[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour
Sami Khan
sami at etopian.net
Sat Aug 21 20:39:29 UTC 2010
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:08:05 -0400, Jeff Greenberg <jeff at ayendesigns.com>
wrote:
> Oh, you and everyone else are certainly free (in my opinion) to slam it
> as much as you want...I just question the importance. Now China, number
> 2 economically and soon to be number 1 I'd think, with very little
> trickling down, almost now worker rights or avenue of redress, etc.,
> that could be a very interesting discussion :-)
I am in favor of bashing China's treatment of workers :-) I think many
Chinese are as well.
>
> On 08/21/2010 04:12 PM, Victor Kane wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:consulting at drupal.org>
>> >>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> consulting mailing list
>> >>> consulting at drupal.org <mailto:consulting at drupal.org>
>> >>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> consulting mailing list
>> >> consulting at drupal.org <mailto:consulting at drupal.org>
>> >> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > consulting mailing list
>> > consulting at drupal.org <mailto:consulting at drupal.org>
>> > http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> consulting mailing list
>> consulting at drupal.org <mailto: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
>>
More information about the consulting
mailing list