|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:32 pm
What I'm trying to say is, yes, I've heard of that study. But if it was so successful, why isn't everyone doing it by now? I heard that study at least two years ago. Surely that sort of thing would have seeped into more companies if it worked so well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:07 pm
I.Am I didn't read all of your first post after the part where you, once again, assumed that I didn't understand you because I disagreed with you. Which, do you not get that I was giving you the benefit of the ******** doubt? That's even worse! If you're assuming people will "work so they don't starve," you run into the exact problem we talked about several times in the communist thread: People will work as little as they can get away with, because they don't have to work any harder. But to your second post: You're not ******** listening. You're not reading my post. I didn't say that there's an official barter system. Oooh! Are you going to make barter illegal? Wait, no, that's impossible; You have no government. But assuming that the people unanimously decide to use your system, why wouldn't they barter? What would keep them from it? And this isn't about food. Not for the most part, although I could see one person taking all the chocolate in the store because he sees an oppurtunity. wink I guess you may be able to get away with this society if all you're producing is food, and other things that everyone needs to survive. Then you could conceivably have enough for everyone. xd But then no one would want to live there, because you would be surviving not living. You completely run over the main point though: Art. What of art? What of rare, one of a kind, ********, art, of any sort? And prints or industrially recreated pieces don't count; While I'm sure they're nice, it's just not the same. A copy of the Mona Lisa isn't anywhere near the same as having the actual Mona Lisa, no matter how good a copy it is. And this includes all things that are of value because they are unique. One person gets there first. He takes it, because it looks pretty. Another person had seen or heard of it, or saw a picture of it online, and wanted it desperately. He goes to the store, finds it's not there, somehow finds out who has it, and barters with him. With what? ********, I don't know. Whatever the guy wants. Hang out with him on weekends. A piece of art he has. Work a week of his shift. ******** sexual favors. Whatever. It's still bartering. Your having a communist society does not get rid of the barter system. For that matter, and I just thought of this, what about concerts? I assume that your society, hopefully, does not make music illegal. How are you going to fit everyone who wants to go to a concert into the venue? Or a movie, are you just going to build huge theaters that can hold everyone who wants to see the movie on opening night? And a some of that, the stuff about 10 gallons of milk especially, was about why money is more efficient than barter. It was an example of why it's better to have money than barter, after showing that barter is inevitable. It was not a direct example of how barter would work in your dreamland, but rather how it would work in the real world. There would be no barter... Why would one trade an item they can just get from the store for free? You lose me here. It's just rediculous. One of a kind things? Art? Museams obviously. Could people own art? Hmmm... I say originals should go to museams, and replicas are printed. But eh, art isn't really as important as survival. Concerts? Movies? What's to stop them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:38 pm
I.Am Hmm. I do find it amusing that your society seems to be based on the idea of fairness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your communist society is about everyone being equal, right? No one person being better than another? Mm. But you're achieving that through materialistic means; Everyone can have a car, everyone can have whatever they want out of the store, blah blah blah. You're not addressing stress issues. Again I raise the fact that not everyone can have their dream job; Someone is going to have to clean out the gutters. Someone is going to have to pick up the garbage. Someone is going to have to dig the ditches. So what of the people who -do- get their dream jobs? Money isn't the only reason people are looked up to and respected. Money isn't the only class divider. Do you ever stop and wonder -why- the Soviet Union became divided into classes? Why there was a leader? Did you think that the people who started the revolution did so thinking, "I'm going to create a class-based society with leaders! Dur!"? No. They created it with just the ideals you have, and then realized, "Well crap. This doesn't work without some sort of government. This doesn't work with a leader. Without these things, our utopia becomes a chaotic anarchy, where the weak are ruled by the strong, just without money." And that was the start of a class system too, because people in the government had power even if money didn't exist. Even assuming you somehow managed to get this to work without a government, highly unlikely, you would still have a class divide. You'd have musicians, and artists, who get to do what they love, and people love them. And by the way, whether someone is good or not is entirely a matter of opinion; And if you are having someone judge them before they get the job, ta-da! You have government. wink But anyways, you have a class divide right there. The people who are doing what they love, the people who are skilled, become the "elite." People who pick up garbage, dig graves, clean hallways, and flip burgers are going to become the lower class. And of course you have all the in between people, ranging from the monotonous factory jobs of the lower middle class to the stressful but necessary job of the teacher. ...What's this? A class system nearly identical to the one that currently exists? Shocking. PLEASE READ THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN:You seem to have this idea that I think communists are all dog kicking, thieving Russians. I don't. I am not bigoted against communism. I think it's a great idea, a great ideal. And I'm not necessarily saying that there will never be a form of communism that does work. What I'm saying is that it hasn't worked yet. What I am saying is that your idea is great, but what about ? What I am saying is show me how it will work. I'm challenging you. And I get angry and frustrated because you don't even address the challenge, you completely ignore it with stars in your eyes, acting like this idea will work because it should work. You don't even think about it, you don't even consider it or try to come up with solutions for the problems I expose, you just act like they aren't there!
