Conquer Club

A question came up in a radio discussion.

Are the arguments about paying for health care, etc similar to the arguments voiced about ending slavery? That is, I am NOT suggesting that currently employment is akin to salvery or corporations are slavers.

The point was that the change we are seeing now, is about change in paradigm, a change as profound as the move away from slavery or child labor, etc. The basic argument against ending slavery was that [society and business] could not afford to change, that they "system" depended on that cheap labor. The argument today is, similarly, that corporations cannot afford to offer better pay, health care, etc.

Thoughts?

Salvery

If "children" under 18 want to work for $3 an hour at McDonald's, then I say let them. It would drive down the prices of many American consumer goods, raise real employment, speed up the time it takes for people to learn basic job skills, and yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada.

Oh, the salvegery!

PLAYER57832 wrote:A question came up in a radio discussion.

Are the arguments about paying for health care, etc similar to the arguments voiced about ending slavery? That is, I am NOT suggesting that currently employment is akin to salvery or corporations are slavers.

The point was that the change we are seeing now, is about change in paradigm, a change as profound as the move away from slavery or child labor, etc. The basic argument against ending slavery was that [society and business] could not afford to change, that they "system" depended on that cheap labor. The argument today is, similarly, that corporations cannot afford to offer better pay, health care, etc.

Thoughts?

You've convinced me I'm going to launch a revolt against my boss.

Yeah! Steal his car!

PLAYER57832 wrote:A question came up in a radio discussion.

Are the arguments about paying for health care, etc similar to the arguments voiced about ending slavery? That is, I am NOT suggesting that currently employment is akin to salvery or corporations are slavers.

The point was that the change we are seeing now, is about change in paradigm, a change as profound as the move away from slavery or child labor, etc. The basic argument against ending slavery was that [society and business] could not afford to change, that they "system" depended on that cheap labor. The argument today is, similarly, that corporations cannot afford to offer better pay, health care, etc.

Thoughts?

Similar argument was raised over equal wages for men and women.

You might have had less to lose running away if you were a slave. or. uh. yeah.

Of course they can afford better. And you're dumb if you think otherwise. One of the two main ways that a company makes profits is to reduce it's expenditures, by cutting budgets internally. That means paying you lower wages. How is it that you think you get raises? Do you think that you're just increasing their profits $.30 an hour over your previous year? But eventually, any company reaches a point where they're expanding where they can but still have a surplus of cash. That's when you get banks with marble columns and offices with 700 year-old Red Wood trimming.

Bookkeeper here.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I am NOT suggesting that currently employment is akin to salvery or corporations are slavers.

Thoughts?

Um... yes you are. Just read the f*cking title of your thread.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Of course they can afford better. And you're dumb if you think otherwise. One of the two main ways that a company makes profits is to reduce it's expenditures, by cutting budgets internally. That means paying you lower wages. How is it that you think you get raises? Do you think that you're just increasing their profits $.30 an hour over your previous year? But eventually, any company reaches a point where they're expanding where they can but still have a surplus of cash. That's when you get banks with marble columns and offices with 700 year-old Red Wood trimming.

Bookkeeper here.

Companies that tend to reduce people's wages to earn profits are only seeking a short-term way of maintaining their business's livelihood. If they're seriously facing such problems, they're going to do much more than that. It's typically going to involve seeing what their employees want (and are thinking), what their customers want, and how to get the top-level managers in line with their customer and employee wants.

And that's not even the beginning of how to cut costs and increase profits... it's just much more complicated then what you're suggesting.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Of course they can afford better. And you're dumb if you think otherwise. One of the two main ways that a company makes profits is to reduce it's expenditures, by cutting budgets internally. That means paying you lower wages. How is it that you think you get raises? Do you think that you're just increasing their profits $.30 an hour over your previous year? But eventually, any company reaches a point where they're expanding where they can but still have a surplus of cash. That's when you get banks with marble columns and offices with 700 year-old Red Wood trimming.

