Either people in China work in Apple factories or they starve. Once you accept that reality, you realize that it's better than the alternative - seems to be a common thread with the free market, huh?
nice backhanded propaganda.Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
There is not boss and workers in a free market. Only voluntary contracts between free men. Everyone is a consumer and everyone is a producer. But in this grotesque system, created by the International Banking Cartel, such a system is suppressed through force and violence.
LLC,
PC,
subsidies
government grants
wages vs profits
infinite copyright
tax favoritism
legal tender
fiat currency
pension confiscation
private risk bailout
The list is endless...
what does your company do in China?
the same reason people want "jobs" when in fact they want either money or goods, they'd be happy to be unemployed if they had everything else they wanted.Yup, most people don't understand the concept of purchasing-power-parity neither do they understand the concept of "money"; they think "money" is important but in reality it's the GOODS & SERVICES that matter, the more there are, the more prosperous people will be & the only way to maximize goods & services is people making allowing those who are producing them to maximize profits & re-invest them to produce even more!
People also don't realize that these sweatshops is what has
So obvious but socialists just don't realize it! And thereby they only perpetuate more misery
That may sound nice, but in reality it makes no $#@!ing sense what so ever.
If you work for a farm, you will probably be able to afford a potato. If you build million dollar industry machinery, no you're probably not going to be able to afford it. So what?
Also, paying low wages is not the same as exploitation. Bad working conditions is not the same as exploitation. In some cases genuine slave labor exists, but it's rather rare. Only in the case of child labor could I call it exploitation because the children aren't really capable of making big decisions and assess risks. But even child labor is necessary in the poorest countries.
Welcome to reality.
i dont think he is disagreeing.
Semiconductor wafer fab support, primarily precision gas flow/pressure measurement and control.
Very well said And why don't people realize that "slaves" don't get wages!
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
if you're a liberal who believes you need a house, wife, dog, 2 kids to live, then anything less, such as WalMart is considered "no wages".
I actually think most people in America are really just slaves. If you think about traditional slavery, slaves do work in exchange for food and shelter and pretty much nothing else. Well the typical employee today makes just enough money to get a place to live, food to eat, clothes, and a car to get to and from work. Once you pay for those things, you generally have nothing left. A typical job gives you just enough money so you can afford to make it back to work the next day, no more. So you are basically a slave.
The only people who are not slaves either own their own company or have worked their way to the top of the corporate ladder. The rest are mostly slaves.
So your definition of a slave is a person who does not have net savings after working? Or does it matter if the alternative is worse (such as being shot or allowed to starve dead)?
Traditional slaves do not get vacation, their choice of clothes, car and choose where to live. They also have little choice how many children and pets they can have. Am I wrong?
Last edited by onlyrp; 02-12-2012 at 10:04 PM.
I don't buy clothes and cars for fun. I buy them because they are a necessity. You have really low standards for living if you think you are free just because you have enough money for clothes and a car to get to work. Those are the bare essentials. Its not like I can go without clothes and a car to get to work.
I define not being a slave as someone who has a decent amount of money and time to buy the things they want and don't need. Being able to pick the colors of a car you NEED for work is not freedom. Being able to chose the colors of clothes you where to work and to function in society is not freedom.
As far as choosing where to live, its not that easy. Usually you need to save up some money to make a significant move. You need to not be a slave to do that.
yes, I have very low standards, but quite above the standards we considered "acceptable" in 1950 or earlier. You can say I'm a cheap loser, but you can't say I'm in debt or unhappy.
You dont need money to move, because if you stop paying rent you'll be kicked out of your home. By then, you can usually save 3 months of rent. I DO have money to buy things I don't need, but love to have, but even then, its quite minimal, like you said, I'm very low standard.
Is having a wife, kids, and a dog, a necessity or a luxury? Just asking your opinion.
Last edited by onlyrp; 02-12-2012 at 11:26 PM.
I've moved before without having a job. I had to live off savings until I found a new job. It does require money to move unless you get transferred from your current job.
The dog may be a luxury, but a wife and kids are a necessity. If we denied everyone kids we'd go extinct.
I never said you can't be happy as a slave. But if your work only gives you enough money to make it back to work, then you are a slave.
I don't see how continuing to buy Chinese products will make Chinese lives better on the whole. Yes, China has a larger middle class, but the majority of the population is still incredibly poor and their standards of living are no better than they were in the 70's.
The only way to solve problems like this is for customers to be willing to pay more for goods that were produced ethically. Then the only way for companies to compete would be to have decent working conditions.
