| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Evidence for what? I may be confused but you seem to be asking for > evidence > of things you have already claimed and I have already accepted, to wit, that > wages are fairly constant between US cities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > You can change cities even without a U-haul. Family of three? Yes, you can. won't have much left. But that's cool for me. But is that how others feel? will they make a decision to quit a job and move if it meant giving up many of their possesions. Get real man. > > > Uhaulas cost alot more money then a bus, I know. I use both. > > Both are within the budgets of moderately economical workers. So now you are setting limitations. what is the "budget of moderately economical worker"? and doesn't that mean it is out of reach for the others? > > > > > > 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. > > Well I didn't think that was what we were talking about. As I pointed out > this is unnecessary for US families. They are stuck. As I pointed out and is what happens. And if it was so easy to move wouldn't unemployment rate for an area go DOWN when an area was depressed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Then tell them to quit. Nah, I tell them to be modern luddites until they do not have to quit to work foor another corporation again. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > I don't know, but it's hardly relevent unless you think we are getting > close to the limit, we aren't. Let me help. An extremely samll minority of people work for themselves in the US. If people did not work fro others there would be no more capitalism. > > > > > > > > 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? > > > Well yes, what else do you work for? Peace. Food. But food tio me is not a thing. A TV is a thing. I guess you are a maretialist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > employing people? > > I was being ironic. Are you sure? > > > > > > > > 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? > > > Oh figure it out. =^o Next time do not make a statement if you do not want to bother describing it further. I cannot, in fact, begin to wrap my head aroung your statement. > > > > > > > > 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? > > What need be said? Someone wanted a study that made Wal-Mart look and > and they got it. There is no mention of the benefits of Wal Mart just the > cost. Oh. So if a study disagrees with you beliefs you just shrug it off as biased? Every one knows the "benefits" wal mart advertises. "Low Prices" > > > > > > > > > > > Which of these > > > > > facts is not obvious? > > > > > > > > The second one. > > > > > > The fact that only a small 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? > > It doesn't matter. One job vs one hundred matters. > > > > > > > > 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. > > No it doesn't. again, why? > > > > > > > > > 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. > > No it isn't. The success or failure of competitors is the fault or virtue > of the > competitors. Err....it is both, at least. No samll business can compete with wal mart when the come into town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Oh, I give up you just like saying things that aren't true. Do you know what it is like for the life of someone as an indetured servant? Do you know that police come into towns and tkae kids to work in these factories? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > No comment? ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Evidence for what? I may be confused but you seem to be asking for > evidence > of things you have already claimed and I have already accepted, to wit, that > wages are fairly constant between US cities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > You can change cities even without a U-haul. Family of three? Yes, you can. won't have much left. But that's cool for me. But is that how others feel? will they make a decision to quit a job and move if it meant giving up many of their possesions. Get real man. > > > Uhaulas cost alot more money then a bus, I know. I use both. > > Both are within the budgets of moderately economical workers. So now you are setting limitations. what is the "budget of moderately economical worker"? and doesn't that mean it is out of reach for the others? > > > > > > 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. > > Well I didn't think that was what we were talking about. As I pointed out > this is unnecessary for US families. They are stuck. As I pointed out and is what happens. And if it was so easy to move wouldn't unemployment rate for an area go DOWN when an area was depressed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Then tell them to quit. Nah, I tell them to be modern luddites until they do not have to quit to work foor another corporation again. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > I don't know, but it's hardly relevent unless you think we are getting > close to the limit, we aren't. Let me help. An extremely samll minority of people work for themselves in the US. If people did not work fro others there would be no more capitalism. > > > > > > > > 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? > > > Well yes, what else do you work for? Peace. Food. But food tio me is not a thing. A TV is a thing. I guess you are a maretialist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > employing people? > > I was being ironic. Are you sure? > > > > > > > > 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? > > > Oh figure it out. =^o Next time do not make a statement if you do not want to bother describing it further. I cannot, in fact, begin to wrap my head aroung your statement. > > > > > > > > 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? > > What need be said? Someone wanted a study that made Wal-Mart look and > and they got it. There is no mention of the benefits of Wal Mart just the > cost. Oh. So if a study disagrees with you beliefs you just shrug it off as biased? Every one knows the "benefits" wal mart advertises. "Low Prices" > > > > > > > > > > > Which of these > > > > > facts is not obvious? > > > > > > > > The second one. > > > > > > The fact that only a small 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? > > It doesn't matter. One job vs one hundred matters. > > > > > > > > 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. > > No it doesn't. again, why? > > > > > > > > > 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. > > No it isn't. The success or failure of competitors is the fault or virtue > of the > competitors. Err....it is both, at least. No samll business can compete with wal mart when the come into town. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Oh, I give up you just like saying things that aren't true. Do you know what it is like for the life of someone as an indetured servant? Do you know that police come into towns and tkae kids to work in these factories? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > No comment? ---------------------------------------------- Anarchy: It's not what you think it is! http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
... > 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. > Evidence for what? I may be confused but you seem to be asking for evidence of things you have already claimed and I have already accepted, to wit, that wages are fairly constant between US cities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? You can change cities even without a U-haul. > Uhaulas cost alot more money then a bus, I know. I use both. Both are within the budgets of moderately economical workers. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. Well I didn't think that was what we were talking about. As I pointed out this is unnecessary for US families. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > Then tell them to quit. > > > > > > > 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? > I don't know, but it's hardly relevent unless you think we are getting close to the limit, we aren't. > > > > > > 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? > Well yes, what else do you work for? > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > employing people? I was being ironic. > > > > > > 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? > Oh figure it out. > > > > > 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? What need be said? Someone wanted a study that made Wal-Mart look and and they got it. There is no mention of the benefits of Wal Mart just the cost. > > > > > > > > Which of these > > > > facts is not obvious? > > > > > > The second one. > > > > The fact that only a small 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? It doesn't matter. > > > > > > 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. No it doesn't. > > > > > > > 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. No it isn't. The success or failure of competitors is the fault or virtue of the competitors. > > > > > > > > > > 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. Oh, I give up you just like saying things that aren't true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what exactly does Dan Clore do for a living anyway?
