do not need a powerful labor movement as a force because "it's a different time" is laughable, utterly laughable. Companies lobby the hell out of the government to make things work in their favor, the police and military do their bidding practically to collect on debts, evict people, start wars, push back protests, etc. They get bailed out when they fail and subsidized when they're as profitable as ever.

They sit on the boards of directors of major non-profits, hospitals, schools, and go in and out of public office. And you want to tell me that there is an equal distribution of power here? That there is more equality under this status quo than what I am proposing?

Give it a break.

[yby1]

Originally Posted by TheGreatUnwashed

It all comes down to supply and demand in the labor force. Contrary to what radiolibre says, there is no skill needed to work at these places that cannot be easily taught on the job. And when these individuals who overvalue themselves leave wal-mart, someone will easily step in to replace them.

If these people wanted to make more money, they should've invested more in their education and gotten a true "skilled" job.

I think that 90% of jobs out there can easily be taught on the job. That included jobs where you need "education." But That's another debate. Just because someone is working a menial job doesn't mean that they shouldn't earn a livable wage.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by jm1982

If a company hires a worker it is with the intent to make a profit off of their labor. Is this a surprise to employees in today's world? Do people that work for Walmart or other corporations think they are working for charities or nonprofits?? There is a reason they are called FOR profits.

There are some companies that are 'employee owned' as an employee these are probably good places to work.
Here is a list
List of employee-owned companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree that people whether workers or business owners should be free to leave, picket, complain ,etc as long as they aren't harming others or breaking laws.

If Walmart or some other corporation is violating the rights of a worker , I would be the first to say they should be punished to the highest degree of the law.

Just because someone pickets, complains or anything of the sort does not mean that the employer MUST give in to their demands.

It sounds like you want a society where the employer or boss or CEO has NO rights and the employee has ALL the rights...how is this fair?

Doesn't sound like Equality to me.

There will be some on here that will argue your point about "being fair".
They will ask is it fair for an employee to earn a small wage, while the execs get huge bonuses?
My answer to that was posted in another post.
"If you want all those things the big execs get, then go out and start your own business just like they did"
Get a good education, work hard, and reap the rewards of your efforts.
The good part about living in this country is, you can do anything if you set your mind to it, and want it bad enough.
Demonstrations have little, if any long term effect.
Most go into oblivion soon after they are held.
Case in point:
A year or so ago, the "tent people" took over the park next to city hall.
They came, stayed for a while, ruined the property, and now, aren't even remembered.
As much yelling and chanting as this Walmart protest was yesterday, it will soon be forgotten.
Walmart will continue as usual, and that will be the end of it.
Bob.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by jm1982

So are you for nationalization?

As a last measure if concessions aren't met yes! But again that fact that you're so shocked by this doesn't surprise me. Again, you're presuming the logic of a business owner and thinking something that drastic = the end of liberty as we know it.

PLENTY of countries, stable ones, have nationalized industries. A country shouldn't have to be hostage to the demands of the few. If companies threaten to leave because they do not want to have their taxes raised or pay their workers more money, LET THEM LEAVE. But they cannot take their factories with them.

Why should the majority of the people in a town be devastated by the decision of a major industry to leave? The answer you might give is because "that is the owners choice", that choice you believe to be the essence of liberty, the very narrow definition of liberty libertarians and conservatives assert as the only sense of true liberty. But for the reality of the ground for many more people it's just the decision of one person to take his business elsewhere and ruin a town.

This is the difference between you and I, for you it's a matter of principle, regardless of the damage. For me it's a material issue with real problems and consequences for a lot of people. The ideal of private property is more sacred than the reality that might come about as a result. That is why I say libertarians and conservatives run mostly on platitudes and ideals, not reason (no matter how many times they keep asserting that they're champions of it).

