Someday....

Pages: 123
greenleaf, no I do not do Minecraft mods.
They probably realise that people work more efficiently when their needs are met and they're happy.
Or they'll realize that people work even better when they have their lives on the line... JK
I know you're joking, but people actually make more mistakes and work poorly under stress.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
It is true, some of my family is in management positions and they always tell me if I run a company the most important thing is to keep the employees happy. If you have a more laid back environment it has been proven that people work better and produce better results, and they usually get better people for the job. That is why companies like google, steam, facebook, ect. are providing so many benifits to their employee's.

I mean they get free dry cleaning, work on couches and comfy chairs all day, free food, game rooms, music rooms, and a whole bunch of other things.
I worked in an airport putting plane wheels together, got a break like every hour, I also worked in a kitchen and the owner always came into 'help' by shouting at everyone working under me, he thought I used the carrot rather than the stick, I just wanted them calm and not walking out, one day I smashed the kitchen to bits to teach him a lesson, he proly lost about 4k that day, I lost half a days wages and got a job with the competition, poached half their menu too
If you have a more laid back environment it has been proven that people work better and produce better results

Unfortunately many small companies cant afford doing this, the reason bad management exists is from either; lack of financial responsibility (most common), lack of sales, greed (least common), or a mix. If they don't have the cash-flow, they can't hire more staff that could be needed, or give more benefits to the current staff.

That's actually a very delicate situation, because the economy will force a company to reduce their price while maintaining balanced wages, etc. While some other factors will also cost the company more.

In other words, your boss may be grumpy and yell a lot, however it is possible that same day, he had his property cost go up 15% and he just don't know how he will afford it.
Last edited on
I'm a subscriber to the economic theory of democratic socialism (or some fine-grained variation thereof). In it the amount you're payed is based on how valuable your work is to society and as the means of production are owned by all, the cost of goods can be constant.

... I acknowledge that system wouldn't exist any time in the near future in any nation like the one I live in (US)

@Cheraphy:
Yeah I would agree to this :)
@Cheraphy:
Yeah me too, people who think know what socialism is, middle class wages are built out of working class hard graft, that justifies higher taxes on higher wages.
So if the middle class is just riding on the hard work of the lower class and doing nothing for themselves, why doesn't the lower class just work to benefit themselves instead of the upper class(es) and rise up in society? Sure the success of middle/upper class people does involve lower class people working underneath them, but they clearly did something different/unique in order to get where they are (not including people who inherit money, the bastards) rather than just continuing to be lower class workers. I don't have anything against graduated income taxes though, so don't get me wrong. Just saying that middle and upper class people are there for more reasons than just "leaching off off the lower class".
closed account (3qX21hU5)
You also got to understand devon that there would be no lower lower class or any class for that matter if there wasn't a higher class. One point I tell people all the time is have you ever gotten a job feom a poor person? Most likely the answer is no. The upper class businesses create jobs so you cant hate on them to much and try to get to greedy with their money because soon or later they will get fed up and leave to sonewhere that doesn't hate them ; p. Also when you raise taxes on big business it is naive to think they will have to pay for it because they will just pass the extra expenses off to the consumer.
It's naive to think that all the rich are rich because they had some inherent drive that all the poor do not.*

The problem with socialism in America is your average American doesn't know what socialism is. I described a socialist to my very much libertarian capitalist coworker, and in doing so I made a point of stating that the national government has no say in the hypothetical I set up**. When I finished describing it he said he would very much be in favor of it and then was shocked when I told him it was, for all intents and purposes, socialism.

Now, Modshop, you seemed to have given a counterpoint to an argument that I tend to associate with the stereotypical liberal socialist who thinks all the rich are bastards who feed off the hungry and have a sense of inherent entitlement to what the rich are taking. That may not be where it came from for your response, but regardless, your response assumes the reason for a person to want socialism from capitalism is because they think the rich don't deserve what they have. That's what I've taken from it anyways.

If such a system exists where poverty is a conscious choice and not simply something you might have to deal with, but at the cost of none having extreme wealth, I would take that system in a heartbeat. It's not about the rich f*cking the poor or the poor wanting what they don't deserve. It's about the greater good of the people. It's about the overall quality of life.


*No I'm not saying anyone here suggested that or thinks that. But it is common in the US

** it would be set up by workers who unionize. Wholly unrealistic, but perfectly valid for the point I was trying to get across
Last edited on
I was responding to Devon with that part because it appeared that that was the point he was trying to make. I believe in a proper balance between socialism and capitalism. You can't go too far in either direction, but rather need to stay moderate.
Trying to change that by wealth distribution will only make everyone poor.


Yea, it would if that's all there was to it. Honestly, I've yet to hear a sound argument for why wealth distribution would ALWAYS make everyone poor. The most common one I see is "If we take money from rich and give it to poor, people will realize they don't need to work because they'll be fine either way." That would be perfectly valid if all socialism was was redistributing the wealth from rich to poor so everyone can be middle, and if it didn't assume that you'd get money just because you don't have money. It goes back to the thought that in socialism there is no incentive to work because there is no upper class. Where in reality there is incentive to work, unemployment isn't a paycheck for nothing. You work menial public jobs (read: road workers, trash collectors, sewage line mainteners. That sort of thing) and receive a minimum wage that will support a small family.


... the only unrealistic thing about the system is thinking that it will happen in the first place. Democratic socialism would become the standard only by democratic means. Before that happens, you have to convince the majority that it is a good idea. That's the unrealistic bit.
That's the unrealistic bit.

what makes a good socialist/democratic system impossible or an unrealistic bit; is that the bankers run everything and will not ever let go of their wealth, which, for a large portion of them, have legally stolen from everyone's pocket.