But right now, customers are simply concerned about who has the lowest price. I don't see how that mindset will bring peace and prosperity to this world.
if modern agriculture continues to follow the path it's on now, it's finished. The food-growing situation may seem to be in good shape today, but that's just an illusion based on the current availability of petroleum fuels. All the wheat, corn, and other crops that are produced on big American farms may be alive and growing, but they're not products of real nature or real agriculture. They're manufactured rather than grown. The earth isn't producing those things.. petroleum is! -Masanobu Fukuoka
"if denied everyone kids", I didn't say that. Where did you get from "Not a necessity = denied everyone"??
No, my job makes me more than enough to get back to work, or else I wouldn't do it. It'd be a waste of time and wear me down for nothing to save.
I agree, if you only make enough to pay for gas and food, you should quit and get food stamps. That is, if you can manage to have rent paid for or can accept sharing a house with somebody nice enough to you.
Being able to afford your own place to live is not "just enough to get back to work", it's your home when you don't work, if you don't want it, give it up and save $1000 a month.
I have the same problem, I'm not sure making the employers more money will encourage them to pay the workers better. Although NOT making them money will encourage them to either hire less or pay less, ultimately hurting both parties.
You are correct that customers mostly only care about what they want, either quality or aesthetics or cost. And no, it wouldn't bring peace and prosperity to the world, it shouldn't.
Where are you going to live, on the streets? You need to take a shower before you go to work, put on clean clothes, etc. You need a place to live. If I could go without a place to live, I'd do that and save my money.
If you can save a decent amount of money at your job, then you are not a slave. But keep in mind that you are the exception. Especially if you can have kids and save money. That is very rare.
You implied having kids is a luxury. Having kids is a necessity. Without having kids, everyone would go extinct.
I can live in a van, and I know people who have done it. It's not pleasant, but in all cases we arrange with a friend to shower and laundry, some uses gyms for showering, I prefer to use a trusted friend's house. SOrry I forgot to add or make clear, I have no wife and kids, and I intend to keep it that way, unless I get richer. If I did, I'd be in lots of debt and lots of trouble, it's a sacrifice I make to get by.
Unless you have some genetic bias towards your own children, there's no shortage of children who need parents, if you concern is actually extinction. But whether having your own or adopting, children cost money either way.
We are supposedly in a free market economy. The cost of getting a home, clothes, food, and car to work shouldn't eat all your money. I shouldn't be forced to live in a van to get by. I should have all the basics with money left over. In a real free market economy, the costs go DOWN over time. The costs of the basics should be minimal because they are the basics. For example, why the hell can't they make a car for under $1,000 that requires no fuel? The auto industry is 100 years old and gets the same fuel mileage and cost as it did 100 years ago. I don't want a car that costs $20,000-$40,000. I only need it for the basics. Why isn't there a company focusing on this niche or what I would like to call the majority?
If getting a GOOD job only gets you the basics, we might as well be in a communist country. In pure communism, you are guaranteed a job and in return for you work you are guaranteed the basics.
the majority cost is the home. Unfortunately.
Most things DO get cheaper and HAVE gotten cheaper, the only thing that hasnt are houses, and that's largely due to generous lending.
There are cheap cars, there are small cars, motorcycles, and then there's used cars. I've had 2 used cars that cost me less than $10,000 total (all repairs over time included), each lasted over 5 years.
I don't think it's accurate to say a good job only gets you basics. I think even the worst job in today's not so free market world gives us better freedoms, choices and quality of living than any pure communist country.
Great find! +rep!
"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
The technology industry is the only one I can think of where prices have consistently gone down. If you look at most industries prices either stay the same or go up. Mostly because the government sets obsessive regulations for almost every industry. The government says its ok for you to do business, just as long as you do it the way the government would do it. So really most industries are basically communist or fascist, but not capitalist.
The costs of cars has not gone down. The total cost (including fuel) has gone up. In a real market economy both costs would have gone way down. Obama wants to take credit for "saving" the auto industry, but we have two crappy car companies making the same expensive gas guslers they always have. A real market economy would have hundreds of car companies that actually compete with each other. We'd have cars for under a $1,000 and we'd have cars independent of fuel.
Its completely accurate to say a good job only gets you the basics. If you have a bad job you can't even have that unless you work 100 hours a week.
my experience tells me otherwise. But I am willing to accept that my choices mattered a lot.
I don't know what you consider a "good job", but most people i know make less than $50,000 a year, most actually make less than $30,000.
We live in southern California, which is hardly the cheapest place to live, but we all get more than basics. By that I mean, we have extra cash to shop, drink and all have less than $10,000 of debt. We work more than 40 hours sometimes, but nothing close to 100 hours. We're not rich, but we get more than basics.
You sound like you'd move to a communist country if you didn't have a "good job", if so, I say go ahead.
Lastly, I'm not sure why you think a capitalist country must make life cheap, or hard workers must get more than basics, you seem to demand it on an entitlement attitude. Do you have any guarantee that a communist country will get you basics? Is there some natural right that I'm missing? Were people getting by with more than basics in a hunter's society? How about pre-industrial? How about post industrial? How about after WW2?
