[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour

[Sami Khan]

> 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