[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour

Sat Aug 21 20:12:18 UTC 2010

What we have to get straight, is that "slamming the US system" (actually
it's slamming the US bosses system, not the US), cannot be invoked every
time working people defend their rights, just as WikiLeaks is not
responsible for the defeat of the US in the countries it invades.

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jeff Greenberg <jeff at ayendesigns.com>wrote:

> Well, one informal measure can be derived from the invention provenance
> of everything you use in the next hour... your pen, your computer,
> phone, electricity, toilet, bluejeans, PVC pipes, etc., and what % of
> that was invented in the U.S. under its system.
>
> If the U.S. is not a leader anymore, then perhaps constantly slamming
> its system is of little importance. After all, in numbers of population,
> there are many other countries much more ripe for the slamming.
>
> I would suggest that private businesses are created by private
> individuals, and that they should be able to make their own business
> decisions, and people can work for them or not, and buy from them or
> not, as they see fit.  If morality is dictated by the control of others
> than those whose business it is, let that be a competitor: privately
> run, union run, and government run, and let the employees decide where
> they want to work, and the public decide who they want to buy from.
>
> On 08/21/2010 04:00 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
> >> I don't think the thoughts represent anything new here.
> >>
> > I identified the morality of my position. You dismissed it by talking
> > about efficiency. So one fundamental question about this discourse is
> > whether it even has a morality or that the morality is that the end
> > justifies the means. And that ends is measured in terms of the number of
> > profitable businesses that exist? It ignores issues about quality of life
> > of the worker, their rights as employees, and their welfare... in favour
> of
> > innovation which is defined by profit.
> >
> >
> >
> >> This country might seem to be one of corporations, but it's primarily of
> >>
> >
> >> small businesses. Every mandate costs them money. Every mandate is paid
> >> for by taxing them, which causes some to close or raise prices, which
> >> costs everyone else more.
> >>
> > Small businesses may have as bad employment policies as other businesses.
> > This is also to discount that quality of life questions outside of how
> much
> > money is paid out. 40 hours worked does not tell us under what conditions
> > the
> >
> >
> >
> >> It seems to me that successful companies can be measured by innovation,
> >> discovery, and ongoing success.
> >>
> > I want to take a detour and talk a bit about innovation. This is some
> > brain storming, so don't hold me to it forever, my ideas are bound to
> > change.
> >
> > I don't particularly know what easy piece of research would allow us to
> > compare whether the US is innovative. For instance there are many
> companies
> > that are very profitable, but only innovative in terms of marketing or
> > gaming its customers. Starbucks or Zynga the markers of Farmville come to
> > mind. Many food franchises also come to mind, they mostly produce
> > well-branded junk food. There have been many billion dollar miracles
> > recently in gaming, where the game was simply predatory on the psychology
> > of the consumer. There have been suggestions that Google will be doing
> this
> > next.
> >
> > As time goes on, I think this is the only sort of "innovation" left; if
> > that is not the type of innovation left, I don't see why guarding it is
> so
> > important, I could care less whether or not Starbucks exists and rather
> > trade the job created for a welfare subsidy to the counter clerk. Nothing
> > is produced any more, only imaginary experiences created. So really the
> > question about innovation is whether we want more imaginary experiences
> and
> > for that we are willing to subject a significant percent of the
> population
> > to misery in their day-to-day lives. That's what innovation these days
> > seems like.
> >
> > Or take the Apple iPod, it's planned obsolescence is 18 months. Now
> > imagine the externality created from dumping that many units, and how
> that
> > number would compound over time as the company stays "innovative". So
> > innovation as defined by profit is difficult to define as a social good
> as
> > you may win big in the market, and not have contributed anything other
> than
> > the illusion of value or it might cause environmental problems or
> > psychological or physical problems which are bigger than the little
> > innovative experience it imparted the user with. If that all innovation
> is
> > about, than using that as the primary decision criteria as to whether or
> > not the citizens be made to suffer so the market is efficient, to me is
> not
> > justifiable.
> >
> >
> >> To achieve that, they have to attract
> >> the best and brightest talent, and have a market.
> >>
> > Yeah, what percentage of the population does this make? Let's say<  10%,
> > so what about the rest of the population and the 90% of companies that
> are
> > not innovative?
> >
> >
> >> To do that they have
> >> to invest in their people and research and development. To do that, they
> >>
> >
> >> need profit, rather than have it redirected by the government.
> >>
> > Or they can get a loan or they can get investors. If they are so
> > innovative, I don't see why more people would not put money back into the
> > company to keep it going? In the end it's a question of how the equation
> is
> > balanced and who ends up holding how much money. If it's too little it's
> a