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by CALGUY

There will be some on here that will argue your point about "being fair".
They will ask is it fair for an employee to earn a small wage, while the execs get huge bonuses?
My answer to that was posted in another post.
"If you want all those things the big execs get, then go out and start your own business just like they did"
Get a good education, work hard, and reap the rewards of your efforts.
The good part about living in this country is, you can do anything if you set your mind to it, and want it bad enough.
Demonstrations have little, if any long term effect.
Most go into oblivion soon after they are held.
Case in point:
A year or so ago, the "tent people" took over the park next to city hall.
They came, stayed for a while, ruined the property, and now, aren't even remembered.
As much yelling and chanting as this Walmart protest was yesterday, it will soon be forgotten.
Walmart will continue as usual, and that will be the end of it.
Bob.

Assert presupposed nonsense yada yada, platitudes about working hard, rhetoric about education and then top it off with anecdotal evidence.

Boom, you have your typical conservative argument. Thank you.

[jm1982]

And those tent people left us taxpayers with a BIG BIG bill...over $4.7 MILLION to clean up their mess.
Occupy LA cleanup, repair cost at least $4.7M | abc7.com

It pisses me off when you call the city and get the excuse "Sorry, our resources/budget are limited..we can't do XYZ" blah blah...all the money goes to waste stuff like this. Also speaking of how great unions are..have you seen how DWP workers are bleeding us dry? The new mayor isn't a right wing nutjob, but he doesn't support DWP union with their outrageous pay and benefits like UNLIMITED SICK TIME.

The thing with these protests, yes I understand if civil rights were violated. But, It's STRICTLY over pay. A pay that the worker signed on the line and accepted, probably with a big ole' smile.

[TheGreatUnwashed]

Originally Posted by yby1

I think that 90% of jobs out there can easily be taught on the job. That included jobs where you need "education." But That's another debate. Just because someone is working a menial job doesn't mean that they shouldn't earn a livable wage.

90% of jobs can be easily taught to someone with attitude and aptitude, a trait typically found in someone who put forth the effort to attend and complete college.

Working full-time at McDonald's or some other minimal wage job is livable. You just might not have your own 1BR apartment with a big screen TV, iPhone, and iPad, but you'll live just fine. You'll probably even qualify for some government handouts to make your life better.

[PDF]

Originally Posted by TheGreatUnwashed

90% of jobs can be easily taught to someone with attitude and aptitude, a trait typically found in someone who put forth the effort to attend and complete college.

Working full-time at McDonald's or some other minimal wage job is livable. You just might not have your own 1BR apartment with a big screen TV, iPhone, and iPad, but you'll live just fine. You'll probably even qualify for some government handouts to make your life better.

In most states, that would equal to less than a grand a month after taxes. How is that livable?

[TheGreatUnwashed]

Originally Posted by PDF

In most states, that would equal to less than a grand a month after taxes. How is that livable?

On a grand a month you could have your own room in an apartment or house in an undesirable area. If you have a couple that's 2 grand and nets you a 1BR apartment in an undesirable area.

Use public transportation, don't eat like a king, and sounds like you can live to me. How many luxuries should burger flippers be afforded?

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by TheGreatUnwashed

90% of jobs can be easily taught to someone with attitude and aptitude, a trait typically found in someone who put forth the effort to attend and complete college.

Working full-time at McDonald's or some other minimal wage job is livable. You just might not have your own 1BR apartment with a big screen TV, iPhone, and iPad, but you'll live just fine. You'll probably even qualify for some government handouts to make your life better.

BS, a lot of the richest people in America left college. Some never even went. The determination is there, for a lot of people, just because they didn't "make it" it doesn't mean that they're failures. Why do people like you always assume that those that didn't make it, never tried?

That just makes me think that you guys really think that system is sound and despite a few flaws is a decent and fair system. Well it's not. Study after study has come out that most wealth is inherited, the gap between rich and poor has grown, social mobility is at it's lowest, that top brass pay for their interests to be heard first in Washington.

These studies were put out by you know...."very competent people who attended and finished college"

And also, who is deciding what constitutes a decent living? Is this another assertion put forth by insufferable jagoffs on yachts who say teachers make way too much money while clinking glasses with politicians?