Just for example, do you really think people will put up with 4+ years of school, just to do a something they enjoy? When they'll get the exact same thing for sweeping the streets? ******** that. I wouldn't. College is fun, in a way, but only outside of everything that is College. If I were able to get the same things working at the coffeeshop I work at now that I could without my degree? Why would I waste my time like that?
And for the rich, do you want any of that? I don't. And you can't control the media. xd Even large corporations can't control the media. As for becoming President, although I don't want it, it's true that right now only the rich make it into a political office. And that should change. But that hardly means we should switch to a money less society. xd For that matter, do you think that Presidents were ever anything but the elites in society? The political system was started by white landowners. People were picked to become the politicians because they were respected in their communities, just as they are now. And people were picked out of the politicians to become President based on how effectively they put themselves out there. But honestly, it's still the best form of picking a leader that we have. You still haven't shown me any way that your system would work without a leader. Would you have a better way of picking one? Something that isn't corruptible?The soviet union failed BECUASE of the class system. They used it to control people, much like they control people here. It WAS a capitalism. And they pushed the limits of the working class too far. They raised prices too much, the government moved things too much. It was an extreme of THIS society, where we could go with abad ruler and a significan recession. also a famine. Again, even if there was no pay difference, at least there would be no oppression based on it. There would be no starvation because of it, and no gross amount of control because of it. You don't think businesses control America? Look at Rupert Murdoch. He owns many television channels, news papers, magazines... Those who own the media companies control what we see. They can lie, twist the truth, leave out facts... And why do they own evetything? The system encourages it. As people work for them, they gain more revenue with which to hire more people and expand their control. They will never fall in this system- They own everything. The rich always own everything. The rich control everything. The rich hold all the power and all of our information. The rich control the jobs we need to support ourselves, which go to pay the rich when we buy their products. It is the perfect trap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:41 pm
I.Am Mm. One more post for the night/early morning. xd I highly suggest everything written by Max Barry: Syrup (He's down as "Maxx Barry" Because he thought two 'x's were more marketable. xd ), Jennifer Government, and Company. Especially the last two. My God, the man is a genius writer. And I'm sure that you'll see a lot of your fears in there, divine, because he's all about Capitalism gone too far. 3nodding Especially Jennifer Government; it's all dystopian, post-Capitalistic, corporate run world stuff. Great, great stuff. Syrup... Mm. Crap. Can't remember everything about Syrup. But it's about a guy who creates a new version of Coca Cola called Fukk. Need I say more? Jennifer Government is about a world that has, for the most part, become totally Capitalist; Like if Capitalism actually were a form of government. Nobody does anything unless they are paid, surnames are replaced with the name of the company you work for, stuff like that. Company is about... Well, it gets to it pretty quick, but I still don't want to ruin the main thing. sweatdrop But it's about a company where no one quite understands what the company does, and over all it's about how management doesn't care about the employees? Something like that. It's good. I just finished it. I'm quite happy. 3nodding Oh, and since the topic has derailed (What were we talking about originally again? Illegal immigration? xd ) I'm changing the topic name. Because honestly, illegal immigration didn't get much of a response anyways. The thing is though, while this world isn't as bad, it still has these elements, which aren't very good either. I'm not an extremist, I don't think we are literally like ants in a cage. But I think that there is some trapping going on, I think that the rich have too much power, and that the system is circular and in their favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:51 pm