> > problem if it's too much it's a problem. It to me is a question of
> balance,
> > and balance on which ends: government, market, corporation. Further
> > corporations want to pay as little as possible, over time with increasing
> > competition this drives the wage down. The way to prevent this and look
> out
> > for their own interests is a union which makes the game inefficient for
> the
> > corporations and works as long as all companies in the industry are
> > unionised by law... It fails when this is no longer the case.
> >
> >
> >
> >> How many  of these other societies that burden businesses so heavily
> >>
> > lead the
> >
> >> world in technological and scientific discovery? I don't recall Canada
> >> being at the top of the list.
> >>
> > Well Open Source and Drupal are not examples of this "innovative"
> > behaviour. Without this innovative behaviour Google would not have been
> > possible. Canada has produced Flickr and Stumbleupon on the web stage. We
> > also produce Blackberries. We also produce tons of known game titles
> > through a number of game studios like EA Canada.
> >
> > I further don't know of studies which confirm your hypothesis or to
> > compare the innovativeness of the US to other countries. It may well be a
> > misnomer left over from post-WWII.
> >
> > Sami
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 08/21/2010 02:53 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not sure as to why this is much of a surprise.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Because many other people in other countries (like mine) get a better
> >>> deal... and their societies work just fine. Society is a massive game
> >>>
> > and
> >
> >>> we control all the rules. It is better if the rules are utilitarian
> >>> meaning
> >>> the greatest good for the greatest number of people rather than
> >>>
> > favouring
> >
> >>> the few at the cost of the many so that they may make even more wealth.
> >>>
> > I
> >
> >>> would find it acceptable to take every penny they have say over a
> >>>
> > million
> >
> >>> dollars and redistribute it to entrepreneurs with viable business
> >>>
> > ideas.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are certain
> >>>> protections, and the rest is a consumer market like anything else. In
> >>>> other words, if you don't like the wage, if you don't like the
> >>>>
> > benefits
> >
> >>>> package, if you don't like the job title or the wallpaper ... don't
> >>>>
> > take
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> the job.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> The question then is not whether or not protection should exist, but
> >>> which
> >>> rules should exist so that they create the greatest amount of good for
> >>> all
> >>> who are involved... Not just the shareholders but the stakeholders too.
> >>> That does not mean management goes away, or that disparity is
> >>> eliminated...
> >>> but that it is reduced to the greatest level possible while keeping the
> >>> system function. Thereby limiting the leisure class significantly
> >>>
> > rather
> >
> >>> than magnifying its power.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On the other hand, there are protections here that are NOT afforded
> >>>> elsewhere. If you are asked in an interview about your marital status,
> >>>> location of residence, past times, religious participation, etc., and
> >>>>
> > do
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> not receive the job, you can sue (which is why companies in the know
> >>>> train their staff not to ask such questions). I know people in other
> >>>> countries (especially in Asia) who have been asked in an interview why
> >>>> they are not married, what their parents do for a living, when they
> >>>>
> > met
> >
> >>>> their boyfriend and how, and if they had sex outside of marriage.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I am sure there are countries like this, India being a prime example of
> >>> where some of these questions might be asked. I consider such
> >>>
> > environment
> >
> >>> failures and I think only because of overpopulation they can get away
> >>> with
> >>> this sort of shit; too much competition. I don't think we want to
> >>>
> > emulate
> >
> >>> failure, I think we want to emulate success.
> >>>
> >>> I don't particularly care about shareholders.
> >>>
> >>> If every citizen thought like a business, which is the purview of
> >>> economists, then I think every citizen should be strategic in
> >>>
> > maximizing
> >
> >>> their personal utility... They should all be taught to behave
> >>>
> > rationally
> >
> >>> and treat their lives like a business. That means attempting to
> >>>
> > maximize
> >
> >>> personal profit at the cost of everyone and looking out only for their
> >>> shareholders: i.e. themselves... Which would then in turn lead most
> >>> businesses to fail and society to fall into pieces because of the zero
> >>> sum
> >>> game which would be created. It is good for corporations and societies
> >>> that
> >>> employees for the most part don't behave this way. It would therefore
> >>>
> > be
> >
> >>> good for employees and society if corporations did not behave this way
> >>> either.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> consulting mailing list
> >>>> consulting at drupal.org
> >>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> consulting mailing list
> >>> consulting at drupal.org
> >>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> consulting mailing list
> >> consulting at drupal.org
> >> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > consulting mailing list
> > consulting at drupal.org
> > http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20100821/3a20c126/attachment-0001.html 