[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour
Jeff Greenberg
jeff at ayendesigns.com
Sat Aug 21 20:08:05 UTC 2010
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 :-)
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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20100821/aae9e2cd/attachment-0001.html
More information about the consulting
mailing list