When did people ever get "more than basics" such that they were not slaves? (I assume you are equating basics with necessities)
Last edited by onlyrp; 02-13-2012 at 03:07 AM.
when I hear people telling me that a good job only gets basics, this kind of story comes to mind.
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/fi...194000717.html
(even this person has savings, she's just not saving enough as she wants to)
You missed the point. I don't want to live in a communist country. My point is that this is basically a communist country. Sure there is a chance that if you build your own business and get a little lucky, you can be a mulch-billionaire. But for the majority of people, they are just barely getting the basics. What we have is actually worse than communism. Here we work hard, take all the risk associated with capitalism, but our reward is still just the basics.
I already told you my story a little but. Went through about 20 years of school. Always got good grades. Finished college, got a masters degree, and got a good job...all that and I still couldn't even afford to move out of my parents house because I wouldn't save anything. If I decided to have kids, I would have lost money.
I'm not talking about rights, I am talking about opportunities. If you succeed at everything you do it life, you should be able to get more than just the basics. In capitalism you are suppose to profit from success. Point is our economy is not working. If this were truly a capitalist country, successful people would get more than just the basics. As I stated before, we have so much over-regulation that our prices are staying high and we are barely able to afford to live. If we did away with these communist style regulations, we'd have a free market and most people would get more than just the basics.
No, this is far from a communist country. You seem to associate capitalism and freedom with wealth, which is just not the case. Freedom to choose does not mean your wealth can't be restricted by many other things such as natural resources, geography, population, competition and so on...sometimes, freedom in all respects can be trumped in result by other things. Sorry to tangent, because the US isn't one which is naturally restrained compared to other countries.
I'm still contesting that you get only basics. I also contest that we have it worse than communist countries, you first say you don't want to live in a communist country, but now you say it's worse here. Make up your mind.
What amount of opportunities in this country is lacking , and can be found in another country? Succeed is not only subjective, but also varies widely between what you do. I think you're saying you succeed in everything, but not at making money. I don't know a person who is successful at making money and couldn't buy almost anything he wanted.
"Capitalism means you profit from success"- WRONG. just the opposite, you profit, then we call it success. Being successful at learning how to fix a typewriter, reciting old plays, dancing ballet is not profitable unless the market says so. But once the market makes you profit, you can say you are successful in making money. Our economy is not perfect, but far better than any communistic country (or you are free to move). Forget communist countries, what country do you think is better today you'd be willing to live in (let's assume I'll pay to relocate you, but you have to find a job and learn the langauge on your own)?
What is your definition of success ? Does being a pro at Call of Duty, Halo and Sims mean you have to be profitable in a capitalist society? How about Farmville? I'm really good at memorizing the script for Big Lebowski, should I expect to profit in your truly capitalist world?
I already gave you my example. I graduated from college. Got a higher paying job than probably at least 80% of my class. If I'm doing better than such a high percentage of my class, I should be able to afford more than just the basics. This doesn't even take into account that if I decided to have kids, I would need to double my salary just to break even.
Put it this way, 100 years ago people worked roughly 40 or more hours a week just to break even. Well today with all the improvements in technology we roughly work the same amount of hours just to break even. Something has got to give. Either we should profit more from our work today, or we should be able to work less hours to break even. In a true market economy we should have more freedom, period.
You, being a Ron Paul supporter, should be aware that the value of the dollar has gone down to basically nothing. Which is why all the improvements in technology have not resulted in significant improvements in our lives.
I already explained that I don't want to be in a pure communist country. But with all the rules and regulations you can't deny that we are at least partially communist. We take all the risk and usually don't get much of a reward. Unless you are starting your own business and make it big, a pure communist country would be more beneficial than what we have. At least in a pure communist country you'd get the basics without the risk. Being able to pick your color of car or your color of clothes does not interest me.
Thats where you are wrong. Making more money than 80% of your class means nothing more and nothing less. There is no rule that says being rich and wealthy gets you more than basics. Add to that, there is no rule on what counts as basics beyond not starving.
People 100 years ago worked 40 hrs IN LABOR to get one car per family per 20 years, if not longer. Tell me with a straight face you cannot afford living in 1912 working 40 hours a week today, any non labor white collar job. Even on minimum wage
Last edited by onlyrp; 02-14-2012 at 06:07 PM.
sorry, hard to scroll on iphone so i made a new post. And i already told you you have zero guarantee a communist country gives basics w/o risk Name me one that does, and tell me you cant get what they get working 40 hrs here and now.
Whether you are talking about communist country or this country in 1912. I challenge you to show you cannot achieve their standards of basics at today's pay with today's dollars.
Dont keeping telling me you couldnt get what you wanzed despite making allegedly good moneY, tell me you lived worse than 1912 or a communist country, please, thanks
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us