Coffee (rec.drink.coffee) Discussing coffee. This includes selection of brands, methods of making coffee, etc. Discussion about coffee in other forms (e.g. desserts) is acceptable.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #641 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:40:20 -0700, Dan Clore
> wrote:

>> Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
>> complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
>> job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
>> their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
>> should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
>> trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
>> activities allowed on their property.

>
>And there you have it: according to Wm James, "freedom of
>choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
>workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
>dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
>"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
>again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
>more than a choice of masters.
>
>It almost seems like I'm repeating myself.


Instead of repeating yourself, why don't you read what I wrote before
attempting to tell people what I said? That might help you avoid maing
a fool of yourself next time.

William R. James

  #642 (permalink)   Report Post  
geetarplyr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

yea.....what a fool you are!!
lmfao!!
"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:40:20 -0700, Dan Clore
> > wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
> >> complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
> >> job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
> >> their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
> >> should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
> >> trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
> >> activities allowed on their property.

> >
> >And there you have it: according to Wm James, "freedom of
> >choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
> >workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
> >dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
> >"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
> >again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
> >more than a choice of masters.
> >
> >It almost seems like I'm repeating myself.

>
> Instead of repeating yourself, why don't you read what I wrote before
> attempting to tell people what I said? That might help you avoid maing
> a fool of yourself next time.
>
> William R. James
>



  #643 (permalink)   Report Post  
geetarplyr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

yea.....what a fool you are!!
lmfao!!
"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:40:20 -0700, Dan Clore
> > wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. The boss has complete control over his property. He has
> >> complete control over what is his to trade, it's HIS money. It's HIS
> >> job, not the vendor's job. The employees have complete control over
> >> their property, and what they have to trade as well. Neither party
> >> should have to trade if they choose not to. Either party is free to
> >> trade elsewhere. and either party if free to set the rules regarding
> >> activities allowed on their property.

> >
> >And there you have it: according to Wm James, "freedom of
> >choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
> >workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
> >dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
> >"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
> >again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
> >more than a choice of masters.
> >
> >It almost seems like I'm repeating myself.

>
> Instead of repeating yourself, why don't you read what I wrote before
> attempting to tell people what I said? That might help you avoid maing
> a fool of yourself next time.
>
> William R. James
>



  #644 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n):
> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.


:
> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
> ...



If you agree that people have a right to combine in unions to
sell their labor collectively, then I don't think you can say
that unions are "inherently" evil. Corrupted by circumstances,
maybe, but that's very different.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
  #645 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n):
> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.


:
> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
> ...



If you agree that people have a right to combine in unions to
sell their labor collectively, then I don't think you can say
that unions are "inherently" evil. Corrupted by circumstances,
maybe, but that's very different.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't


  #646 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jun 2004 14:06:39 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >> ...

> >
> :
> >> >> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
> >> >> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
> >> >> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> >> >> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
> >> >> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> >> >> over the business owner's right to buy labor.

> >
> (G*rd*n):
> >> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> >> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
> >> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> >> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> >> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
> >> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
> >> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
> >> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.

> >
> :
> >> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
> >> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
> >> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
> >> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
> >> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
> >> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
> >> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
> >> well?

> >
> >
> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.

>
> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
>
> >> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
> >> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
> >> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
> >> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
> >> to function.

> >
> >So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
> >is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
> >of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
> >If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
> >trying to do it, and we do.

>
> I see no advantage except to those who's labor is woth less than they
> are already being paid. Take a typical work force of say 100
> employees. There are some who show up on time, work hard, and are
> worth more than the average. There are some who take every
> opportunity to show up late or not at all, or take off early, and
> spend most of their time avoiding the work and or whining about it
> instead of actually doing it. They are already over paid, and they
> need a union to prop them up. The workers don't ned a union. They are
> nbetter off without one. In a union, they end up carrying the load for
> the bums.
>
> William R. James
>


Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try
to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they
aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want
to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush.
The difference is I also understand reality.


  #647 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jun 2004 14:06:39 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >> ...

> >
> :
> >> >> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
> >> >> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
> >> >> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
> >> >> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
> >> >> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> >> >> over the business owner's right to buy labor.

> >
> (G*rd*n):
> >> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> >> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
> >> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> >> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> >> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
> >> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
> >> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
> >> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.

> >
> :
> >> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
> >> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
> >> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
> >> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
> >> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
> >> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
> >> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
> >> well?

> >
> >
> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.

>
> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
>
> >> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
> >> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
> >> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
> >> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
> >> to function.

> >
> >So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
> >is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
> >of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
> >If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
> >trying to do it, and we do.

>
> I see no advantage except to those who's labor is woth less than they
> are already being paid. Take a typical work force of say 100
> employees. There are some who show up on time, work hard, and are
> worth more than the average. There are some who take every
> opportunity to show up late or not at all, or take off early, and
> spend most of their time avoiding the work and or whining about it
> instead of actually doing it. They are already over paid, and they
> need a union to prop them up. The workers don't ned a union. They are
> nbetter off without one. In a union, they end up carrying the load for
> the bums.
>
> William R. James
>


Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try
to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they
aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want
to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush.
The difference is I also understand reality.


  #648 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever


"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > s.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

> message
> > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have right to sell and market your time and labor as you see
> > > fit,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > right to get paid per any voluntary contract you enter into with
> > > your
> > > > > > > employer, and the right to leave and seek work elsewhere if you
> > > think
> > > > > you're
> > > > > > > getting a raw deal. That's as far as it goes, despite your

> wishful
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > otherwise...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the

> right
> > > to
> > > > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance

> regarding
> > > > > employee
> > > > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you

> run
> > > the
> > > > > risk
> > > > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor

> you
> > > > > > describe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can.
> > > Also,
> > > > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the

> workplace is
> > > a
> > > > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK?
> > > >
> > > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the

> right to
> > > > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that

> union
> > > > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law
> > > negotiate
> > > > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union

> both
> > > > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to

> hold
> > > and
> > > > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or
> > > not.
> > >
> > > You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours...
> > >

> >
> > I CAN and HAVE had union meetings on site. Although I was arrested for it
> > once, all charges were dropped. The law protects that right.
> >
> > > > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor

> practice.
> > >
> > > OK...
> > >
> > > > I can
> > > > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my
> > > employers
> > > > unfair labor practices.
> > >
> > > And there's where you're wrong.

> >
> > No, that's where I am right. I have done it. I participated in a ULP

> strike
> > against Caterpillar for over a year and a half and they did not

> permanently
> > replace me. Again reality differs from your beliefs. It happens.

>
> That does not apply to all cases. So what's it like to be so incapable of
> keeping a job on your own merits that you have to force a company to keep
> you employed?
>


You got it backwards. I am very capable of keeping a job. I am a skilled
toolmaker and machinist. Caterpillar gave me every crap job that came along
in hopes of being able job fail me and discharge me on those grounds. Because
the NLRB charges gave me protection from being fired for union activity they
had to prove I was incapable of actually doing the job for which they hired me
.. I managed to hang on for 10 more years and get my pension. Any company can
discharge someone who doesn't do the job properly. And that should be the
only reason they discharge someone. Anybody who thinks being a union leader
or union activist gives you a free ride had better think again. You simply
paint a target on your back and you had better be able to do your job if you
want to keep it.


  #649 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever


"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > s.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

> message
> > > > > > link.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have right to sell and market your time and labor as you see
> > > fit,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > right to get paid per any voluntary contract you enter into with
> > > your
> > > > > > > employer, and the right to leave and seek work elsewhere if you
> > > think
> > > > > you're
> > > > > > > getting a raw deal. That's as far as it goes, despite your

> wishful
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > otherwise...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have the right to spout this ignorant nonsense ... even the

> right
> > > to
> > > > > > believe it. But that doesn't make it so. Your ignorance

> regarding
> > > > > employee
> > > > > > "rights" and labor law is very profound. As I said before, you

> run
> > > the
> > > > > risk
> > > > > > of serious loss in a law suit if you treat employees in the manor

> you
> > > > > > describe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Point out anything above that is factually incorrect... if you can.
> > > Also,
> > > > > show us your sources substantiating your assertion that the

> workplace is
> > > a
> > > > > "democracy" before lecturing others about being "ignorant", OK?
> > > >
> > > > You say "that's as far as it goes" and you are wrong. I have the

> right to
> > > > belong to a union in my workplace. I have the right to have that

> union
> > > > negotiate in good faith with my employer and my employer must by law
> > > negotiate
> > > > with my union in good faith. I have the right to support my union

> both
> > > > verbally and in my attire both at work and away. I have the right to

> hold
> > > and
> > > > attend union meetings at my work place whether my employer likes it or
> > > not.
> > >
> > > You can have your union meetings off-site during your off hours...
> > >

> >
> > I CAN and HAVE had union meetings on site. Although I was arrested for it
> > once, all charges were dropped. The law protects that right.
> >
> > > > I have the right to strike for both economic and unfair labor

> practice.
> > >
> > > OK...
> > >
> > > > I can
> > > > not be permanently replaced or "fired" if I am striking against my
> > > employers
> > > > unfair labor practices.
> > >
> > > And there's where you're wrong.

> >
> > No, that's where I am right. I have done it. I participated in a ULP

> strike
> > against Caterpillar for over a year and a half and they did not

> permanently
> > replace me. Again reality differs from your beliefs. It happens.

>
> That does not apply to all cases. So what's it like to be so incapable of
> keeping a job on your own merits that you have to force a company to keep
> you employed?
>


You got it backwards. I am very capable of keeping a job. I am a skilled
toolmaker and machinist. Caterpillar gave me every crap job that came along
in hopes of being able job fail me and discharge me on those grounds. Because
the NLRB charges gave me protection from being fired for union activity they
had to prove I was incapable of actually doing the job for which they hired me
.. I managed to hang on for 10 more years and get my pension. Any company can
discharge someone who doesn't do the job properly. And that should be the
only reason they discharge someone. Anybody who thinks being a union leader
or union activist gives you a free ride had better think again. You simply
paint a target on your back and you had better be able to do your job if you
want to keep it.