lymelady divineseraph Every issue you mention, however, exists right here in capitalism. The only difference is, of course, that capitalist slackers and liars are paid to slack. They get MORE than someone else, rather than just equal. And again, slackers would be dealt with as often as they are in capitalism. As for heirarchy- workers would not run around at random completeing any task they saw. They would have defined jobs- For example, you go to work at the staple factory. You apply. They need people in the steel-smelting section. So, they vote, quick raise of the hands, you're in. You go get trained to use the equipment, work there for a week until one day some guy over in boxing calls in sick. So, since they have an extra smelter, they call you over, show you how to box. It's your new task for the day. In down time, or in times of need, people could do any task needed but specialize in what they were hired to do. There could be book-keepers as well, but keeping books would be more simple. Fewer things to track. So someone doing the bare minimum is more likely to be paid higher than someone going above and beyond? No. Companies tend to promote and give raises to the employees who put in more effort. The "slacker" in my definition is someone doing the bare minimum to keep a job. A D student. It's not an F, but that student isn't being put on the honor roll anytime soon. They wouldn't be fired in your system, because they'd do enough to get by. If I could get the same thing as a passable employee that I can as a good, hard worker? I wouldn't work that hard, quite frankly. And again with assuming CEOs are slackers. I'm about to quote snopes because they make a good point. Quote: The value of work can appear contradictory in that those who are visibly busy frequently earn but a fraction of those who seem to not be doing all that much. Judged by the eye alone, the secretary who at the end of the day point to the stack of letters she typed would appear to be worth more than the executive who at the end of the day can display no physical manifestations of what she's spent her time on. Equally, one who flips burgers and fills orders appears far more productive to the naked eye than the manager in charge of the place. What is the value of a task? As this legend points out, performing the actual labor can easily be the smallest part of the process, with the real value lying in correctly diagnosing the problem and coming up with a viable solution to it. Ultimately, a task is worth whatever the person who needs it performed is willing to pay, whether the work is cerebral or manual. And who would define those jobs? What you're talking about? That's really not very different than what we have now, quite frankly. "Someone's trained to do one task," is someone trained to do one task. That they can take over somewhere else if needed doesn't take away from them being concentrated on one thing; I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you meant everyone did everything and that would somehow get it done faster. Keeping this in mind, a specific job for doing the paperwork, scheduling, and organizing is efficient. If someone else is trained to be able to do it, okay, but that doesn't take that job away. It just means everyone is trained to be able to do it if they need someone for it. No, but the students who never do the work, look in the back of the book for the odds and then has a system of each student systematically asking the answers to all the evens still gets an A, if you catch my drift. The appearence of knowledge/work is nearly equal and sometimes more physically rewarding than actual work. Slacking does not require lounging in front of the boss. It also means sucking up while never doing anything of actual work, or taking credit for other people's work, or group assignments. Yes, diagnosing a task is important. But why can only certain people do it? Why is it better to have one person do it, but not help with any other task? Could not the workers themselves hsut as easily diagnose a problem? There are more customers than burgers? Cook more. Don't need a suit being paid 3 times more money to tell you that. People would have a specialized task, but be trained to work in others in downtime. Sorry, I forgot to mention that. That was my fault, I assumed for an instant that you had seen the same self management report I had, which explained that system as such. And no, it's really not too different. All I want is to get rid of money. I want to get rid of the cause of physical greed and control, and money seems to be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:54 pm
La Veuve Zin I.Am Just for example, do you really think people will put up with 4+ years of school, just to do a something they enjoy? When they'll get the exact same thing for sweeping the streets? If sweeping streets paid a comfortable wage, then yes, I'd put up with 4+ years of college to do something more interesting. I could have stayed in a decent-paying job, but instead I put myself into thousands of dollars of debt to go back to college. Why? So I could do something more interesting. There will always be people who'll be too dumb for college and will just say "******** it, I'll be a street sweeper." And there'll be kids in high school (or college) who don't have any experience, so during the summer they get menial jobs. I don't think everyone should be paid the same amount for every job; wages rightly go up and down with demand. But they should never go below the poverty level, and this is a central tenet of communism. It is never okay for people