Bookkeeper here.

Companies that tend to reduce people's wages to earn profits are only seeking a short-term way of maintaining their business's livelihood. If they're seriously facing such problems, they're going to do much more than that. It's typically going to involve seeing what their employees want (and are thinking), what their customers want, and how to get the top-level managers in line with their customer and employee wants.

And that's not even the beginning of how to cut costs and increase profits... it's just much more complicated then what you're suggesting.

Yes - to put it even more simply - if an employer pays its employees poorly, the employees will leave and the employer will no longer have a viable business.

I think the real kinship between employment and slavery is culture related. Bear with me - Approximately 50 to 100 years ago, generally speaking, men worked and women did not. Whether that was "right" in the gender equality sense is not relevant here. What is relevant is that right now is that men and women who are married both work and not necessarily by choice. For example, my wife and I have friends who are married. They are both lawyers. They have two children. The husband wanted to stay home from work after the first child, but cannot for financial reasons. Each of them by themselves do not make enough money to support the other and the children. So, the question is - why not?

I think there are two main reasons: first, necessities cost more than they did years ago and second, we are taught by society to purchase things that we don't need. At least these are my theories on the subject - it has been ingrained in us that possessions = status and we need to make enough money (or have enough credit) to accumulate possessions, and therefore, status.

I agree that both ideas are similar in that there is a limit to the choices, but without a doubt, slavery is much more restrictive in available options. (honestly, that whole question is silly, and I think we can move on from it).

Regarding your last paragraph, yes, it has been ingrained, but the ultimate decision-maker is still the person. That person may have an internal or external locus of control, so either he places the responsibility and faults on himself, or on others (society). In the end, it's still up to the person and his perceived lack of options.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I agree that both ideas are similar in that there is a limit to the choices, but without a doubt, slavery is much more restrictive in available options. (honestly, that whole question is silly, and I think we can move on from it).

Regarding your last paragraph, yes, it has been ingrained, but the ultimate decision-maker is still the person. That person may have an internal or external locus of control, so either he places the responsibility and faults on himself, or on others (society). In the end, it's still up to the person and his perceived lack of options.

I agree that the choice falls on the individual person.

BBS mutters a "Hm" in agreement while leaning back and taking a sip of coffee. He rests his leg on his knee and then asks,

"Well then, what's next on the agenda?"

BigBallinStalin wrote:BBS mutters a "Hm" in agreement while leaning back and taking a sip of coffee. He rests his leg on his knee and then asks,

"Well then, what's next on the agenda?"

I'm glad you learned your lesson about cracking open bears.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:BBS mutters a "Hm" in agreement while leaning back and taking a sip of coffee. He rests his leg on his knee and then asks,

"Well then, what's next on the agenda?"

I'm glad you learned your lesson about cracking open bears.

Haha, I know, right?

(you got what I was alluding to, huh?)

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:BBS mutters a "Hm" in agreement while leaning back and taking a sip of coffee. He rests his leg on his knee and then asks,

"Well then, what's next on the agenda?"

I'm glad you learned your lesson about cracking open bears.

Yes, beers are far more refreshing. Bears tend to fight back too much.

PLAYER57832 wrote:A question came up in a radio discussion.

Are the arguments about paying for health care, etc similar to the arguments voiced about ending slavery? That is, I am NOT suggesting that currently employment is akin to salvery or corporations are slavers.

The point was that the change we are seeing now, is about change in paradigm, a change as profound as the move away from slavery or child labor, etc. The basic argument against ending slavery was that [society and business] could not afford to change, that they "system" depended on that cheap labor. The argument today is, similarly, that corporations cannot afford to offer better pay, health care, etc.

Thoughts?

There are a lot of arguments on both issues, the one you claim as the "basic argument" assumes that most everyone arguing agrees the practice is immoral or undesirable but disagree as to its necessity. Not everyone needs health benefits from their job, some people (mostly young adults) would prefer a higher pay than for the company to use its limited resources on health care.
If anything, forcing a company to provide health care or any service is closer to slavery than them deciding not to offer the service. The same goes for forcing someone to pay for health care when they do not want to. The reason being you're in effect forcing them to work to pay for it.