  #650 (permalink)   Report Post  
bulba
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:16:12 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:


>Any company can
>discharge someone who doesn't do the job properly. And that should be the
>only reason they discharge someone.


By this piece of "logic" I would have to be forced to buy at the same
store forever and the only way to get out of such contract for me
would be proving beyond doubt that the store sold me bad product
(again, bad by whose standard).

No, this is not a good idea and neither is your idea.

There are reasons like customers cutting back on orders for the
company or technological change or competitors overtaking
the market or its sector from this company that routinely force
companies to lay people off. What is company going to do to be
able to pay the wages to its workforce in the situation when
orders are reduced - tap the taxpayer's pocket? No thanks,
there's more than enough corporate welfare already.

An average company invests a lot into a worker. It is
frequently noted that on average a worker does not make
its company money that would cover costs of employing
him for more than two years. I.e. it's at least two years until
the moment the company actually earns on this guy.

It's illogical to expect that given such situation companies
would casually fire people for the hell of it. They must have
a really good reason if they do so. Just like a customer not
buying at this place anymore usually has a good reason
he's doing so.

Furthermore, there are important long-term development reasons
that make maintaining smaller workforce than it would otherwise
have to be a good thing: how else are we going to maintain the
high productivity, i.e. high output per worker? It is better to have
10 companies employing the same 1,000 of people and producing
five times as much stuff as 2 companies employing 500 people each.
And no, there is no way to achieve the high output without
restructuring companies - which means bankrupcies and layoffs. Neither
Soviet Union nor Asia have not managed toachieve improvements in
productivity, an output per worker.

Which is synonymous with how high the living standard is, mind
you.

SU and Asia merely employed more inputs, i.e. more resources
and more workers. That's it. Such increase in wealth hits the
wall as soon as you just can't educate more workers and
get more of resources out of the soil. The only way for
improvement from that point is improving productivity. This
means companies have to produce more with fewer workers.
That means layoffs.

Choose one of the options. You can't have both of them. Either
everybody has a "job" - and this job pays so poor you have
a really hard time making ends meet - or you face the risk
of layoffs, but every year we're a little bit richer and more
advanced.

I'd like to note that in Europe, where the labor market is heavily
regulated, unemployment is just terrible. You Americans whine
how bad your job situation is right now. The reality is, here we
would love to have your "bad" situation! Try being young
graduate in Europe who attempts to get his first job. Then
you would know what it means to have a hard time getting
a job.






  #651 (permalink)   Report Post  
bulba
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:16:12 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:


>Any company can
>discharge someone who doesn't do the job properly. And that should be the
>only reason they discharge someone.


By this piece of "logic" I would have to be forced to buy at the same
store forever and the only way to get out of such contract for me
would be proving beyond doubt that the store sold me bad product
(again, bad by whose standard).

No, this is not a good idea and neither is your idea.

There are reasons like customers cutting back on orders for the
company or technological change or competitors overtaking
the market or its sector from this company that routinely force
companies to lay people off. What is company going to do to be
able to pay the wages to its workforce in the situation when
orders are reduced - tap the taxpayer's pocket? No thanks,
there's more than enough corporate welfare already.

An average company invests a lot into a worker. It is
frequently noted that on average a worker does not make
its company money that would cover costs of employing
him for more than two years. I.e. it's at least two years until
the moment the company actually earns on this guy.

It's illogical to expect that given such situation companies
would casually fire people for the hell of it. They must have
a really good reason if they do so. Just like a customer not
buying at this place anymore usually has a good reason
he's doing so.

Furthermore, there are important long-term development reasons
that make maintaining smaller workforce than it would otherwise
have to be a good thing: how else are we going to maintain the
high productivity, i.e. high output per worker? It is better to have
10 companies employing the same 1,000 of people and producing
five times as much stuff as 2 companies employing 500 people each.
And no, there is no way to achieve the high output without
restructuring companies - which means bankrupcies and layoffs. Neither
Soviet Union nor Asia have not managed toachieve improvements in
productivity, an output per worker.

Which is synonymous with how high the living standard is, mind
you.

SU and Asia merely employed more inputs, i.e. more resources
and more workers. That's it. Such increase in wealth hits the
wall as soon as you just can't educate more workers and
get more of resources out of the soil. The only way for
improvement from that point is improving productivity. This
means companies have to produce more with fewer workers.
That means layoffs.

Choose one of the options. You can't have both of them. Either
everybody has a "job" - and this job pays so poor you have
a really hard time making ends meet - or you face the risk
of layoffs, but every year we're a little bit richer and more
advanced.

I'd like to note that in Europe, where the labor market is heavily
regulated, unemployment is just terrible. You Americans whine
how bad your job situation is right now. The reality is, here we
would love to have your "bad" situation! Try being young
graduate in Europe who attempts to get his first job. Then
you would know what it means to have a hard time getting
a job.




  #652 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever


"bulba" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:16:12 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Any company can
> >discharge someone who doesn't do the job properly. And that should be the
> >only reason they discharge someone.

>
> By this piece of "logic" I would have to be forced to buy at the same
> store forever and the only way to get out of such contract for me
> would be proving beyond doubt that the store sold me bad product
> (again, bad by whose standard).
>
> No, this is not a good idea and neither is your idea.
>
> There are reasons like customers cutting back on orders for the
> company or technological change or competitors overtaking
> the market or its sector from this company that routinely force
> companies to lay people off. What is company going to do to be
> able to pay the wages to its workforce in the situation when
> orders are reduced - tap the taxpayer's pocket? No thanks,
> there's more than enough corporate welfare already.
>
> An average company invests a lot into a worker. It is
> frequently noted that on average a worker does not make
> its company money that would cover costs of employing
> him for more than two years. I.e. it's at least two years until
> the moment the company actually earns on this guy.
>
> It's illogical to expect that given such situation companies
> would casually fire people for the hell of it. They must have
> a really good reason if they do so. Just like a customer not
> buying at this place anymore usually has a good reason
> he's doing so.
>
> Furthermore, there are important long-term development reasons
> that make maintaining smaller workforce than it would otherwise
> have to be a good thing: how else are we going to maintain the
> high productivity, i.e. high output per worker? It is better to have
> 10 companies employing the same 1,000 of people and producing
> five times as much stuff as 2 companies employing 500 people each.
> And no, there is no way to achieve the high output without
> restructuring companies - which means bankrupcies and layoffs. Neither
> Soviet Union nor Asia have not managed toachieve improvements in
> productivity, an output per worker.
>
> Which is synonymous with how high the living standard is, mind
> you.
>
> SU and Asia merely employed more inputs, i.e. more resources
> and more workers. That's it. Such increase in wealth hits the
> wall as soon as you just can't educate more workers and
> get more of resources out of the soil. The only way for
> improvement from that point is improving productivity. This
> means companies have to produce more with fewer workers.
> That means layoffs.
>
> Choose one of the options. You can't have both of them. Either
> everybody has a "job" - and this job pays so poor you have
> a really hard time making ends meet - or you face the risk
> of layoffs, but every year we're a little bit richer and more
> advanced.
>
> I'd like to note that in Europe, where the labor market is heavily
> regulated, unemployment is just terrible. You Americans whine
> how bad your job situation is right now. The reality is, here we
> would love to have your "bad" situation! Try being young
> graduate in Europe who attempts to get his first job. Then
> you would know what it means to have a hard time getting
> a job.
>


I was not clear enough in my statement. I meant discharged as in fired, never
to return. Obviously there will be occasions when employers must reduce their
workforce. I consider those to be "layoffs". Semantics really except a
person who loses their job in this fashion then has job rights to get the job
back if there is an upturn in business.

Actually we could have everyone employed and living well. But it would take a
major twist in our social thinking. We would have to put away greed as a
society and start treating each other humanely. Not likely, but not
impossible.



  #653 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever


"bulba" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:16:12 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Any company can
> >discharge someone who doesn't do the job properly. And that should be the
> >only reason they discharge someone.

>
> By this piece of "logic" I would have to be forced to buy at the same
> store forever and the only way to get out of such contract for me
> would be proving beyond doubt that the store sold me bad product
> (again, bad by whose standard).
>
> No, this is not a good idea and neither is your idea.
>
> There are reasons like customers cutting back on orders for the
> company or technological change or competitors overtaking
> the market or its sector from this company that routinely force
> companies to lay people off. What is company going to do to be
> able to pay the wages to its workforce in the situation when
> orders are reduced - tap the taxpayer's pocket? No thanks,
> there's more than enough corporate welfare already.
>
> An average company invests a lot into a worker. It is
> frequently noted that on average a worker does not make
> its company money that would cover costs of employing
> him for more than two years. I.e. it's at least two years until
> the moment the company actually earns on this guy.
>
> It's illogical to expect that given such situation companies
> would casually fire people for the hell of it. They must have
> a really good reason if they do so. Just like a customer not
> buying at this place anymore usually has a good reason
> he's doing so.
>
> Furthermore, there are important long-term development reasons
> that make maintaining smaller workforce than it would otherwise
> have to be a good thing: how else are we going to maintain the
> high productivity, i.e. high output per worker? It is better to have
> 10 companies employing the same 1,000 of people and producing
> five times as much stuff as 2 companies employing 500 people each.
> And no, there is no way to achieve the high output without
> restructuring companies - which means bankrupcies and layoffs. Neither
> Soviet Union nor Asia have not managed toachieve improvements in
> productivity, an output per worker.
>
> Which is synonymous with how high the living standard is, mind
> you.
>
> SU and Asia merely employed more inputs, i.e. more resources
> and more workers. That's it. Such increase in wealth hits the
> wall as soon as you just can't educate more workers and
> get more of resources out of the soil. The only way for
> improvement from that point is improving productivity. This
> means companies have to produce more with fewer workers.
> That means layoffs.
>
> Choose one of the options. You can't have both of them. Either
> everybody has a "job" - and this job pays so poor you have
> a really hard time making ends meet - or you face the risk
> of layoffs, but every year we're a little bit richer and more
> advanced.
>
> I'd like to note that in Europe, where the labor market is heavily
> regulated, unemployment is just terrible. You Americans whine
> how bad your job situation is right now. The reality is, here we
> would love to have your "bad" situation! Try being young
> graduate in Europe who attempts to get his first job. Then
> you would know what it means to have a hard time getting
> a job.
>


I was not clear enough in my statement. I meant discharged as in fired, never
to return. Obviously there will be occasions when employers must reduce their
workforce. I consider those to be "layoffs". Semantics really except a
person who loses their job in this fashion then has job rights to get the job
back if there is an upturn in business.