to starve when others are well-fed. If this means well-fed people taking a pay cut so others don't starve, well, that's just the nice thing to do. We could attempt to rely on the kindness of strangers, but clearly that doesn't work. This is a matter of opinion, but I'd rather live in a command economy where everyone had enough than a free market in which people starved to death on the streets. Because you never know when your personal safety net will fail, unexpected s**t will happen and you'll be the one needing help. btw, there was also an auto plant--I'm fairly certain it was GM--at which the company instituted a worker-owned system. All the employees got a certain amount of stock, they democratically made decisions, they were all trained in both labor and management positions and rotated every few weeks so they weren't just doing one thing and seeing the company from one perspective. And everyone--EVERYONE--at the plant LOVED it. They enjoyed their jobs more, they were more loyal to the company and friendly to their coworkers and they wouldn't go back for anything. That and college would be another task needed for society and would thus be free. One would not need to work while in college, to concentrate on one's studies. I think college would be available for 5 years per person, to ensure that nobody just stays in college forever. A good case would have to be made to get back in for a new education, should they suddenly want to do something drastically different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:14 pm
divineseraph I.Am Mm. One more post for the night/early morning. xd I highly suggest everything written by Max Barry: Syrup (He's down as "Maxx Barry" Because he thought two 'x's were more marketable. xd ), Jennifer Government, and Company. Especially the last two. My God, the man is a genius writer. And I'm sure that you'll see a lot of your fears in there, divine, because he's all about Capitalism gone too far. 3nodding Especially Jennifer Government; it's all dystopian, post-Capitalistic, corporate run world stuff. Great, great stuff. Syrup... Mm. Crap. Can't remember everything about Syrup. But it's about a guy who creates a new version of Coca Cola called Fukk. Need I say more? Jennifer Government is about a world that has, for the most part, become totally Capitalist; Like if Capitalism actually were a form of government. Nobody does anything unless they are paid, surnames are replaced with the name of the company you work for, stuff like that. Company is about... Well, it gets to it pretty quick, but I still don't want to ruin the main thing. sweatdrop But it's about a company where no one quite understands what the company does, and over all it's about how management doesn't care about the employees? Something like that. It's good. I just finished it. I'm quite happy. 3nodding Oh, and since the topic has derailed (What were we talking about originally again? Illegal immigration? xd ) I'm changing the topic name. Because honestly, illegal immigration didn't get much of a response anyways. The thing is though, while this world isn't as bad, it still has these elements, which aren't very good either. I'm not an extremist, I don't think we are literally like ants in a cage. But I think that there is some trapping going on, I think that the rich have too much power, and that the system is circular and in their favor. I was suggesting the ******** books, which I honestly think you'd like, not arguing a point. But you are an extremist; You are suggesting that we should remove everything that currently works and hope for the best. As for the rest of it... ******** it. It's a mixture of repost and conspiracy theorist, and I'm not going to mess with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:08 am
I.Am divineseraph I.Am Mm. One more post for the night/early morning. xd I highly suggest everything written by Max Barry: Syrup (He's down as "Maxx Barry" Because he thought two 'x's were more marketable. xd ), Jennifer Government, and Company. Especially the last two. My God, the man is a genius writer. And I'm sure that you'll see a lot of your fears in there, divine, because he's all about Capitalism gone too far. 3nodding Especially Jennifer Government; it's all dystopian, post-Capitalistic, corporate run world stuff. Great, great stuff. Syrup... Mm. Crap. Can't remember everything about Syrup. But it's about a guy who creates a new version of Coca Cola called Fukk. Need I say more? Jennifer Government is about a world that has, for the most part, become totally Capitalist; Like if Capitalism actually were a form of government. Nobody does anything unless they are paid, surnames are replaced with the name of the company you work for, stuff like that. Company is about... Well, it gets to it pretty quick, but I still don't want to ruin the main thing. sweatdrop But it's about a company where no one quite understands what the company does, and over all it's about how management doesn't care about the employees? Something like that. It's good. I just finished it. I'm quite happy. 