[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour

[Sami Khan]

> 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