Actually we could have everyone employed and living well. But it would take a
major twist in our social thinking. We would have to put away greed as a
society and start treating each other humanely. Not likely, but not
impossible.



  #654 (permalink)   Report Post  
bulba
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:46:35 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>I was not clear enough in my statement. I meant discharged as in fired, never
>to return.



Oh, OK. I can see that.

>Actually we could have everyone employed and living well. But it would take a
>major twist in our social thinking.


Actually, there are researchers working on it. Some have come up
with the conclusion that it is pretty much impossible to reduce
unemployment below 3% to 4% permanently. That some
people are plain unemployable and frictional unemployment
plus possibly some other complex phenomenons make it
impossible to get to the situation of full employment. IIRC
it was Friedman who put forward hypothesis of "natural
unemployment rate". Some research followed, but nobody
is exactly sure what to make of it.

>We would have to put away greed as a
>society and start treating each other humanely.


Oh bullshit.

See, this is precisely the kind of vague, feel-good
nonsene imagination of place where we're all safe
and good and rivers flow with milk and honey.

This is some bug in human psyche I guess. Not
real world or anything to do with real world. Bible
already contains visions of places where lion
would lie along the lamb, etc. I'd say you just
sublimate your need of security, which as Maslow
has demonstrated, is fundamental in hierarchy
of needs. It seems to me just like you summarized
popular figment of imagination.

Your statement is just generic and it doesn't show
at all HOW this place would look like and HOW
it would work and just why current motivations
and problems and contexts and mechanisms
and facts would cease to be there. Nothing
is clear about this wonderful world of full
employment and no problems of yours except
that it would feel good if only we subscribed
to some vague notion of "human treatment
of each other".

This kind of muddleheaded thinking gets societies
into real trouble.

>Not likely, but not
>impossible.


Impossible, because your thinking is based on errors.


  #655 (permalink)   Report Post  
bulba
 
Posts: n/a
Default yeah, whatever

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:46:35 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>I was not clear enough in my statement. I meant discharged as in fired, never
>to return.



Oh, OK. I can see that.

>Actually we could have everyone employed and living well. But it would take a
>major twist in our social thinking.


Actually, there are researchers working on it. Some have come up
with the conclusion that it is pretty much impossible to reduce
unemployment below 3% to 4% permanently. That some
people are plain unemployable and frictional unemployment
plus possibly some other complex phenomenons make it
impossible to get to the situation of full employment. IIRC
it was Friedman who put forward hypothesis of "natural
unemployment rate". Some research followed, but nobody
is exactly sure what to make of it.

>We would have to put away greed as a
>society and start treating each other humanely.


Oh bullshit.

See, this is precisely the kind of vague, feel-good
nonsene imagination of place where we're all safe
and good and rivers flow with milk and honey.

This is some bug in human psyche I guess. Not
real world or anything to do with real world. Bible
already contains visions of places where lion
would lie along the lamb, etc. I'd say you just
sublimate your need of security, which as Maslow
has demonstrated, is fundamental in hierarchy
of needs. It seems to me just like you summarized
popular figment of imagination.

Your statement is just generic and it doesn't show
at all HOW this place would look like and HOW
it would work and just why current motivations
and problems and contexts and mechanisms
and facts would cease to be there. Nothing
is clear about this wonderful world of full
employment and no problems of yours except
that it would feel good if only we subscribed
to some vague notion of "human treatment
of each other".

This kind of muddleheaded thinking gets societies
into real trouble.

>Not likely, but not
>impossible.


Impossible, because your thinking is based on errors.




  #656 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Stan de SD" > wrote:
>
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business.

> >
> > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not
> > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.

>
> HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this one. If
> you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a
> totalitarian corporation? Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that wal
> mart is the only business left in town.


And what town would that be? And exactly how does Wal-Mart operate
profitably in a town that isn't connected to any other town so people can't
leave?

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html



  #657 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Stan de SD" > wrote:
>
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business.

> >
> > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not
> > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.

>
> HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this one. If
> you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a
> totalitarian corporation? Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that wal
> mart is the only business left in town.


And what town would that be? And exactly how does Wal-Mart operate
profitably in a town that isn't connected to any other town so people can't
leave?

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html



  #658 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article k.net>,
> "Stan de SD" > wrote:
>
> > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article k.net>,
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the

business.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the

business do
> > not
> > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > >
> > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this

one.
> > > >
> > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > >
> > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.

> >
> > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to

be
> > the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes.
> >
> > > > > If
> > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a
> > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > >
> > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You

are
> > free
> > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair

deal.
> > >
> > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the
> > > working poor.

> >
> > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise)

who
> > are able to relocate to find work...

>
> Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
>
> The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from one
> city to another.


Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
dropped
and raised in the better and worse cities respectively. Your claim was that
"The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true for most of the working
poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible for the working poor to
move
interstate. Bear in mind that more people move cities every year in the US
than
did in Europe during the entire middle ages.


> For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> years for this opporitunity.
>
> I do not see how that would help our society.
>

Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the only
reason they
seperate from their families is because of US immigration controls. Since
there
are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within the US.

> >
> > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping

you
> > in,
> > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that

(leaving)
> > in
> > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > >
> > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus

on
> > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > >
> > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?

> >
> > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously

telling me
> > that you can't discern the difference between the two?

>
> So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
>

The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But given
the choice
between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
company
because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have to
preserve their
realtionship by consent, government do it by force.
> >
> > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that

wal
> > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > >
> > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > >
> > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause

busniesses
> > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:

> >
> > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good

thing.
> > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to
> > Wal-Mart) to prosper.

>
> wal mart lowers wages in the area,


By employing people, neat trick. The fact is that real wages go up if
Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
of it's direct competitors go down.

> forces stores to close (it buys from
> larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,


No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.

> not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
>

It treats them better than the unemployment line does.

> I gues if that what you want, fine.
>

What I want is cheap stuff.

>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html



  #659 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article k.net>,
> "Stan de SD" > wrote:
>
> > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article k.net>,
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the

business.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the

business do
> > not
> > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > >
> > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this

one.
> > > >
> > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > >
> > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.

> >
> > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to

be
> > the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes.
> >
> > > > > If
> > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a
> > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > >
> > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You

are
> > free
> > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair

deal.
> > >
> > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the
> > > working poor.

> >
> > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise)

who
> > are able to relocate to find work...

>
> Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
>
> The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from one
> city to another.


Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
dropped
and raised in the better and worse cities respectively. Your claim was that
"The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true for most of the working
poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible for the working poor to
move
interstate. Bear in mind that more people move cities every year in the US
than
did in Europe during the entire middle ages.


> For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> years for this opporitunity.
>
> I do not see how that would help our society.
>

Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the only
reason they
seperate from their families is because of US immigration controls. Since
there
are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within the US.

> >
> > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping

you
> > in,
> > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that

(leaving)
> > in
> > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > >
> > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus

on
> > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > >
> > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?

> >
> > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously

telling me
> > that you can't discern the difference between the two?

>
> So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
>

The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But given
the choice
between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
company
because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have to
preserve their
realtionship by consent, government do it by force.
> >
> > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that

wal
> > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > >
> > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > >
> > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause

busniesses
> > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:

> >
> > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good

thing.
> > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to
> > Wal-Mart) to prosper.

>
> wal mart lowers wages in the area,


By employing people, neat trick. The fact is that real wages go up if
Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
of it's direct competitors go down.

> forces stores to close (it buys from
> larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,


No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.

> not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
>

It treats them better than the unemployment line does.

> I gues if that what you want, fine.
>

What I want is cheap stuff.

>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html



  #660 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Xyzzy" > wrote in message
om...
> (michael price) wrote in message

. com>...
> >
(Xyzzy) wrote in message
om>...
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message

link.net>...
> > > > "Xyzzy" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

message
> > k.net>...
> > > > > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > > > > > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

message
> > > > > > > news > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > > > > >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > > > > > Contact:
> > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated

attempts
> > > > > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude

tactics
> > > > > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth

chain.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in

over
> > > > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is

Starbucks,
> > > > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > > > > > place to work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are

being
> > > > forced
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would

think it's a
> > > > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of

feminized,
> > spoiled
> > > > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the

messenger?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head.

Nobody
> > is
> > > > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or

whatever
> > > > >
> > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds,
> > > > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another

job as
> > > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did.
> > >
> > > The workers are the union.

> >
> > No they aren't any more than the voters are the government.

>
> Union workers have considerably more influence than any voters.


No they don't. They have exactly the same influence, which is the number
of total combinations of voters which need their one vote to pass divided
by the total number of combinations of voters. Which is to say, bugger
all. In any case you admit my point. The union is not the workers, as
the government is not the voters.

> At any rate, voting is the only reliable way to make decisions for the
> group.


Not true, there is freedom. You try to persuade people in the group to
help
you do something, if all the people neccesary to getting it done don't agree
it doesn't get done.
>
> >
> > > They invest their labor, the better part of their lives.
> > >

> > No they sell it, there's a difference. In a sale you start with
> > something, exchange it for money and end up with money and without
> > the thing you sold. In an investment you start with something,

>
> like your talent for box-packing
>
> > put it into a project

>
> for eight hours, five days a week
>
> > and receive part of the proceeds of the project

>
> on Friday
>
> > when (and if) it produces such.


This is the part that you didn't comment on. The difference between a
sale and
an investment is that investors get paid when and if there is proceeds of
the project. Workers as you say, get paid "on Friday" (or in my case
thursday, YMMV).

> >
> > > > A small point you choose to overlook.