3nodding Oh, and since the topic has derailed (What were we talking about originally again? Illegal immigration? xd ) I'm changing the topic name. Because honestly, illegal immigration didn't get much of a response anyways. The thing is though, while this world isn't as bad, it still has these elements, which aren't very good either. I'm not an extremist, I don't think we are literally like ants in a cage. But I think that there is some trapping going on, I think that the rich have too much power, and that the system is circular and in their favor. I was suggesting the ******** books, which I honestly think you'd like, not arguing a point. But you are an extremist; You are suggesting that we should remove everything that currently works and hope for the best. As for the rest of it... ******** it. It's a mixture of repost and conspiracy theorist, and I'm not going to mess with it. Everything that works? The Holocaust worked. Just not in a good way. Slavery worked. The Cursades worked. Burning witches worked. Segregation worked. Just because a society can funtion under these conditions does not mean they are good conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:52 am
rolleyes And capitalism is just like all of those things! Man, you're totally right, I can't believe I didn't see it before. It's like, either you're rich, or the rich people kill you.
Conspiracy theory is conspiratorial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:21 am
I.Am Well I think I can honestly say you'd be the exception to the rule, as far as going to school for 4+ years to get absolutely no improvement to your pay. Most people know they really don't need to enjoy their job; That's what their free time is for. It's nice to enjoy your job, or at least be able to put up with it, but there are very few jobs that are actually actively enjoyable. Ever worked 40 hours a week in a job you just "put up with?" Maybe I'm an exception to the rule, but I can't stand it. The free time isn't enough, especially if it's not a good enough job that I get a lot of vacation time. Quote: What you described, people not starving when others are well fed, that's a tenet of Socialism. Communism is everybody gets the same thing, or at the very least, that's what Divine is very enthusiastically stating, if you read what he's posted. ...Not sure if you're familiar with the relationship between socialism and communism...they're essentially the same thing, with different means to the end. Quote: I still disagree with socialism as well, though. While everyone should be fed, and I believe that people should give money to the poor, set up non profit organizations and the like, I don't believe that it is the Government's responsibility to take money I worked hard for and give it to someone else. I don't believe it should be government mandated that I donate 20+% of my check to organizations and people I don't know, haven't looked into, and might even fundamentally disagree with, without my permission. They already do that. Millions of people get money from the government, and thousands of organizations do too. Which is why some people refuse to pay taxes--not that they get away with it... As I said, I think the government needs to step in because of the few greedy assholes who don't care about the poor. (Not you...) We don't let society off with "okay, so some people will rape and murder, but we don't want to force people to not do it, so we'll just keep it legal." Not sure about the plant, btw, I'd have to do some research. IIRC, productivity did indeed go up; people usually work "harder" when they enjoy their jobs, as they're not so inclined to slack off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:15 pm
I.Am rolleyes And capitalism is just like all of those things! Man, you're totally right, I can't believe I didn't see it before. It's like, either you're rich, or the rich people kill you. Conspiracy theory is conspiratorial. No, they don't kill you. They just own all of the businesses, and thus own all of the jobs you can get and all the things the money from your job wil purchase. I was not calling capitalism naziism or any of those things. However, to the people in those societies, nothing was wrong. Or, little was wrong. Fascism was working for them. Just because a system will allow a society to survive does not mean that it is a good system. My reason for disliking capitalism is not the same as my dislike for facsim- Nobody is killed for different opinions, there is less control. Which is a step up. My dislike for capitalism is the control of money, and thus of daily life. It's not putting a gun to our heads, but it is keeping us in a cage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:39 pm