Unfortunately, that would be a long bit to explain; what bankers do to the economy and I really don't feel like getting into that.
theres almost no middle class ventures that would work without working class sweat and blood keeping the production cost down by working for a lower wage, am i wrong?

Any company that uses any recourse has had little peons dig it up or work it in some way, if its a pi company you got your farm labourers or pi packers, if its a car company you got miners (VERY LOW PAID HARD WORKERS) you got a sport shoe company you got little shoe makers (small childrens hands mean better stitching)all businesses are kept alive by small people who are in some way working hard to make other people rich.



Wealth does come from middle class investment into new buisnesses, the republicans tried to ban this ted talk!! it was to close to voting day (and the truth)

@Zereo, this ted talk says something very similar, although there would be no middle class without working class either right??

http://business.time.com/2012/05/18/was-nick-hanauers-ted-talk-on-income-inequality-too-rich-for-rich-people/
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
@Devon, I think you just have a very different view them I do. For one you are right that business needs the working class, but you can't hate the rich or the big business either that give the jobs in the first place. You also seem to have this weird image that every working class person works in a sweat shop and gets paid a penny a hour or something... This is just not true at least its not where I live not sure about you.

I have worked in construction doing basic home remodeling (Redoing kitchens, sheetrocking, roofing, deckbuilding, anything involving a house really) for 2 years which yes was had labor and I guess could be considered a working class job. When I worked there I wasn't making a dollar a hour wage, I was actually getting paid more then I do now at my desk job. So yes it was hard labor but I was making a good living doing it.

I have also worked as a garbage collector for a few months until I got my current desk job. Wasn't the cleanest of jobs I'll give you that but it still paid good and no it wasn't minimum wage like someone else mentioned.

So I have worked as the working class and I don't see where you get this idea devon that they are being ripped off by being underpaid, or being unfairly treated...
They have the same opportunities that the rest of us have (Some have more, some have less its just the way of the world).


Wealth does come from middle class investment into new buisnesses, the republicans tried to ban this ted talk!! it was to close to voting day (and the truth)

What are you talking about? Could you please show me what evidence you have the republicans tried to ban talk of the middle class investing into new business? What ted talk anyways?

@Zereo, this ted talk says something very similar, although there would be no middle class without working class either right??

There always will be the rich, and there always will be the poor. There always will be lazy people, and there will always be hardworking people. There will always be people who get lucky, and people who get unlucky.

The point is in order to have one you have to have the other. To have rich people and business's you have to have "working class" people. If you try to get rid of one of them they both fall.

Unfortunately, that would be a long bit to explain; what bankers do to the economy and I really don't feel like getting into that.

Just like Cyprus Bank, and the government charging all its customers a 5%-10% (I think) tax on their money in their savings accounts ;p
@Zereo I dont talk about hate anywhere, I intend to rise above everyone and enslave them into working class wages.

plus at home we don't see where everything actually comes from, the market is a global one, the working classes dont start in the car factory, we should count where the metal and rare earth elements come from in the making of our PCs or whatever, not just think of the factory where the materials end up,

your oranges, your furniture, your wifes rock on her finger, your clothes and shoes, all your tech, the lino on your kitchen floor, your tuna sarnie, your china all of this was possible thanks to someone getting wages working well below the poverty line.

EDIT: I did a lot of ground working, maybe we shud build house together :D
EDIT: they really did hate that ted talk, it actually says in the article but the point of ted talks is that they are politically neutral and the repubs thought it was a bit sensitive a subject so close to the election so they were asked to put it off, it really is affront to the existence of republicans though (the ted talk)
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
plus at home we don't see where everything actually comes from, the market is a global one, the working classes dont start in the car factory, we should count where the metal and rare earth elements come from in the making of our PCs or whatever, not just think of the factory where the materials end up,


By this I assume you mean mining and other things which I believe you brought up a few times before. I also hear you saying they make well below the poverty line. Well lets look at some statistics.

In areas where coal is prevalent, it is not unusual for most of the male population and some of the female population to have jobs in that field. Average salary for a coal worker is about $56,000 and they can make as much as $104,000 being a supervisor.


Hmm well that definitively isn't poverty level lets try again.

Mining Safety Engineers in the United States have a median wage of $70,000/yr or $33/hour.

Continous Mining Machine Operators in the United States have a median wage of $39,100/year or $18.80/hour. Mine Cutting and Channeling Machine Operators have a similar wage distribution.

"Helpers - Extraction Workers" (I'm not sure what that entails) have a median wage of $27,400/year or $13.19/hour.

And Earth Drillers, except oil and gas, have a median wage of $33,800/year or $16.23/hour

http://www.careerinfonet.org/wages2.asp?next=wages2&level=&optstatus=&id=1%2C&nodeid=208&soccode=172151&stfips=06&jobfam=17&SOC=&MSA=23-031084&x=48&y=12

Hmm well them aren't minimum wages either and not poverty level for mining ;p. They usually have very good benefits also from what I read.

Now I agree in some countries there are kids being pushed into hard labor and people being way underpaid but from what I see here in the US and I believe in the EU that is usually not the case. I think you just for some reason think that the "middle class" as you call it are trying to oppress the working class somehow by forcing them into hard labor for very low wages, which is almost never the case (Though there is always exceptions like with anything). The "middle class" work just as many hours usually for their living as the "working class". Both classes have people that work 40 hour weeks and others that work 60+ hour weeks. It is just different type of work.

EDIT: they really did hate that ted talk, it actually says in the article but the point of ted talks is that they are politically neutral and the repubs thought it was a bit sensitive a subject so close to the election so they were asked to put it off, it really is affront to the existence of republicans though (the ted talk)

I would still like to see some evidence of this. Still don't know what ted talk is though.
Pages: 123