  #661 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Xyzzy" > wrote in message
om...
> (michael price) wrote in message

. com>...
> >
(Xyzzy) wrote in message
om>...
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message

link.net>...
> > > > "Xyzzy" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

message
> > k.net>...
> > > > > > "Alex Russell" > wrote in message
> > > > > > newsrQxc.12808$Dr.11373@edtnps84...
> > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in

message
> > > > > > > news > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> > > > > > > > >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > > > > posted by IU/660 on Tuesday June 01 2004 @ 11:44AM PDT
> > > > > > > > > June 1, 2004
> > > > > > > > > Contact:
> > > > > > > > > Starbucks Obstructing First US Union Vote
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Workers to Schultz: What are you so scared of?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > New York, NY--The Starbucks Baristas Union and community
> > > > > > > > > members across the country have condemned repeated

attempts
> > > > > > > > > by the company to deny workers a fair vote on the Union.
> > > > > > > > > While paying lip-service to respecting the choice of
> > > > > > > > > employees, Starbucks has deployed a variety of crude

tactics
> > > > > > > > > in an effort to defeat the IWW IU/660, which would be the
> > > > > > > > > first union certified in the United States at the mammoth

chain.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Supporters around the country and internationally are
> > > > > > > > > contacting Starbucks demanding they live up to their
> > > > > > > > > rhetoric. If Starbucks really is a bastion of worker
> > > > > > > > > benefits, what is Chairman Howard Schultz, who raked in

over
> > > > > > > > > $17 million last year, so scared of? The truth is

Starbucks,
> > > > > > > > > with its poverty wages and rampant repetitive-stress
> > > > > > > > > dangers, resembles a sweatshop more than it does a decent
> > > > > > > > > place to work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, and all those 20-something college-age Americans are

being
> > > > forced
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > work there against their will, right? I guess YOU would

think it's a
> > > > > > > > sweatshop, given that you strike me as the type of

feminized,
> > spoiled
> > > > > > > > cry-baby who has never held a real job one day in his life.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tell us, Dan Clore, self-appointed "voice" of the workers -
> > > > > > > > what in the hell do YOU do for a living?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can't come up with a real argument so you want to shoot the

messenger?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Came up with an argument that when right over your little head.

Nobody
> > is
> > > > > > being forced to work at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or

whatever
> > > > >
> > > > > And nobody is being forced to own & operate Starbucks, McDonalds,
> > > > > Wal-Mart. If the CEO's don't like unions they can find another

job as
> > > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > The union didn't invest in the business - the owners did.
> > >
> > > The workers are the union.

> >
> > No they aren't any more than the voters are the government.

>
> Union workers have considerably more influence than any voters.


No they don't. They have exactly the same influence, which is the number
of total combinations of voters which need their one vote to pass divided
by the total number of combinations of voters. Which is to say, bugger
all. In any case you admit my point. The union is not the workers, as
the government is not the voters.

> At any rate, voting is the only reliable way to make decisions for the
> group.


Not true, there is freedom. You try to persuade people in the group to
help
you do something, if all the people neccesary to getting it done don't agree
it doesn't get done.
>
> >
> > > They invest their labor, the better part of their lives.
> > >

> > No they sell it, there's a difference. In a sale you start with
> > something, exchange it for money and end up with money and without
> > the thing you sold. In an investment you start with something,

>
> like your talent for box-packing
>
> > put it into a project

>
> for eight hours, five days a week
>
> > and receive part of the proceeds of the project

>
> on Friday
>
> > when (and if) it produces such.


This is the part that you didn't comment on. The difference between a
sale and
an investment is that investors get paid when and if there is proceeds of
the project. Workers as you say, get paid "on Friday" (or in my case
thursday, YMMV).

> >
> > > > A small point you choose to overlook.



  #662 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On 29 Jun 2004 00:13:02 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

(G*rd*n):
>> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
>> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
>> >representation and expression, to say that they are
>> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
>> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
>> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
>> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
>> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
>> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.

>
:
>> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
>> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
>> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
>> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
>> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
>> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
>> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
>> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
>> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
>> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
>> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
>> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
>> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
>> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
>> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
>> ...

>
>
>If you agree that people have a right to combine in unions to
>sell their labor collectively, then I don't think you can say
>that unions are "inherently" evil. Corrupted by circumstances,
>maybe, but that's very different.



They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without
infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in
reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous
public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to
enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the
rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't
look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to
honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless.

So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the
constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant?

William R. James

  #663 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On 29 Jun 2004 00:13:02 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:

(G*rd*n):
>> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
>> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
>> >representation and expression, to say that they are
>> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
>> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
>> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
>> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
>> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
>> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.

>
:
>> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
>> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
>> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
>> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
>> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
>> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
>> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
>> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
>> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
>> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
>> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
>> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
>> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
>> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
>> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
>> ...

>
>
>If you agree that people have a right to combine in unions to
>sell their labor collectively, then I don't think you can say
>that unions are "inherently" evil. Corrupted by circumstances,
>maybe, but that's very different.



They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without
infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in
reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous
public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to
enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the
rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't
look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to
honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless.

So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the
constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant?

William R. James

  #664 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 25 Jun 2004 14:06:39 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> ...
>> >
>> :
>> >> >> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>> >> >> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>> >> >> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>> >> >> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>> >> >> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
>> >> >> over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>> >
>> (G*rd*n):
>> >> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>> >> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
>> >> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
>> >> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
>> >> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
>> >> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
>> >> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
>> >> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.
>> >
>> :
>> >> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
>> >> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
>> >> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
>> >> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
>> >> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
>> >> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
>> >> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
>> >> well?
>> >
>> >
>> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
>> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
>> >representation and expression, to say that they are
>> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
>> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
>> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
>> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
>> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
>> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.

>>
>> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
>> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
>> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
>> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
>> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
>> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
>> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
>> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
>> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
>> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
>> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
>> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
>> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
>> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
>> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
>>
>> >> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
>> >> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
>> >> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
>> >> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
>> >> to function.
>> >
>> >So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
>> >is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
>> >of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
>> >If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
>> >trying to do it, and we do.

>>
>> I see no advantage except to those who's labor is woth less than they
>> are already being paid. Take a typical work force of say 100
>> employees. There are some who show up on time, work hard, and are
>> worth more than the average. There are some who take every
>> opportunity to show up late or not at all, or take off early, and
>> spend most of their time avoiding the work and or whining about it
>> instead of actually doing it. They are already over paid, and they
>> need a union to prop them up. The workers don't ned a union. They are
>> nbetter off without one. In a union, they end up carrying the load for
>> the bums.
>>
>> William R. James
>>

>
>Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try
>to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they
>aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want
>to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush.
>The difference is I also understand reality.
>


Apparently you don't. What I am talking about is the fact that
constitutional rights are being violated. I'm not suggesting that
employers are allowed to exersize their rights, I'm stating just the
opposite and that that is the problem.


The clue you are missing can be found in the headers of the posts.
This thread ios crossposted to a number of groups, including
alt.activism. I assume you are reading it in another group that isn't
interested in the politicial ideaology, but just the Starbuck's issue
in the context of the union vote. But in alt.activism, the main
points of interest aren't necessarily the union votes, but whether the
regulations involved in such things are constitutional.

William R. James

  #665 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 25 Jun 2004 14:06:39 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> ...
>> >
>> :
>> >> >> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>> >> >> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>> >> >> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>> >> >> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>> >> >> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
>> >> >> over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>> >
>> (G*rd*n):
>> >> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>> >> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
>> >> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
>> >> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
>> >> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
>> >> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
>> >> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
>> >> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.
>> >
>> :
>> >> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
>> >> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
>> >> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
>> >> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
>> >> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
>> >> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
>> >> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
>> >> well?
>> >
>> >
>> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
>> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
>> >representation and expression, to say that they are
>> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
>> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
>> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
>> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
>> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
>> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.

>>
>> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
>> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
>> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
>> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
>> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
>> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
>> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
>> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
>> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
>> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
>> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
>> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
>> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
>> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
>> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
>>
>> >> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
>> >> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
>> >> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
>> >> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
>> >> to function.
>> >
>> >So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
>> >is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
>> >of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
>> >If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
>> >trying to do it, and we do.

>>
>> I see no advantage except to those who's labor is woth less than they
>> are already being paid. Take a typical work force of say 100
>> employees. There are some who show up on time, work hard, and are
>> worth more than the average. There are some who take every
>> opportunity to show up late or not at all, or take off early, and
>> spend most of their time avoiding the work and or whining about it
>> instead of actually doing it. They are already over paid, and they
>> need a union to prop them up. The workers don't ned a union. They are
>> nbetter off without one. In a union, they end up carrying the load for
>> the bums.
>>
>> William R. James
>>

>
>Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you try
>to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they
>aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't want
>to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush.
>The difference is I also understand reality.
>


Apparently you don't. What I am talking about is the fact that
constitutional rights are being violated. I'm not suggesting that
employers are allowed to exersize their rights, I'm stating just the
opposite and that that is the problem.


The clue you are missing can be found in the headers of the posts.
This thread ios crossposted to a number of groups, including
alt.activism. I assume you are reading it in another group that isn't
interested in the politicial ideaology, but just the Starbuck's issue
in the context of the union vote. But in alt.activism, the main
points of interest aren't necessarily the union votes, but whether the
regulations involved in such things are constitutional.

William R. James



  #666 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:23:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:

>In article >,
>Hawth Hill > wrote:
>>in article
, Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:29 AM:

>
>>> I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the
>>> constitution.

>
>>Well, laddie, hate to tell ya, but according to Marbury v. Madison, it's the
>>SC that determines just what's constitutional and what's not. Whether you,
>>me, or the lamp post agrees with 'em.

>
>>Now, THAT'S constitutional. . . Has been for nearly 200 years.


Wrong. If the constitution says whatever the USSC says it says, then
the constitution is meaningless and we live in a dictatorship. The
Supreme court could simply rule at any time that the constitution says
that to be the legislating and executive branches and that the
constitution forids congress to amend it to the contrary. They could
disband the congress and do whatever they want. In your view, that
would be constitutional? In reality, the courts are as bound by the
document as anyone else. Unfortunately, the congress has neglected
it's duty to impeach rougue court members from the start, even a few
on the supreme court still holding their positions while in the later
stages of alzheimers.

Congress also has the constitutional option of removing powers from
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but has never exersized that
power and I'm sure it would be a good idea if they did so. But they
could.