La Veuve Zin eek Ever worked 40 hours a week in a job you just "put up with?" Maybe I'm an exception to the rule, but I can't stand it. The free time isn't enough, especially if it's not a good enough job that I get a lot of vacation time. Yeah, I have, and I disagree. The free time is just fine. But see, that's my point; You're not going to College just to do something different. You're going to College because of the advantages you receive; Vacation time is part of the pay. Mm, I'm not explaining myself as well as I'd like. sweatdrop Is there a minimum wage job that you would enjoy? I'm pretty sure everyone has a job that they wouldn't mind doing, if it weren't for the fact that it's minimum wage or whatever. I like working at the coffeeshop I work at now. Other people might like working for the Red Cross. But jobs like this that you can enjoy, and don't need a college degree. Why would you get a college degree for a job, when there are enjoyable jobs at the ground level, and you won't get paid any better or worse with a college degree? Quote: ...Not sure if you're familiar with the relationship between socialism and communism...they're essentially the same thing, with different means to the end. What I think is funny is that that's exactly what everyone who isn't a communist or socialist says. But there is, in fact, a big difference; Socialism is a step towards Communism in that, yes, they want the same thing, but in one case they think that everyone should be receiving exactly the same thing, and in the other case they think that money should be redistributed some from those who have more than enough to those who have too little. The difference is, really, working within Capitalism and trying to completely get rid of money entirely. I can respect the second, even though I disagree. I can't respect the first. Quote: They already do that. Millions of people get money from the government, and thousands of organizations do too. Which is why some people refuse to pay taxes--not that they get away with it... That's my point though. The government shouldn't be; Or at least, ideally, that's what I feel. People should just do it on their own. However, I do agree to an extent that there are some things that have to be done, and wouldn't receive enough money if done privately. Like a limited welfare. But only to an extent; When the Government does it, gets corrupted, because it's not being done by people who truly care and want to help, it's being done by people who are doing it as a job and so it's more easily corruptible. So I would say that the Government should be making sure that no one is starving because they are incapable of work, and they should be making sure that you can live off of minimum wage, but that's it. Quote: As I said, I think the government needs to step in because of the few greedy assholes who don't care about the poor. (Not you...) We don't let society off with "okay, so some people will rape and murder, but we don't want to force people to not do it, so we'll just keep it legal." Not sure about the plant, btw, I'd have to do some research. IIRC, productivity did indeed go up; people usually work "harder" when they enjoy their jobs, as they're not so inclined to slack off. I disagree. When they enjoy their jobs, sure. But I doubt that those people enjoyed putting cars together. They enjoyed each other's company. When you enjoy the company of your workers but not your job, you spend more time slacking off. I know; That's how it is at the coffeeshop. It's not like I like taking care of customers, or cleaning. I like my coworkers. And whenever our manager or owner aren't around, we slack off whenever possible. wink Anyways though, the thing is, while I agree that those who have should be helping those who have not, it's a big step to say that the Government should be regulating it. It's like if you see someone drowning in a lake, and you could save them. Sure, it'd be disgraceful and disgusting not to. But should the government force you to? Or compulsory organ donating. Ooh, even better, compulsory blood donations. While donating blood is a great thing to do, and really saves lives, should the government force those who are greedily holding onto their blood to donate anyways? Assuming, of course, that we are barring people who's blood is not actually usable, even maybe barring people who just have an extreme phobia of needles or something. Like I do. sweatdrop I'm always embarrassed that I don't donate blood. sad And wow, that's a huge step to say that this is like keeping rape or murder legal. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:40 pm
Oh, hey, the thing in the news section of Apple Geeks made me think of this discussion today, because it's about respecting the hard workers rather than just the order givers. 3nodding Memorial day thing, you know. I like it. http://www.applegeeks.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:05 pm