Guerrilla James wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:A question came up in a radio discussion.

Are the arguments about paying for health care, etc similar to the arguments voiced about ending slavery? That is, I am NOT suggesting that currently employment is akin to salvery or corporations are slavers.

The point was that the change we are seeing now, is about change in paradigm, a change as profound as the move away from slavery or child labor, etc. The basic argument against ending slavery was that [society and business] could not afford to change, that they "system" depended on that cheap labor. The argument today is, similarly, that corporations cannot afford to offer better pay, health care, etc.

Thoughts?

There are a lot of arguments on both issues, the one you claim as the "basic argument" assumes that most everyone arguing agrees the practice is immoral or undesirable but disagree as to its necessity. Not everyone needs health benefits from their job, some people (mostly young adults) would prefer a higher pay than for the company to use its limited resources on health care.
If anything, forcing a company to provide health care or any service is closer to slavery than them deciding not to offer the service. The same goes for forcing someone to pay for health care when they do not want to. The reason being you're in effect forcing them to work to pay for it.

Health care is not an individual choice because you are not the sole payor of your health care, even whilst you might pretend you are. If you get in a serious car accident, WE, not you will be paying for you if you lack insurance. Frankly, even WITH insurance, those who pay full price are partially subsidizing you. If you get sick and don't get cured, then you pass your illness on to everyone in the communkity.

Those iare the plain facts that so many wish to ignore. Your health is NOT solely your "personal concern". That is why quarantine laws are among the most heavily and easily enforced. That you live in an age where medicine and vaccines have largely eliminated such concerns does not mean they are gone. In fact, the misuse of antibiotics are likely to lead to a new round of quarantines in our lifetimes.


You are not an island. This idea that no one has to care about anybody else because everyone is "sefl-sufficient" is idiocy. Even the Amish, who DO NOT depend on government services except for things like roads that they plain cannot avoid, acknowledge that they depend on others outside their communties.

Interdependence through voluntary exchange has raised the standard of living and most any economist would agree. If we were limited to only what we could produce alone than there would be no specialization, market, or economy to speak of. I am not arguing that people live inside vacuums of absolute self control. I also don't dispute that some expenses of underprivileged or irresponsible patients are spread out to those who can afford it and that this to some extent raises costs. Markets influx with accordance to other people's decisions, that does not mean the government should be in control of it. But let's get back on topic, that being your analogy.

What I am addressing is your comparison of slavery to workers who don't receive health care. Using government to force someone to provide a service to another is forced labor, certainly not to the extent slavery was but if it is either more like your comparison or mine than I am still in favor of my own.

You seem to more adamantly opposed to the idea of individualism than you do to whether or not my comparison is more accurate than yours which is what I thought the conversation was about.

Guerrilla James wrote: What I am addressing is your comparison of slavery to workers who don't receive health care.

This was just one part of the comparison.

Guerrilla James wrote:Using government to force someone to provide a service to another is forced labor,

by that measure, so is requiring employers to pay at all. health care is just one more form of compensation.

by-the-way, I used health care as an example because it is, currently, one of prime complaints by the right wing. I actually don't think employers should provide health care. I would prefer elimination of all special groups, allowing insurers to pick out certain people for lower rates is essentially providing those companies, and the people with an indirect tax break or break on health care costs. Problem is, its an illusionary break, based primarily upon giving insurance companies profit.

Guerrilla James wrote:certainly not to the extent slavery was but if it is either more like your comparison or mine than I am still in favor of my own.

You seem to more adamantly opposed to the idea of individualism than you do to whether or not my comparison is more accurate than yours which is what I thought the conversation was about.