>Actually, for all the grief that that decicison has caused for the last
>200 years, the conclusion was inescapable. Leaving aside the fact that
>the Federalist Papers make it quite clear that this was the expected
>behavior, the courts are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If a law
>violates the Constitution, than an order enforcing that law also
>violates it.


Corect.

>It would be theoretically possible, I suppose, to try a weaker form, in
>which the court would simply refrain from issuing orders, rather than
>ordering action consistent with the C, but this would be inherently
>one-sided . . .
>
>hawk


All we need is a decent congress which would removed from the courts
those who attempt to legislate and those who abuse their positions to
promote their own agendas in opposition to the constitution.

William R. James

  #667 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:23:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:

>In article >,
>Hawth Hill > wrote:
>>in article
, Wm James at
wrote on 06/20/2004 4:29 AM:

>
>>> I have. And someday I hope we have a supreme court which respects the
>>> constitution.

>
>>Well, laddie, hate to tell ya, but according to Marbury v. Madison, it's the
>>SC that determines just what's constitutional and what's not. Whether you,
>>me, or the lamp post agrees with 'em.

>
>>Now, THAT'S constitutional. . . Has been for nearly 200 years.


Wrong. If the constitution says whatever the USSC says it says, then
the constitution is meaningless and we live in a dictatorship. The
Supreme court could simply rule at any time that the constitution says
that to be the legislating and executive branches and that the
constitution forids congress to amend it to the contrary. They could
disband the congress and do whatever they want. In your view, that
would be constitutional? In reality, the courts are as bound by the
document as anyone else. Unfortunately, the congress has neglected
it's duty to impeach rougue court members from the start, even a few
on the supreme court still holding their positions while in the later
stages of alzheimers.

Congress also has the constitutional option of removing powers from
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but has never exersized that
power and I'm sure it would be a good idea if they did so. But they
could.

>Actually, for all the grief that that decicison has caused for the last
>200 years, the conclusion was inescapable. Leaving aside the fact that
>the Federalist Papers make it quite clear that this was the expected
>behavior, the courts are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If a law
>violates the Constitution, than an order enforcing that law also
>violates it.


Corect.

>It would be theoretically possible, I suppose, to try a weaker form, in
>which the court would simply refrain from issuing orders, rather than
>ordering action consistent with the C, but this would be inherently
>one-sided . . .
>
>hawk


All we need is a decent congress which would removed from the courts
those who attempt to legislate and those who abuse their positions to
promote their own agendas in opposition to the constitution.

William R. James

  #668 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:46:24 -0700, "geetarplyr" >
wrote:

>yea.....what a fool you are!!
>lmfao!!


Your inability to actually argue a point is noted.

William R. James

  #669 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wm James
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:46:24 -0700, "geetarplyr" >
wrote:

>yea.....what a fool you are!!
>lmfao!!


Your inability to actually argue a point is noted.

William R. James

  #670 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Wm James" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On 25 Jun 2004 14:06:39 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >
> >> :
> >> >> >> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding

control
> >> >> >> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the

company,
> >> >> >> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks

building
> >> >> >> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to

make
> >> >> >> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe

control
> >> >> >> over the business owner's right to buy labor.
> >> >
> >> (G*rd*n):
> >> >> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> >> >> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
> >> >> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> >> >> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> >> >> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
> >> >> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
> >> >> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
> >> >> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.
> >> >
> >> :
> >> >> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
> >> >> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
> >> >> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
> >> >> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
> >> >> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
> >> >> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
> >> >> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
> >> >> well?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.
> >>
> >> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> >> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> >> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> >> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> >> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> >> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> >> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> >> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> >> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> >> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> >> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> >> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> >> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> >> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> >> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
> >>
> >> >> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
> >> >> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
> >> >> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
> >> >> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
> >> >> to function.
> >> >
> >> >So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
> >> >is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
> >> >of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
> >> >If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
> >> >trying to do it, and we do.
> >>
> >> I see no advantage except to those who's labor is woth less than they
> >> are already being paid. Take a typical work force of say 100
> >> employees. There are some who show up on time, work hard, and are
> >> worth more than the average. There are some who take every
> >> opportunity to show up late or not at all, or take off early, and
> >> spend most of their time avoiding the work and or whining about it
> >> instead of actually doing it. They are already over paid, and they
> >> need a union to prop them up. The workers don't ned a union. They are
> >> nbetter off without one. In a union, they end up carrying the load for
> >> the bums.
> >>
> >> William R. James
> >>

> >
> >Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you

try
> >to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they
> >aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't

want
> >to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush.
> >The difference is I also understand reality.
> >

>
> Apparently you don't. What I am talking about is the fact that
> constitutional rights are being violated. I'm not suggesting that
> employers are allowed to exersize their rights, I'm stating just the
> opposite and that that is the problem.
>
>
> The clue you are missing can be found in the headers of the posts.
> This thread ios crossposted to a number of groups, including
> alt.activism. I assume you are reading it in another group that isn't
> interested in the politicial ideaology, but just the Starbuck's issue
> in the context of the union vote. But in alt.activism, the main
> points of interest aren't necessarily the union votes, but whether the
> regulations involved in such things are constitutional.
>
> William R. James
>


And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your
"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions
versus the reality I speak of .




  #671 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Legel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote


"Wm James" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:02:23 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Wm James" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On 25 Jun 2004 14:06:39 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >
> >> :
> >> >> >> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding

control
> >> >> >> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the

company,
> >> >> >> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks

building
> >> >> >> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to

make
> >> >> >> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe

control
> >> >> >> over the business owner's right to buy labor.
> >> >
> >> (G*rd*n):
> >> >> >So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> >> >> >and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor? Is
> >> >> >that for everyone, or just certain classes of people? Because
> >> >> >if labor unions are inherently evil, then liberalism is
> >> >> >inherently evil. One seldom observes a non-liberal on the
> >> >> >Net, so I find this very interesting. You might also want to
> >> >> >tell us about the good against which this evil is defined --
> >> >> >to articulate a positive statement of your beliefs.
> >> >
> >> :
> >> >> What have you been attempting and failing to read? Where have I EVER
> >> >> said such a thing? EVERYONE has the right to associate freely and
> >> >> the right to trade their labor or anything else they have on whatever
> >> >> terms they see fit. That include those buying labor. If you forma
> >> >> union and the employer doesn't like the terms ofthe bulk labor, he's
> >> >> free to purchase it elsewhere and tell you to get off his property. Or
> >> >> do you not feel he has the right to associate and trade freely as
> >> >> well?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.
> >>
> >> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> >> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> >> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> >> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> >> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> >> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> >> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> >> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> >> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> >> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> >> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> >> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> >> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> >> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> >> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
> >>
> >> >> Unions are evil because they are powerless if they respect the rights
> >> >> of others. If they were prevented from using violence, threats,
> >> >> intimidation, vandalism, and were not allowed to impose themselves on
> >> >> unwilling trade partners, the unions would have virtually no ability
> >> >> to function.
> >> >
> >> >So you say, but you don't show why. Collective behavior
> >> >is obviously advantageous under many circumstances, and one
> >> >of them seems to be in acting collectively to sell labor.
> >> >If it is advantageous, we can expect to observe people
> >> >trying to do it, and we do.
> >>
> >> I see no advantage except to those who's labor is woth less than they
> >> are already being paid. Take a typical work force of say 100
> >> employees. There are some who show up on time, work hard, and are
> >> worth more than the average. There are some who take every
> >> opportunity to show up late or not at all, or take off early, and
> >> spend most of their time avoiding the work and or whining about it
> >> instead of actually doing it. They are already over paid, and they
> >> need a union to prop them up. The workers don't ned a union. They are
> >> nbetter off without one. In a union, they end up carrying the load for
> >> the bums.
> >>
> >> William R. James
> >>

> >
> >Nobody has any quarrel with you stating your opinions or wishes, but you

try
> >to make your opinions and wishes sound like fact and reality ... and they
> >aren't. You have made it quite clear you think unions suck and you don't

want
> >to have to live with them. I feel the same about Wal-mart and George Bush.
> >The difference is I also understand reality.
> >

>
> Apparently you don't. What I am talking about is the fact that
> constitutional rights are being violated. I'm not suggesting that
> employers are allowed to exersize their rights, I'm stating just the
> opposite and that that is the problem.
>
>
> The clue you are missing can be found in the headers of the posts.
> This thread ios crossposted to a number of groups, including
> alt.activism. I assume you are reading it in another group that isn't
> interested in the politicial ideaology, but just the Starbuck's issue
> in the context of the union vote. But in alt.activism, the main
> points of interest aren't necessarily the union votes, but whether the
> regulations involved in such things are constitutional.
>
> William R. James
>


And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then your
"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions
versus the reality I speak of .


  #672 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n):
> >> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.


:
> >> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> >> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> >> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> >> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> >> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> >> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> >> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> >> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> >> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> >> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> >> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> >> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> >> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> >> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> >> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
> >> ...


(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >If you agree that people have a right to combine in unions to
> >sell their labor collectively, then I don't think you can say
> >that unions are "inherently" evil. Corrupted by circumstances,
> >maybe, but that's very different.


:
> They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without
> infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in
> reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous
> public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to
> enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the
> rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't
> look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to
> honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless.
>
> So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the
> constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant?



Oh, so this is a theological thing. Well, no one can argue
with the True Faith. I thought you were going to do something
weird like introduce evidence from the material world and reason
about it. Heh -- how silly I am.



--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
  #673 (permalink)   Report Post  
G*rd*n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote

(G*rd*n):
> >> >Since unions are an expression of self-interest mediated
> >> >by certain liberal rights, such as association, contract,
> >> >representation and expression, to say that they are
> >> >_inherently_ evil is to say that self-interest and one
> >> >or more of these rights is evil, since the combination
> >> >inherently produces evil. As I suggest above, you may
> >> >think that self-interest and the named rights are all
> >> >right for some people (employers) but not for others
> >> >(employees) but I don't think you've made that clear.