I.Am La Veuve Zin eek Ever worked 40 hours a week in a job you just "put up with?" Maybe I'm an exception to the rule, but I can't stand it. The free time isn't enough, especially if it's not a good enough job that I get a lot of vacation time. Yeah, I have, and I disagree. The free time is just fine. But see, that's my point; You're not going to College just to do something different. You're going to College because of the advantages you receive; Vacation time is part of the pay. Mm, I'm not explaining myself as well as I'd like. sweatdrop Is there a minimum wage job that you would enjoy? I'm pretty sure everyone has a job that they wouldn't mind doing, if it weren't for the fact that it's minimum wage or whatever. I like working at the coffeeshop I work at now. Other people might like working for the Red Cross. But jobs like this that you can enjoy, and don't need a college degree. Why would you get a college degree for a job, when there are enjoyable jobs at the ground level, and you won't get paid any better or worse with a college degree? Quote: ...Not sure if you're familiar with the relationship between socialism and communism...they're essentially the same thing, with different means to the end. What I think is funny is that that's exactly what everyone who isn't a communist or socialist says. But there is, in fact, a big difference; Socialism is a step towards Communism in that, yes, they want the same thing, but in one case they think that everyone should be receiving exactly the same thing, and in the other case they think that money should be redistributed some from those who have more than enough to those who have too little. The difference is, really, working within Capitalism and trying to completely get rid of money entirely. I can respect the second, even though I disagree. I can't respect the first. Quote: They already do that. Millions of people get money from the government, and thousands of organizations do too. Which is why some people refuse to pay taxes--not that they get away with it... That's my point though. The government shouldn't be; Or at least, ideally, that's what I feel. People should just do it on their own. However, I do agree to an extent that there are some things that have to be done, and wouldn't receive enough money if done privately. Like a limited welfare. But only to an extent; When the Government does it, gets corrupted, because it's not being done by people who truly care and want to help, it's being done by people who are doing it as a job and so it's more easily corruptible. So I would say that the Government should be making sure that no one is starving because they are incapable of work, and they should be making sure that you can live off of minimum wage, but that's it. Quote: As I said, I think the government needs to step in because of the few greedy assholes who don't care about the poor. (Not you...) We don't let society off with "okay, so some people will rape and murder, but we don't want to force people to not do it, so we'll just keep it legal." Not sure about the plant, btw, I'd have to do some research. IIRC, productivity did indeed go up; people usually work "harder" when they enjoy their jobs, as they're not so inclined to slack off. I disagree. When they enjoy their jobs, sure. But I doubt that those people enjoyed putting cars together. They enjoyed each other's company. When you enjoy the company of your workers but not your job, you spend more time slacking off. I know; That's how it is at the coffeeshop. It's not like I like taking care of customers, or cleaning. I like my coworkers. And whenever our manager or owner aren't around, we slack off whenever possible. wink Anyways though, the thing is, while I agree that those who have should be helping those who have not, it's a big step to say that the Government should be regulating it. It's like if you see someone drowning in a lake, and you could save them. Sure, it'd be disgraceful and disgusting not to. But should the government force you to? Or compulsory organ donating. Ooh, even better, compulsory blood donations. While donating blood is a great thing to do, and really saves lives, should the government force those who are greedily holding onto their blood to donate anyways? Assuming, of course, that we are barring people who's blood is not actually usable, even maybe barring people who just have an extreme phobia of needles or something. Like I do. sweatdrop I'm always embarrassed that I don't donate blood. sad And wow, that's a huge step to say that this is like keeping rape or murder legal. xd Eventually the fun jobs will be filled up. Even then, those menial tasks are just that- menial. People likely would not want to stay there. Considering that 1- there will be people like Zin and I who wish to work someplace we truly enjoy and 2- all of the fun menial jobs will fill up (There simply couldn't be 500 million coffee shop workers) people would need to either take LESS fun menial jobs or get educated to do something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:38 pm
