[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour
Jeff Greenberg
jeff at ayendesigns.com
Sun Aug 22 14:44:46 UTC 2010
I agree with you across the board on that, but to what end? On the other
end of the spectrum (from the Chinese slave shops) is the answer that
the small business owner with 30 employees, who already are paid
competitively and have benefits, has to watch his life's work
disintegrate because he gets unionized and has to raise his prices well
above his competitors to meet the labor demands? Just an example, back
to my feelings about too much of anything.
'To what end' also applies to the discussion of innovators. I'd respond
with 'And?' ... but that's ambiguous. What -motivates- that team or
individual? If their work environment is crappy, it certainly isn't
contributing. Every contribution is individual. A team is individuals
working in concert. A factory floor of successful producers are dozens
or hundreds of individuals, each motivated to contribute. At the end of
the day, unlike bees or ants, each goes home, and if the workplace sends
them home crying from depression or spending the night sleepless from
hunger, they are not motivated the next day. Of course there are idiot
companies that treat people like that, unfortunately, but for me to
think that any business owner who cares about his product, business and
workers treating them like that, I think not, and for the life of me, I
cannot think of any company that would exhibit long-term success doing
that, rather than some short-term profit. The problem with a country as
massive as China is (a) the state ultimately runs the companies, and can
rename them or whatever overnight, and (b) consumers buy their goods,
though I don't know who would be hurt more if everyone refused to, their
'businesses' or their workers.
It depends on who you consider innovates. My education is in
> entrepreneurship, my university offered a program through the management
> degree for it. One of the professors I was taught by studies the subject
> academically and has done so probably for a good 20 years at this point.
> His findings were that companies in general are very bad at innovation.
> Usually it is individual entrepreneurs or (small) startup teams that
> innovate, often discontinuously; Microsoft or Apple at their founding are
> examples of this.
>
> Often innovation comes from ordinary people or professionals trying to
> solve problems that they have and coming up with an innovative solution.
> That solution is then commercialized either by the startup or an existing
> company. In the case of Microsoft or Apple, it is motivated individuals
> looking to get ahead... but individuals nonetheless. In the case of
> Microsoft, success meant copycatting everyone else's ideas at a large scale
> systematically. But I digress a bit.
>
> The point being that innovation is done by a person or a small team who
> has a big idea, the idea is then to be commercialized and people are
> employed to commercialize it. The people who commercialize the idea are
> employees. Slavery means in business fixed cost of labour, that's pretty
> much it. A slave needs food and shelter and so is the cheapest to employ;
> in China currently there are employees that live in company dorms and work
> 12 hour days: that's slavery! So sure slaves can play a big part in
> commercializing innovation.
>
> If you have a free class, i.e. a capitalist class, it can utilize slavery
> to innovate and Apple, it may be hypothesized (though much research may be
> needed to make such a claim as to the working conditions of Chinese
> factories like Foxconn where employees have committed suicide 12+ times)
> through its Chinese manufacturers is doing just that.
>
>
>
>> My father once told me (hardly his words, but new to me at the time)
>> that too much of anything is no good, and I'd argue that goes for too
>> much socialism and capitalism as well.
>>
> Agreed.
>
> Sami
>
>
>
>> On 08/21/2010 04:48 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:57:47 -0400, 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A comprehensive study would need to be done. Though I think I would
>>>
> agree
>
>>> than more than a fair share can be attributed to the United States.
>>> However, that does not prove anything. As how much great work was done
>>> for
>>> America under slavery. Tons. Without the slaves much of the US
>>> agriculture
>>> industry, which was all that the US was known for back then, would not
>>>
> be
>
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Slamming. Hardly. Speaking for workers rights and benefits, however,
>>> definitely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The only way I would morally agree to this is if we banished marketing
>>> and
>>> taught students for at least 4 years or so the virtues of rational,
>>> business minded thinking. Barring that, people are not free to decide
>>>
> and
>
>>> may be gamed. The people who have more money can game them better than
>>> people with less money, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Slavery is by far the most efficient method of production, why don't we
>>> adopt that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sami
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
More information about the consulting
mailing list