Metal Reviews

Keynesian military industrial complex, bro, you can't stop the juggling midway through the show or you'll drop your balls.

Business owners and CEOs aren't the same thing.

You sound like a little bitch.



Anyway, the reason why he gets the blame is... are you ready? Are you sitting down? Good.
The reason why it "gets pinned on him" is because he is the so-called Commander In Chief. Furthermore, he is the twat that nominated Immelt (one of the biggest outsourcers around just so happens to be GE) as "job czar"... like I said, what could go wrong?

I think we got our "it"s mixed up. Your "it" is responsibility and that's fine, I'll agree with that, but my "it" was the irrationality of the whole system. What business doesn't outsource? If not an outsource, who doesn't downsize? To promote a business exec, a person who seeks to cut labor when possible for profits, as the person who is supposed to create jobs is laughable. If he would have promoted a labor organizer, the shit would've hit the fan though.

So much failure in this post.

EVERYBODY ALREADY HAS (in America, at least) THE "AGENCY" TO BE AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUALS WITH A STAKE IN THEIR OWN WORLD AND THEIR LIVES.
You really think people are helpless rabbits that cannot handle the reins of their lives, hence Big Brother (mommy) being needed to take care of everyone, dont you?
And the government has such a great track record in these matters, don't they?


Beyond that, what sweatshops? This country has laws and standards that are met in the workplace... OSHA, EOE, overtime pay (time and a half for anything over 8 hours and double time after 12 hours / on holidays), holiday pay, paid vacation, sick leave, family leave (both men and women), stock options, health care compensation (dental, eye and general family coverage, 401k plans, open door policy in matters of harrasment, etc, hell, a lot of places even pay for some or all educational costs if it is relevant to the job... and don't even mention union shops. This isn't 19th century London, after all.
Everybody has the same oppurtunity to make something of themselves (scholarships, loans, set-asides, etc), though not everybody has it in them. And, yes, some people just aren't smart enough to be anything other than laborers. That's life.
And wealth is not a zero-sum game.
There is a reason why unskilled (strenous, if you like) labor is cheap; supply and demand. It doesn't take any skill to dig a ditch, why in the world should someone that is a dime a dozen be compensated beyond what they are worth?
Have you ever had a real job?
I've been in the workforce since 1986, and I have yet to see anything that even remotely approaches sweatshop conditions.
Another Marxist myth; that workers are forced to slave away for practically nothing under harsh conditions. It's a lie.

Why do you put words in my mouth? I directly said that I advocate "workers should make executive decisions for their companies". How is that Big Brother?

Obviously, I know what labor has achieved in making the workplace a safe environment. If America, doesn't have sweatshops in it, why assume that I am simply addressing the U.S. in that statement.

Adam Smith disagrees.

I've had a job since I was 16 and able to. I grew up working on a farm. There is a difference between working for a wage and doing work in and of itself. That's all I'm talking about.

"what they are worth?" Who determines the laborer's worth? The people who have all the money and are paying their salaries? Who determined their worth? They earned it themselves? (ignoring the fact that they have workers and are obviously not doing it themselves) Yet it is morally acceptable for them to hinder or stunt their workers from earning their own wealth? Alright, thanks, V.

I'm not doing this.

Too late, you already are.

Who is being hindered and stunted from earning their own wealth? How? Please explain.

Who detrermines the laborers worth? It's a combination of what the market thinks it is worth and what the workers thinks it is worth.
If an offer is made, the worker is free to either:
a) accept it
b) negotiate a better wage
or
c) pass on it and look elsewhere.

It's not a conspiracy to keep people down.

If you are so worried about sweatshops outside America, why do you never draw that distinction? You make general statements regarding corporations, workers, etc.
Please, don't insult my intelligence; we both know what you are talking about here and elsewhere.

Adam Smith disagrees?
I don't give a fuck what he agrees with and disagrees with.
Wealth is NOT a zero-sum game.
If that were the case, all economies would remain static, more or less; instead, you see wealth being generated from industry and commerce.

Employers didn't just pull a full blown business / corporation out of nowhere; practically all businesses (even mega corporations) start out very very modestly, sometimes in that persons garage; the person with the vision behind the product / company (the owner and author of all evil) most likely ate, drank and slept this enterprise, taking all the initial risks, sacrificing both time and money to launch their business and assure that it succeeds . Once that enterprise expands, hiring ensues, further (if things go as planned) expanding, more hiring, etc.
So, I'd say that, yeah, they (employers) earned it themselves.
Nobody is stopping anybody from doing likewise.

I have not a single issue with co-op run businesses (they do exist here, you know, and more power to 'em). I DO have a problem when it is a government mandated policy.

I will explain this tackling the next part.

The worker is free to choose amongst thousands of jobs which all pay an approximately equivalent wage settled over years of wage cuts and working people as hard as they can for as little as possible. That isn't much choice. An example from the 1910s is dated and hence extreme but I truly don't think it is all much different than how wages are determined now. Workers are waiting at the doors of the Campbell's Soup plant. The company foreman calls out who will work for 38 cents an hour. Hands go up. 37 cents? Some hands go down. 36 cents? Less hands up. This goes on till they say 23 cents and a few more hands go down. The number of hands left up is how many they need so they work those people at 23 cents an hour that day.