:
> >> I have been quite clear to the contrary. What part of "EVERYONE has
> >> the right to associate freely and the right to trade their labor or
> >> anything else they have on whatever terms they see fit." do you not
> >> understand? Do you imagine "EVERYONE" means some people but not
> >> others? YOU (not I) are peddling the nonsense that such freedom
> >> applies only to some. You want those selling labor to have the right
> >> to decide to seel it in bulk collectively, which I agree with. If
> >> that's how they choose to sell it, fine. But you seem to think the
> >> buyer shouldn't have any right to decline, that the buyer of labor is
> >> somehow obligated to trade. My position is that either party, the
> >> buyer or the seller, of anything (including labor) is free to set
> >> whatever terms they see fit, and to refuse to trade, and to shop
> >> elsewhere and trade with someone else anytime the choose for whatever
> >> reason they choose. Why do you insist that some have such rights and
> >> not others, and why do you accuse me of taking your position?
> >> ...


(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >If you agree that people have a right to combine in unions to
> >sell their labor collectively, then I don't think you can say
> >that unions are "inherently" evil. Corrupted by circumstances,
> >maybe, but that's very different.


:
> They are evil by virtue of the fact that they cannot function without
> infringing on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in
> reality, they can't. It would have to involve virtually unamamous
> public support in order to because they have no legitimate tools to
> enforce anything. If government didn't assist them in stepping on the
> rights of business owners to trade elsewhere, and if government didn't
> look the other way when they commit crimes against those who refuse to
> honor their strikes, they would be entirely powerless.
>
> So choose. Do we have them remain evil, or fix the laws to match the
> constitution and leave them powerless and irrelevant?



Oh, so this is a theological thing. Well, no one can argue
with the True Faith. I thought you were going to do something
weird like introduce evidence from the material world and reason
about it. Heh -- how silly I am.



--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{
}"{
{
http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
  #674 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

In article > ,
"Michael Price" > wrote:

> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article k.net>,
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article k.net>,
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the

> business.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the

> business do
> > > not
> > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this

> one.
> > > > >
> > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > > >
> > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.
> > >
> > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to

> be
> > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes.
> > >
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a
> > > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You

> are
> > > free
> > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair

> deal.
> > > >
> > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the
> > > > working poor.
> > >
> > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise)

> who
> > > are able to relocate to find work...

> >
> > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> >
> > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from one
> > city to another.

>
> Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
> dropped
> and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.


I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?

> Your claim was that
> "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true for most of the working
> poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible for the working poor to
> move
> interstate.


I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it
was not true for MOST of the working poor.
I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
don't have the numbers on hand.

>
> > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> > years for this opporitunity.
> >
> > I do not see how that would help our society.
> >

> Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the only
> reason they
> seperate from their families is because of US immigration controls. Since
> there
> are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within the US.


I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.

>
> > >
> > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping

> you
> > > in,
> > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that

> (leaving)
> > > in
> > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > >
> > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus

> on
> > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > >
> > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > >
> > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously

> telling me
> > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?

> >
> > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> >

> The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But given
> the choice
> between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
> company
> because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have to
> preserve their
> realtionship by consent, government do it by force.


Some choice, one authoritarian company or another. What a way to spend
over 1/3 of your life.

> > >
> > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that

> wal
> > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > >
> > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause

> busniesses
> > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > >
> > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good

> thing.
> > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to
> > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.

> >
> > wal mart lowers wages in the area,

>
> By employing people, neat trick.


No, because of it's anti-union beleifs

> The fact is that real wages go up if
> Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
> of it's direct competitors go down.


Please provide some statistics.

>
> > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,

>
> No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
> can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.


But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
the efficiency of walmart.

>
> > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> >

> It treats them better than the unemployment line does.


So employment is not voluntary.

>
> > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> >

> What I want is cheap stuff.


There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
A=$5
B=$1

Which would you buy?


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
  #675 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

In article > ,
"Michael Price" > wrote:

> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article k.net>,
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article k.net>,
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article et>,
> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the

> business.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the

> business do
> > > not
> > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this

> one.
> > > > >
> > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > > >
> > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.
> > >
> > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for them to

> be
> > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different purposes.
> > >
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under a
> > > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian. You

> are
> > > free
> > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a fair

> deal.
> > > >
> > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of the
> > > > working poor.
> > >
> > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise)

> who
> > > are able to relocate to find work...

> >
> > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> >
> > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from one
> > city to another.

>
> Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
> dropped
> and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.


I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?

> Your claim was that
> "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true for most of the working
> poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible for the working poor to
> move
> interstate.


I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it
was not true for MOST of the working poor.
I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
don't have the numbers on hand.

>
> > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> > years for this opporitunity.
> >
> > I do not see how that would help our society.
> >

> Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the only
> reason they
> seperate from their families is because of US immigration controls. Since
> there
> are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within the US.


I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.

>
> > >
> > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences keeping

> you
> > > in,
> > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that

> (leaving)
> > > in
> > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > >
> > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's focus

> on
> > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > >
> > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > >
> > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously

> telling me
> > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?

> >
> > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> >

> The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But given
> the choice
> between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
> company
> because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have to
> preserve their
> realtionship by consent, government do it by force.


Some choice, one authoritarian company or another. What a way to spend
over 1/3 of your life.

> > >
> > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize that

> wal
> > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > >
> > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause

> busniesses
> > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > >
> > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good

> thing.
> > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell products to
> > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.

> >
> > wal mart lowers wages in the area,

>
> By employing people, neat trick.


No, because of it's anti-union beleifs

> The fact is that real wages go up if
> Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
> of it's direct competitors go down.


Please provide some statistics.

>
> > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,

>
> No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
> can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.


But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
the efficiency of walmart.

>
> > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> >

> It treats them better than the unemployment line does.


So employment is not voluntary.

>
> > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> >

> What I want is cheap stuff.


There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
A=$5
B=$1

Which would you buy?


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html


  #676 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

In article > ,
"Michael Price" > wrote:

> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article > ,
> > "Michael Price" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article k.net>,
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article

> k.net>,
> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > In article

> et>,
> > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the
> > > business.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the
> > > business do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this
> > > one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for

> them to
> > > be
> > > > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different

> purposes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under

> a
> > > > > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian.

> You
> > > are
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a

> fair
> > > deal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of

> the
> > > > > > working poor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and

> otherwise)
> > > who
> > > > > are able to relocate to find work...
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> > > >
> > > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> > > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from

> one
> > > > city to another.
> > >
> > > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
> > > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.

> >
> > I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?
> >

> The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the
> cities
> with higher wages.


Yes, the wages in the US would lower, and they do, but what about in
Mexico?

>
> > > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true

> for
> > > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible

> for the
> > > working poor to move interstate.

> >
> > I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it
> > was not true for MOST of the working poor.

>
> And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares
> aren't that much.


Move a family of three on a greyhound bus. You're funny.

>
> > I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
> > don't have the numbers on hand.
> >
> > >
> > > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> > > > years for this opporitunity.
> > > >
> > > > I do not see how that would help our society.
> > > >
> > > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the

> only
> > > reason they seperate from their families is because of US immigration

> controls.
> > > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within

> the US.
> >
> > I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
> > happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.
> >

> Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting.


I was thinking renting. A working poor family renting two apartments?
C'mon.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences

> keeping
> > > you
> > > > > in,
> > > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that
> > > (leaving)
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's

> focus
> > > on
> > > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > > > >
> > > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously
> > > telling me
> > > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?
> > > >
> > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> > > >
> > > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But

> given
> > > the choice
> > > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
> > > company
> > > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have

> to
> > > preserve their
> > > realtionship by consent, government do it by force.

> >
> > Some choice, one authoritarian company or another.

>
> It's more choice that the government gives you.


=^o

>And actually it is a
> good
> choice. It's a choice that gives you the chance to achieve your potential
> and
> be treated as well as it's worth treating you, which is quite well if you're
> at
> all competent.


Oh, that's what it is like in corporations. What have I been witnessing
all these years?

> If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but
> propriators
> are under stricter controls than workers are. You are whinning about how
> workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others want them to instead
> of what they want, but that is the inevitable result of any work, not just
> wage labour. Work by definition is what has to be done, not what you
> want done.


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...work&x=15&y=15

But I think the UNSPUN definition is widely accepeted as : activity in
which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something

You make it so one has to aquiese to the owner.

Anyway, do you think most things produced to day are things that HAVE to
be produced?

>
> > What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize

> that
> > > wal
> > > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause
> > > busniesses
> > > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good
> > > thing.
> > > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell

> products to
> > > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.
> > > >
> > > > wal mart lowers wages in the area,
> > >
> > > By employing people, neat trick.

> >
> > No, because of it's anti-union beleifs
> >

> In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're worth.


So Wal Mart determines that worth?

>
> > > The fact is that real wages go up if
> > > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
> > > of it's direct competitors go down.

> >
> > Please provide some statistics.
> >

> I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices,


I do not deny that they do. Did I?

> fact two only a small
> proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's
> competitors and therefore have their wages reduced.


One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that
Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at
Chicago¹s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the
proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of
about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same
shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing
modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job
losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties.

Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart‹averaging about $9 an
hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of
³associates² working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps
hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions
like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or
more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange
County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters
such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in
lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and
benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers.

> Which of these
> facts is not obvious?


The second one.

Do you really think that becasue they offer "lower" prices that you can
ignore anything else about the company?

>
> > >
> > > > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,
> > >
> > > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
> > > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> > > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.

> >
> > But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
> > the efficiency of walmart.
> >

> In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the
> economic cost for it.


Yes, thank you for shopping at wal mart.

> > >
> > > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> > > >
> > > It treats them better than the unemployment line does.

> >
> > So employment is not voluntary.
> >

> Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to America.


NO, they just keep them opverseas.

>
> > >
> > > > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> > > >
> > > What I want is cheap stuff.

> >
> > There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
> > A=$5
> > B=$1
> >
> > Which would you buy?
> >

> Which do you think?


Since you did not answer the question I will have to guess the $5 one.


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
  #677 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

In article > ,
"Michael Price" > wrote:

> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article > ,
> > "Michael Price" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article k.net>,
> > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article

> k.net>,
> > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > In article

> et>,
> > > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the
> > > business.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the
> > > business do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this
> > > one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for

> them to
> > > be
> > > > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different

> purposes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under

> a
> > > > > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian.