I am very much in favor of individualism, but favoring the individual, not corporations. Also, being an individual does not mean you get to escape responsibility. Paying for your health care, not just now, but in the future and not pretending that because you haven't gotten seriously ill you won't and that whether you choose to pay ahead for inevitable illness/injury or not is a choice is just wrong on your part. You cannot predict when you will get ill, but it is virtually gauranteed that at some point you will. Should you do so at a time when you lack coverage, then the rest of America will be paying your bills. After you lose everything you own, first, but we will pay. THAT is not "my imagination", it is reality.

But, to take this away from the healthcare format, which is actually a bit unique (our system is just stupid, no matter how you slice it). What right do gas companies have to put the water supplies of our entire region, here in Western PA at risk so they can make a few dollars in profit. Yes, they provide some jobs (and not just direct, of course), provide a needed resource, etc. Still, that they have the supposed "right" to drill and then claim "oops, we goofed.. unforseeable event" When well after well is poisoned, when they can come in and claim that simply providing a bit of bottled water, but only AFTER a long reign of lawsuits and claim that this somehow "fixes" the problems...

OR, how about the fact that a company can produce all the toxins it wants and that it is up to the rest of us to do the research, THEN to hire the lawyers to prove the harm in court before anyone can get even a dime in mitigation. Mitigation, mind you, that will never truly replace the life of a child or even the growing potential of someone's garden.

This is about much more than healthcare. it is about whether we require responsibility or not and what that responsibility entails.

People need to learn more about economics... At least micro....

PLAYER57832 wrote:But, to take this away from the healthcare format, which is actually a bit unique (our system is just stupid, no matter how you slice it). What right do gas companies have to put the water supplies of our entire region, here in Western PA at risk so they can make a few dollars in profit. Yes, they provide some jobs (and not just direct, of course), provide a needed resource, etc. Still, that they have the supposed "right" to drill and then claim "oops, we goofed.. unforseeable event" When well after well is poisoned, when they can come in and claim that simply providing a bit of bottled water, but only AFTER a long reign of lawsuits and claim that this somehow "fixes" the problems...

Let's talk about this - Player clearly blames corporations and rich people for the eventual poisoning of the water supply in Pennsylvania.

I blame the Pennsylvania state government who, instead of protecting its residents, is looking for the all important tax dollars generated from these companies' operations.

By the way - We've had a Democratic governor the past few years, so I lay blame squarely on Governor Rendell.

BigBallinStalin wrote:People need to learn more about economics... At least micro....

Explain. I never claim to be an expert in economics, but economics is more art than science. Too many assumptions are often made that are just false. This is why so many experts can disagree so widely.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:But, to take this away from the healthcare format, which is actually a bit unique (our system is just stupid, no matter how you slice it). What right do gas companies have to put the water supplies of our entire region, here in Western PA at risk so they can make a few dollars in profit. Yes, they provide some jobs (and not just direct, of course), provide a needed resource, etc. Still, that they have the supposed "right" to drill and then claim "oops, we goofed.. unforseeable event" When well after well is poisoned, when they can come in and claim that simply providing a bit of bottled water, but only AFTER a long reign of lawsuits and claim that this somehow "fixes" the problems...

Let's talk about this - Player clearly blames corporations and rich people for the eventual poisoning of the water supply in Pennsylvania.

I blame the Pennsylvania state government who, instead of protecting its residents, is looking for the all important tax dollars generated from these companies' operations.

I blame BOTH, but also recognize that the reason we have the PA government we do is largely due to lobbies and lack of general education in science and resources.

thegreekdog wrote:By the way - We've had a Democratic governor the past few years, so I lay blame squarely on Governor Rendell.

I suppose we should take the specifics into another thread, but I certainly don't give Rendell a pass on this. I think you assume I am debating Republicanism versus Democrats (or the Tea Party, perhaps). I am not. This goes beyond any one party. I put the blame on overall attitudes that consequences don't matter unless they are direct and immediate and that anything that makes money is inherently more beneficial than other things.

And, I know you have said you are angry about the drilling as well.