Now I know this doesn't happen anymore explicitly but I think it is an example which captures what goes on over time with wages in a country. Explain how the market comes up with this worth of a worker. Explain what options does a worker have, especially today, when jobs are so rare. People don't have choices. They have options, very few at that, but no real choice.

I really don't address American situation unless I'm making exact references. However, I think it would be very ignorant of us to not recognize sewing shops which I think do exist in America. I haven't heard anything about them in years but I remember heinous tales of promising girl to emigrate here for modeling fashion careers only to throw them in sewing mills in the city. Prostitution is an equally despicable form of wage-earning in America which is equal to if not worse than sweatshops. So I don't think America is the pristine land of the worker's freedom like you imagine.

Wealth within a society is for the most part is a zero-sum game. Sometimes there are spikes due to the finding of resources like oil or gold which create exchange power but not often. In order for a company to succeed, it has to have consumers who are willing to give up what they have for a product. There is always a circulation of money. Nowhere does wealth enter the system except from random spikes of outside, contingent occurrences. In order for a business owner to make money for himself, he has to find a way to make more money than what he has invested, that little bit of surplus value has to be gained from the consumer or the worker. The consumer, insofar he has to work in order to have money, is just a worker. Therefore, in order to make a profit, he has to find some way to take back the wage he has given the worker. Nowhere, in this account, does money just miraculously appear from the gods, wealth bestowed upon the god amongst mere mortals that some call the entrepreneur.
I never ever once have said it would a government mandated policy. g

I'm not going to waste any time on the hands-up example, because that is not how things are done.
Wages are by and large paid competitively, meaning that a certain skill is deemed to be worth x amount of dollars an hour, give or take, and if a better deal is to be found, the potential employee is free to look elsewhere. In order to lure employees in, they have to offer them something to make it worthwhile; it's like competing gas stations: One is offering gas at 3.99 9/10 a gallon, while the one across the street is offering it for 3.79 9/10 a gallon... which one will get more business?
As for how worth is determined, well it is determined by a balance of what one (employer) is willing to pay for it and what another (employee) is willing to accept.

As for wages, minimum wage has gone up, not down, so I don't see where you get the idea that wages have been determined by being "settled over years of wage cuts and working people as hard as they can for as little as possible". Again, this isn't 19th century London.
In the skilled (professional) sector, it becomes much easier to negotiate wages and benefits, because an IT Administrator (for example) has a much more marketable skill than a sandwich maker.


The choices workers have are either to complain about the reality of the situation, or move in tandem with it.
Crying about how unfair life is won't achieve squat.

Prostitution? Sewing shops? From a long time ago?

Excuse me, but

The free market system isn't perfect, nor does it advocate a utopian workers paradise, but it is still the best system out there.


Wealth is NOT a zero-sum game; that's nothing but Marxist propaganda.



Yeah, but there is one catch to that whole premise: the consumer is compensated with goods and services when he pays his money.
So to say that the consumers wealth is being taken from him is a lie; he recieves goods and services for his payment.
If wealth were a zero sum game, how do economies grow? How do people that have nothing become rich and successful after they offer and market a product / service to the public? Wealth doesn't necessarilly mean "wages", after all.
Is the economy of America the same (adjusted to 2011 $ levels) as it was say in 1811? No it isn't, because industry, services and commerce generate wealth.

If 2% of the US population holds 80% of the wealth (I don't know the real numbers, but something like that), how is it that we are still among the richest nations ever to exist, per capita?

Espoused by no other than Adam fucking Smith. I'm done.

V vs Trapt Vegas should touch this one

Yeah, and?
Are you denying that the concept of "wealth can only be taken from one to enrich another" is not a pillar of marxist thought?
Or in other words, one's wealth is only gained by the loss of another's?
Done, indeed.

Trapt, you're wrong to say that Adam Smith believed wealth was zero sum. Wealth Of Nations was an outright attack on that, on the whole system of mercantilism.

Hmmm. Smith claims outright that one's wealth is dependent on others not having wealth to some degree. Obviously they're fluctuations but they are historical rather than economic as in private accumulation rooted in the conquest of the Americas. Maybe we're meaning two different things when we say zero-sum?

"Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many." -Adam Smith.

Zero sum wealth as in it cannot be created, only taken from somewhere else? He certainly never believed that. TBH I think you've got that a bit out of context - doesn't he say right after that:

"Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor."

Smith wasn't saying 'these evil rich gits take their wealth from the poor', he was saying that poor people are envious of the rich and often live near enough to be made indignant by their presence.

Inequality, to Smith, is the reason we establish government but I think he recognizes how inequality develops comparable to what I'm saying. Marxism didn't develop in a vaccuum. He does think the poor are envious of the rich but I don't see how that contradicts the fact that poverty and wealth are an inverse proportion. The way you frame it is as if this disparity between the two groups is imagined by the poor through greed, envy and jealousy. The inequality develops leading to those feelings but the inequality develops first though through the extraction of surplus value from the laborer, the source of wealth.

If wealth does reside in the laborer, maybe I shouldn't say wealth is a zero sum anyways. You can always find new workers to exploit and you can always push your current workers harder, extracting more value from their efforts.

That is how things are done in an economy with a surplus of laborers just not explicitly. If I don't like the wage, I have no bargaining power and it all resides in what the company is willing to pay me.

Well, that's life, now isn't it?
Don't like the wage?
Acquire a more marketable skill then. What the fuck, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

I'm not just talking about ditch diggers though. At all.

It's a figure of speech.