> You
> > > are
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a

> fair
> > > deal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of

> the
> > > > > > working poor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and

> otherwise)
> > > who
> > > > > are able to relocate to find work...
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> > > >
> > > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> > > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from

> one
> > > > city to another.
> > >
> > > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
> > > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.

> >
> > I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?
> >

> The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the
> cities
> with higher wages.


Yes, the wages in the US would lower, and they do, but what about in
Mexico?

>
> > > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true

> for
> > > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible

> for the
> > > working poor to move interstate.

> >
> > I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it
> > was not true for MOST of the working poor.

>
> And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares
> aren't that much.


Move a family of three on a greyhound bus. You're funny.

>
> > I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
> > don't have the numbers on hand.
> >
> > >
> > > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> > > > years for this opporitunity.
> > > >
> > > > I do not see how that would help our society.
> > > >
> > > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the

> only
> > > reason they seperate from their families is because of US immigration

> controls.
> > > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within

> the US.
> >
> > I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
> > happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.
> >

> Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting.


I was thinking renting. A working poor family renting two apartments?
C'mon.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences

> keeping
> > > you
> > > > > in,
> > > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that
> > > (leaving)
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's

> focus
> > > on
> > > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > > > >
> > > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously
> > > telling me
> > > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?
> > > >
> > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> > > >
> > > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But

> given
> > > the choice
> > > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
> > > company
> > > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have

> to
> > > preserve their
> > > realtionship by consent, government do it by force.

> >
> > Some choice, one authoritarian company or another.

>
> It's more choice that the government gives you.


=^o

>And actually it is a
> good
> choice. It's a choice that gives you the chance to achieve your potential
> and
> be treated as well as it's worth treating you, which is quite well if you're
> at
> all competent.


Oh, that's what it is like in corporations. What have I been witnessing
all these years?

> If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but
> propriators
> are under stricter controls than workers are. You are whinning about how
> workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others want them to instead
> of what they want, but that is the inevitable result of any work, not just
> wage labour. Work by definition is what has to be done, not what you
> want done.


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...work&x=15&y=15

But I think the UNSPUN definition is widely accepeted as : activity in
which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something

You make it so one has to aquiese to the owner.

Anyway, do you think most things produced to day are things that HAVE to
be produced?

>
> > What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize

> that
> > > wal
> > > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause
> > > busniesses
> > > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good
> > > thing.
> > > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell

> products to
> > > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.
> > > >
> > > > wal mart lowers wages in the area,
> > >
> > > By employing people, neat trick.

> >
> > No, because of it's anti-union beleifs
> >

> In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're worth.


So Wal Mart determines that worth?

>
> > > The fact is that real wages go up if
> > > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
> > > of it's direct competitors go down.

> >
> > Please provide some statistics.
> >

> I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices,


I do not deny that they do. Did I?

> fact two only a small
> proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's
> competitors and therefore have their wages reduced.


One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that
Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at
Chicago¹s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the
proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of
about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same
shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing
modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job
losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties.

Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart‹averaging about $9 an
hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of
³associates² working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps
hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions
like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or
more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange
County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters
such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in
lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and
benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers.

> Which of these
> facts is not obvious?


The second one.

Do you really think that becasue they offer "lower" prices that you can
ignore anything else about the company?

>
> > >
> > > > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,
> > >
> > > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
> > > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> > > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.

> >
> > But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
> > the efficiency of walmart.
> >

> In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the
> economic cost for it.


Yes, thank you for shopping at wal mart.

> > >
> > > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> > > >
> > > It treats them better than the unemployment line does.

> >
> > So employment is not voluntary.
> >

> Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to America.


NO, they just keep them opverseas.

>
> > >
> > > > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> > > >
> > > What I want is cheap stuff.

> >
> > There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
> > A=$5
> > B=$1
> >
> > Which would you buy?
> >

> Which do you think?


Since you did not answer the question I will have to guess the $5 one.


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
  #678 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Michael Price" > wrote:
>
> > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article k.net>,
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article

k.net>,
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article

et>,
> > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the

> > business.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the

> > business do
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this

> > one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > > > >
> > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.
> > > >
> > > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for

them to
> > be
> > > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different

purposes.
> > > >
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under

a
> > > > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian.

You
> > are
> > > > free
> > > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a

fair
> > deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of

the
> > > > > working poor.
> > > >
> > > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and

otherwise)
> > who
> > > > are able to relocate to find work...
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> > >
> > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from

one
> > > city to another.

> >
> > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
> > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.

>
> I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?
>

The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the
cities
with higher wages.

> > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true

for
> > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible

for the
> > working poor to move interstate.

>
> I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it
> was not true for MOST of the working poor.


And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares
aren't that much.

> I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
> don't have the numbers on hand.
>
> >
> > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> > > years for this opporitunity.
> > >
> > > I do not see how that would help our society.
> > >

> > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the

only
> > reason they seperate from their families is because of US immigration

controls.
> > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within

the US.
>
> I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
> happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.
>

Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences

keeping
> > you
> > > > in,
> > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that

> > (leaving)
> > > > in
> > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > > >
> > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's

focus
> > on
> > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > > >
> > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously

> > telling me
> > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?
> > >
> > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> > >

> > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But

given
> > the choice
> > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
> > company
> > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have

to
> > preserve their
> > realtionship by consent, government do it by force.

>
> Some choice, one authoritarian company or another.


It's more choice that the government gives you. And actually it is a
good
choice. It's a choice that gives you the chance to achieve your potential
and
be treated as well as it's worth treating you, which is quite well if you're
at
all competent. If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but
propriators
are under stricter controls than workers are. You are whinning about how
workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others want them to instead
of what they want, but that is the inevitable result of any work, not just
wage labour. Work by definition is what has to be done, not what you
want done.

> What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life.
>
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize

that
> > wal
> > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause

> > busniesses
> > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > > >
> > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good

> > thing.
> > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell

products to
> > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.
> > >
> > > wal mart lowers wages in the area,

> >
> > By employing people, neat trick.

>
> No, because of it's anti-union beleifs
>

In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're worth.

> > The fact is that real wages go up if
> > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
> > of it's direct competitors go down.

>
> Please provide some statistics.
>

I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices, fact two only a small
proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's
competitors and therefore have their wages reduced. Which of these
facts is not obvious?

> >
> > > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,

> >
> > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
> > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.

>
> But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
> the efficiency of walmart.
>

In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the
economic cost for it.
> >
> > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> > >

> > It treats them better than the unemployment line does.

>
> So employment is not voluntary.
>

Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to America.

> >
> > > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> > >

> > What I want is cheap stuff.

>
> There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
> A=$5
> B=$1
>
> Which would you buy?
>

Which do you think?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html



  #679 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Michael Price" > wrote:
>
> > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article k.net>,
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article

k.net>,
> > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article

et>,
> > > > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > s.com...
> > > > > > > > > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the

> > business.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the

> > business do
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HEHE! I love when the corporate capitalists get caught on this

> > one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is anyone "caught"? It happens to be the truth...
> > > > >
> > > > > Caught admitting the type of govenment they really want.
> > > >
> > > > Governments and businesses are not the same, nor is it ideal for

them to
> > be
> > > > the same type of organization, since they exist for different

purposes.
> > > >
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > you would not live uunder a totalitarian state, why live under

a
> > > > > > > totalitarian corporation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again, your complete cluelessness shows. Businesses may be
> > > > > > authoritarian by necessity, but they are HARDLY totalitarian.

You
> > are
> > > > free
> > > > > > to quit and go elsewhere if you don't think you are getting a

fair
> > deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "freedom to move" is an assumption and not true for most of

the
> > > > > working poor.
> > > >
> > > > Try telling that to millions of Mexican immigrants (legal and

otherwise)
> > who
> > > > are able to relocate to find work...
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> > >
> > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In the US
> > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving from

one
> > > city to another.

> >
> > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until wages
> > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.

>
> I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?
>

The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the
cities
with higher wages.

> > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not true

for
> > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's impossible

for the
> > working poor to move interstate.

>
> I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said it
> was not true for MOST of the working poor.


And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares
aren't that much.

> I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
> don't have the numbers on hand.
>
> >
> > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families for
> > > years for this opporitunity.
> > >
> > > I do not see how that would help our society.
> > >

> > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the

only
> > reason they seperate from their families is because of US immigration

controls.
> > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary within

the US.
>
> I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
> happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.
>

Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences

keeping
> > you
> > > > in,
> > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing that

> > (leaving)
> > > > in
> > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > > >
> > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some time
> > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but let's

focus
> > on
> > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > > >
> > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you seriously

> > telling me
> > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?
> > >
> > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> > >

> > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation. But

given
> > the choice
> > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose the
> > company
> > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies have

to
> > preserve their
> > realtionship by consent, government do it by force.

>
> Some choice, one authoritarian company or another.


It's more choice that the government gives you. And actually it is a
good
choice. It's a choice that gives you the chance to achieve your potential
and
be treated as well as it's worth treating you, which is quite well if you're
at
all competent. If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but
propriators
are under stricter controls than workers are. You are whinning about how
workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others want them to instead
of what they want, but that is the inevitable result of any work, not just
wage labour. Work by definition is what has to be done, not what you
want done.

> What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life.
>
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they realize

that
> > wal
> > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause

> > busniesses
> > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > > >
> > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a good

> > thing.
> > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell

products to
> > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.
> > >
> > > wal mart lowers wages in the area,

> >
> > By employing people, neat trick.

>
> No, because of it's anti-union beleifs
>

In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're worth.

> > The fact is that real wages go up if
> > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the workers
> > of it's direct competitors go down.

>
> Please provide some statistics.
>

I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices, fact two only a small
proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's
competitors and therefore have their wages reduced. Which of these
facts is not obvious?

> >
> > > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,

> >
> > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops, you
> > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.

>
> But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
> the efficiency of walmart.
>

In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the
economic cost for it.
> >
> > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> > >

> > It treats them better than the unemployment line does.