divineseraph I.Am La Veuve Zin eek Ever worked 40 hours a week in a job you just "put up with?" Maybe I'm an exception to the rule, but I can't stand it. The free time isn't enough, especially if it's not a good enough job that I get a lot of vacation time. Yeah, I have, and I disagree. The free time is just fine. But see, that's my point; You're not going to College just to do something different. You're going to College because of the advantages you receive; Vacation time is part of the pay. Mm, I'm not explaining myself as well as I'd like. sweatdrop Is there a minimum wage job that you would enjoy? I'm pretty sure everyone has a job that they wouldn't mind doing, if it weren't for the fact that it's minimum wage or whatever. I like working at the coffeeshop I work at now. Other people might like working for the Red Cross. But jobs like this that you can enjoy, and don't need a college degree. Why would you get a college degree for a job, when there are enjoyable jobs at the ground level, and you won't get paid any better or worse with a college degree? Quote: ...Not sure if you're familiar with the relationship between socialism and communism...they're essentially the same thing, with different means to the end. What I think is funny is that that's exactly what everyone who isn't a communist or socialist says. But there is, in fact, a big difference; Socialism is a step towards Communism in that, yes, they want the same thing, but in one case they think that everyone should be receiving exactly the same thing, and in the other case they think that money should be redistributed some from those who have more than enough to those who have too little. The difference is, really, working within Capitalism and trying to completely get rid of money entirely. I can respect the second, even though I disagree. I can't respect the first. Quote: They already do that. Millions of people get money from the government, and thousands of organizations do too. Which is why some people refuse to pay taxes--not that they get away with it... That's my point though. The government shouldn't be; Or at least, ideally, that's what I feel. People should just do it on their own. However, I do agree to an extent that there are some things that have to be done, and wouldn't receive enough money if done privately. Like a limited welfare. But only to an extent; When the Government does it, gets corrupted, because it's not being done by people who truly care and want to help, it's being done by people who are doing it as a job and so it's more easily corruptible. So I would say that the Government should be making sure that no one is starving because they are incapable of work, and they should be making sure that you can live off of minimum wage, but that's it. Quote: As I said, I think the government needs to step in because of the few greedy assholes who don't care about the poor. (Not you...) We don't let society off with "okay, so some people will rape and murder, but we don't want to force people to not do it, so we'll just keep it legal." Not sure about the plant, btw, I'd have to do some research. IIRC, productivity did indeed go up; people usually work "harder" when they enjoy their jobs, as they're not so inclined to slack off. I disagree. When they enjoy their jobs, sure. But I doubt that those people enjoyed putting cars together. They enjoyed each other's company. When you enjoy the company of your workers but not your job, you spend more time slacking off. I know; That's how it is at the coffeeshop. It's not like I like taking care of customers, or cleaning. I like my coworkers. And whenever our manager or owner aren't around, we slack off whenever possible. wink Anyways though, the thing is, while I agree that those who have should be helping those who have not, it's a big step to say that the Government should be regulating it. It's like if you see someone drowning in a lake, and you could save them. Sure, it'd be disgraceful and disgusting not to. But should the government force you to? Or compulsory organ donating. Ooh, even better, compulsory blood donations. While donating blood is a great thing to do, and really saves lives, should the government force those who are greedily holding onto their blood to donate anyways? Assuming, of course, that we are barring people who's blood is not actually usable, even maybe barring people who just have an extreme phobia of needles or something. Like I do. sweatdrop I'm always embarrassed that I don't donate blood. sad And wow, that's a huge step to say that this is like keeping rape or murder legal. xd Eventually the fun jobs will be filled up. Even then, those menial tasks are just that- menial. People likely would not want to stay there. Considering that 1- there will be people like Zin and I who wish to work someplace we truly enjoy and 2- all of the fun menial jobs will fill up (There simply couldn't be 500 million coffee shop workers) people would need to either take LESS fun menial jobs or get educated to do something else. Why are you more likely to enjoy your job if it's something that requires college education? I know plenty of college-educated people who make a bit of money, and none of them are working where they are because they absolutely love going to work everyday, gee skippy! For less work, they could have gotten a job they enjoy just as much or possibly even more. I really wouldn't mind being a garbage collector, a plumber, a janitor. Collecting animal dung, picking dead animals off the side of the road, pulling bodies out of the river...a job is a job is a job. Who defines what a "fun" menial job is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