>
> So employment is not voluntary.
>

Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to America.

> >
> > > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> > >

> > What I want is cheap stuff.

>
> There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
> A=$5
> B=$1
>
> Which would you buy?
>

Which do you think?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
> http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html



  #680 (permalink)   Report Post  
Grain of Sand
 
Posts: n/a
Default So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?

In article > ,
"Michael Price" > wrote:

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I thought we were talking about legal us citizens.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The wage and social disparity from Mexico to the US is HUGE. In

> the US
> > > > > > there is not a dramatic change for the working poor when moving

> from
> > > one
> > > > > > city to another.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is because if there were the poor would move there until

> wages
> > > > > dropped and raised in the better and worse cities respectively.
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry, can you reword this sentance?
> > > >
> > > The wages would rise in the cities with lower wages and lower in the
> > > cities
> > > with higher wages.

> >
> > Yes, the wages in the US would lower, and they do, but what about in
> > Mexico?

>
> Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the wages in cities in
> the US
> relative to other cities, not relative to Mexico..


Oh, can you cite some evidence? I have been looking any I cannot find
data one way or the other.

> >
> > >
> > > > > Your claim was that "The 'freedom to move' is an assumption and not

> true
> > > for
> > > > > most of the working poor.". Now feel free to show how it's

> impossible
> > > for the
> > > > > working poor to move interstate.
> > > >
> > > > I did not say it was impossible for the working poor to move. I said

> it
> > > > was not true for MOST of the working poor.
> > >
> > > And you're wrong. Even at minimum wages the cross country bus fares
> > > aren't that much.

> >
> > Move a family of three on a greyhound bus. You're funny.
> >

> It's not much fun, but it can be done. U-hauls exist.


Oh, so now it is a uhaul. what happened to the bus? Uhaulas cost alot
more money then a bus, I know. I use both.

>
> > >
> > > > I think Nickled and Dimed goes into it a bit. Anyway, it happens. I
> > > > don't have the numbers on hand.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > For a mexican family, they can send half their salary
> > > > > > home and feed their families. They separate from their families

> for
> > > > > > years for this opporitunity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see how that would help our society.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well people would be able to feed their families. In any case the
> > > only
> > > > > reason they seperate from their families is because of US

> immigration
> > > controls.
> > > > > Since there are no internal controls (yet) this is not neccesary

> within
> > > the US.
> > > >
> > > > I mean if it happened just in the US. In fact I do no think that could
> > > > happpen in the US cause of the difficulty in holding two houses.
> > > >
> > > Who says you have to hold one? It's called renting.

> >
> > I was thinking renting. A working poor family renting two apartments?
> > C'mon.
> >

> Ok, you've lost me, why the hell would they need to keep the old
> apartment?


We talking about how mexican families have a father leave to come to the
states. They have two homes.

If someone in the sates tried that it would be more difficult to have
two apartments.

>
> > > > > > > > > There are no guard dogs, barbed wire, or electrical fences
> > > keeping
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > in,
> > > > > > > > > and the EXIT door is pretty well marked by law. Try doing

> that
> > > > > (leaving)
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a totalitarian state, and see how far you get...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could go along and show you why most corporations at some

> time
> > > > > > > > resembled a totalitarian government (IBM in the 50's) but

> let's
> > > focus
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > your admission that businesses are authoritarian.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian government?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're referring to businesses, NOT governments. Are you

> seriously
> > > > > telling me
> > > > > > > that you can't discern the difference between the two?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, who would want to live under an authoritarian corporation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > The question doesn't arise. Nobody lives under a corporation.

> But
> > > given
> > > > > the choice
> > > > > between living under a company and a government, I'd probably choose

> the
> > > > > company
> > > > > because it doesn't claim the right to stop me leaving. Companies

> have
> > > to
> > > > > preserve their
> > > > > realtionship by consent, government do it by force.
> > > >
> > > > Some choice, one authoritarian company or another.
> > >
> > > It's more choice that the government gives you.

> >
> > =^o
> >
> > >And actually it is a good choice. It's a choice that gives you the
> > > chance to achieve your potential and be treated as well as it's
> > > worth treating you, which is quite well if you're at all competent.

> >
> > Oh, that's what it is like in corporations. What have I been witnessing
> > all these years?

>
> I'd say what you deserve.


Oh, yer assumiong I was compliaining about myslef? HE! No, I am
compasionate and I saw people getting screwed who were well under me.

> >
> > > If you prefer working for yourself, go for it, but
> > > propriators are under stricter controls than workers are. You are
> > > whinning about how workers spend 1/3 of their life doing things others
> > > want them to instead of what they want, but that is the inevitable

> result
> > > of any work, not just wage labour. Work by definition is what has to
> > > be done, not what you want done.

> >
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...work&x=15&y=15
> >
> > But I think the UNSPUN definition is widely accepeted as : activity in
> > which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something
> >
> > You make it so one has to aquiese to the owner.

>
> No I don't, you can as I say work for yourself.


Can everone work for themselves at the same time?

> >
> > Anyway, do you think most things produced to day are things that HAVE to
> > be produced?

>
> No, and thank god for it. But work is what you have to do to get
> something else,
> not what you do because you like it.


So, work for things?

> >
> > >
> > > > What a way to spend over 1/3 of your life.
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Authoritarian
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes but, they say, you are free to leave at
> > > > > > > > > > any time! Tell that to a wal mart employee when they

> realize
> > > that
> > > > > wal
> > > > > > > > > > mart is the only business left in town.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Name a town where Wal-Mart is the only business,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, you are correct. I was dramatic. But wal mart does cause
> > > > > busniesses
> > > > > > > > to close and has a huge effect on the working poor:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wal-Mart does cause inefficient businesses to close, which is a

> good
> > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > It also allows other small businesses (who buy from and sell
> > > products to
> > > > > > > Wal-Mart) to prosper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wal mart lowers wages in the area,
> > > > >
> > > > > By employing people, neat trick.
> > > >
> > > > No, because of it's anti-union beleifs
> > > >
> > > In other words because it doesn't hire people for more than they're

> worth.
> >
> > So Wal Mart determines that worth?
> >

> Well if someone else had a higher opinion of that worth they'd work
> somewhere
> else wouldn't they?


But didn't you start this off by saying that wal mart lowers wages by
emoploying people?

>
> > >
> > > > > The fact is that real wages go up if
> > > > > Wal Mart comes to town. Only the wages of it's workers and the

> workers
> > > > > of it's direct competitors go down.
> > > >
> > > > Please provide some statistics.
> > > >
> > > I don't need to. Fact one, Wal Mart reduces prices,

> >
> > I do not deny that they do. Did I?
> >
> > > fact two only a small
> > > proportion of the communities wage earners work at Wal Mart or it's
> > > competitors and therefore have their wages reduced.

> >
> > One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that
> > Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at
> > Chicago¹s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the
> > proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of
> > about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same
> > shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing
> > modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job
> > losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties.
> >

> Which doesn't actually bear on my point, even if we assume the studies
> weren't
> biased.


why?

>
> > Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart
> > hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of
> > ³associates² working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps
> > hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions
> > like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or
> > more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange
> > County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters
> > such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in
> > lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and
> > benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers.


No comment?

> >
> > > Which of these
> > > facts is not obvious?

> >
> > The second one.

>
> The fact that only a smal proportion of the community works at Wal Mart or
> it's competitors? That's not obvious?


So do they create a lot of jobs or a few jobs?

> >
> > Do you really think that becasue they offer "lower" prices that you can
> > ignore anything else about the company?
> >

> I think that because the offer lower price (no scare quotes) you have to
> prove your point. I don't have to prove mine. Lower prices are good.


But you say that wal mart proviodes lower prices. And it looks like they
bait and reel.

>
> > > > > > forces stores to close (it buys from
> > > > > > larger companies, not small ones), limits choice based on belief,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it only limits the choice of what you can buy at it's shops,

> you
> > > > > can buy other things at other shops. If what the other shops offer
> > > > > doesn't sell then why blame Wal Mart.
> > > >
> > > > But the other magazine stores are closed cause they can't compete with
> > > > the efficiency of walmart.
> > > >
> > > In other words nobody wanted what they were selling enough to pay the
> > > economic cost for it.

> >
> > Yes, thank you for shopping at wal mart.

>
> So because they don't provide everything you want it's their fault that
> nobody
> else does.


When they kill other competion is is their fault.

>
> > > > > > not customer need (MAXXUUM), and treats it's employees poorly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > It treats them better than the unemployment line does.
> > > >
> > > > So employment is not voluntary.
> > > >
> > > Oh yes, I forgot Wal Mart rounds up Africians and ships them to

> America.
> >
> > NO, they just keep them overseas.
> >

> Where they are voluntarily employed.


No.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I gues if that what you want, fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What I want is cheap stuff.
> > > >
> > > > There arre two companies. They sell the same type of shirt.
> > > > A=$5
> > > > B=$1
> > > >
> > > > Which would you buy?
> > > >
> > > Which do you think?

> >
> > Since you did not answer the question I will have to guess the $5 one.
> >

> No the $1 one. Why would you think otherwise? I specifically said I
> wanted
> cheap stuff.


So, I guess your ok that the $1 shirt was made using a slave laborer.

But it was made in the Daewoosa Factory, where 230 workers, mostly young
women from Vietnam and China, worked under conditions of indentured
servitude. According to records, they were cheated of their meager
wages, beaten, starved, sexually harassed, and threatened with
deportation if they complained. On Feb. 21, 2003, in a court in Hawaii,
the proprietor of the factory, Kil Soo Lee, was found guilty of 14 of 18
counts brought against him for indentured servitude. This factory sewed
clothing for Wal-Mart, under Wal-Mart's "Beach Cabana" label (as well as
producing for other retailers).

But I guess you are fine with the low prices. Me? I would pay the $5.


----------------------------------------------
Anarchy: It's not what you think it is!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities Dan Clore Coffee 1 12-02-2009 01:42 AM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Coffee 0 12-12-2006 09:12 PM
Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card [email protected] Recipes 0 12-12-2006 09:11 PM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM
JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. Ram Beer 0 30-04-2006 11:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"