"Grain of Sand" > wrote in message
... > 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. > Evidence for what? I may be confused but you seem to be asking for evidence of things you have already claimed and I have already accepted, to wit, that wages are fairly constant between US cities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? You can change cities even without a U-haul. > Uhaulas cost alot more money then a bus, I know. I use both. Both are within the budgets of moderately economical workers. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. Well I didn't think that was what we were talking about. As I pointed out this is unnecessary for US families. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > Then tell them to quit. > > > > > > > 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? > I don't know, but it's hardly relevent unless you think we are getting close to the limit, we aren't. > > > > > > 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? > Well yes, what else do you work for? > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > employing people? I was being ironic. > > > > > > 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? > Oh figure it out. > > > > > 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? What need be said? Someone wanted a study that made Wal-Mart look and and they got it. There is no mention of the benefits of Wal Mart just the cost. > > > > > > > > Which of these > > > > facts is not obvious? > > > > > > The second one. > > > > The fact that only a small 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? It doesn't matter. > > > > > > 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. No it doesn't. > > > > > > > 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. No it isn't. The success or failure of competitors is the fault or virtue of the competitors. > > > > > > > > > > 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. Oh, I give up you just like saying things that aren't true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:10:30 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: > >"bulba" > wrote in message .. . >> >> And again, you evaded the problem of union collective "rights" being >> unconstitutional as a child would. >I didn't evade anything. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and >they have decided unions have a right to exist. That's the interpretation you take because it obviously justifies your "right" to maintain a business cartel that is mistakingly called "union". The SC is not all that happy to see unions being legal, it's just forced to Congress' legislation: "Here a union used its closed shop contracts (which are, themselves, inherently anticompetitive) with shippers to drive a trucking firm out of business simply because the union leaders didn't like owners of the trucking firm. All the shippers with whom the target firm might have done business had agreements with the union that they would use only unionized truckers. The target was willing to unionize, but the union refused to accept any of the target's employees into the union or to supply the target with any unionized drivers. Simply put, out of pure malice, the union drove the target firm out of business through its combinations in restraint of trade. Was this a violation of the Sherman Act? The Court, by a 5-4 vote, said no. These activities were declared legitimate because, and only because, they were carried out by a labor union. The Court conceded that "Had a group of petitioner's business competitors conspired and combined to suppress petitioner's business by refusing to sell goods and services to it, such a combination would have violated the Sherman Act" (at 824). The vote could have gone the other way. Only one more justice had to see the union's actions as outside the limits of the union's antitrust exemption because they were not ordinary union activities as envisioned by Congress in the NLRA. The call was wholly arbitrary because the rule of law was ignored." http://www.sbe.csuhayward.edu/~sbesc/99septcol.html It is long recognized in law that unions are cartels: the unions' activities are restricted by anti-trust legislation, but not enough. Unions are business cartels, organizations of thieves: get over it. It is recognized in law. It's just this kind of cartels is given special privileges because of stupid politics. That's all. Once the labor union "legislation" gets scrapped, kiss goodbye your privilege to steal. >You, on the other hand, get >to decide very little ... You, on the other hand, instead of arguing get to paint childishly naive and one-sided picture and appeal ad authority. Childish, again. >evidently including your own thought processes ... >without interjecting the word "scumbag" every several sentences. As I said >before, maturity is not your strong suit. It is typical for immature debatants to ignore the substance of an argument and accuse others of immaturity. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:10:30 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: > >"bulba" > wrote in message .. . >> >> And again, you evaded the problem of union collective "rights" being >> unconstitutional as a child would. >I didn't evade anything. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and >they have decided unions have a right to exist. That's the interpretation you take because it obviously justifies your "right" to maintain a business cartel that is mistakingly called "union". The SC is not all that happy to see unions being legal, it's just forced to Congress' legislation: "Here a union used its closed shop contracts (which are, themselves, inherently anticompetitive) with shippers to drive a trucking firm out of business simply because the union leaders didn't like owners of the trucking firm. All the shippers with whom the target firm might have done business had agreements with the union that they would use only unionized truckers. The target was willing to unionize, but the union refused to accept any of the target's employees into the union or to supply the target with any unionized drivers. Simply put, out of pure malice, the union drove the target firm out of business through its combinations in restraint of trade. Was this a violation of the Sherman Act? The Court, by a 5-4 vote, said no. These activities were declared legitimate because, and only because, they were carried out by a labor union. The Court conceded that "Had a group of petitioner's business competitors conspired and combined to suppress petitioner's business by refusing to sell goods and services to it, such a combination would have violated the Sherman Act" (at 824). The vote could have gone the other way. Only one more justice had to see the union's actions as outside the limits of the union's antitrust exemption because they were not ordinary union activities as envisioned by Congress in the NLRA. The call was wholly arbitrary because the rule of law was ignored." http://www.sbe.csuhayward.edu/~sbesc/99septcol.html It is long recognized in law that unions are cartels: the unions' activities are restricted by anti-trust legislation, but not enough. Unions are business cartels, organizations of thieves: get over it. It is recognized in law. It's just this kind of cartels is given special privileges because of stupid politics. That's all. Once the labor union "legislation" gets scrapped, kiss goodbye your privilege to steal. >You, on the other hand, get >to decide very little ... You, on the other hand, instead of arguing get to paint childishly naive and one-sided picture and appeal ad authority. Childish, again. >evidently including your own thought processes ... >without interjecting the word "scumbag" every several sentences. As I said >before, maturity is not your strong suit. It is typical for immature debatants to ignore the substance of an argument and accuse others of immaturity. -- I love the smell of napalm in the morning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wobblies Win Right for Union Election at NYC Starbucks
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo Seattle Times Thursday, July 08, 2004 - Page updated at 12:16 A.M. Wobblies win right for a union election at NYC Starbucks By Thomas Ginsberg Knight Ridder Newspapers NEW YORK -- A group of Starbucks workers has won approval for a union election in their Manhattan coffee shop. Members of the Philadelphia-based Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a century-old leftist organization also known as the Wobblies, said yesterday they hope the vote by late July will boost membership nationwide in their Starbucks Baristas Union. "This is a tremendous victory," said Daniel Gross, an IWW member and organizer of the Starbucks Baristas Union at the 36th Street and Madison Avenue location. The New York regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), backing up the union, ruled Friday that the workers just in store No. 7365 of the 8,000-store chain constituted an appropriate unit for unionizing. Starbucks wanted workers from 50 stores in lower Manhattan to be eligible to vote. The NLRB did side with the company in letting shift supervisors in the store take part in the vote, which could dilute the union's support. "We are pleased that it agreed with Starbucks over the union's objections," said Audrey Lincoff, spokeswoman for Seattle-based Starbucks. Voting will be overseen by the NLRB. If the union wins the workers' endorsement, shop managers are obligated to negotiate with it over workers' pay, conditions or other issues. Even before a vote in Manhattan, Gross said the union may file a complaint against Starbucks over alleged attempts to influence the vote, including "outright bribes such as giving workers pizza dinners and Mets tickets." Last week, the company spokeswoman said managers are encouraged to reward workers regularly with gifts and what she called "random acts of kindness." The organizing effort is being mounted under the retail-workers branch of the IWW, whose international headquarters has been located in West Philadelphia since 2000. The international endorses the Starbucks effort, but it was unclear how much extra support it may give, said general-secretary treasurer Alexis Buss. Unlike traditional trade unions, the IWW is an organization of individual members, not union locals. -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wobblies Win Right for Union Election at NYC Starbucks
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo Seattle Times Thursday, July 08, 2004 - Page updated at 12:16 A.M. Wobblies win right for a union election at NYC Starbucks By Thomas Ginsberg Knight Ridder Newspapers NEW YORK -- A group of Starbucks workers has won approval for a union election in their Manhattan coffee shop. Members of the Philadelphia-based Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a century-old leftist organization also known as the Wobblies, said yesterday they hope the vote by late July will boost membership nationwide in their Starbucks Baristas Union. "This is a tremendous victory," said Daniel Gross, an IWW member and organizer of the Starbucks Baristas Union at the 36th Street and Madison Avenue location. The New York regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), backing up the union, ruled Friday that the workers just in store No. 7365 of the 8,000-store chain constituted an appropriate unit for unionizing. Starbucks wanted workers from 50 stores in lower Manhattan to be eligible to vote. The NLRB did side with the company in letting shift supervisors in the store take part in the vote, which could dilute the union's support. "We are pleased that it agreed with Starbucks over the union's objections," said Audrey Lincoff, spokeswoman for Seattle-based Starbucks. Voting will be overseen by the NLRB. If the union wins the workers' endorsement, shop managers are obligated to negotiate with it over workers' pay, conditions or other issues. Even before a vote in Manhattan, Gross said the union may file a complaint against Starbucks over alleged attempts to influence the vote, including "outright bribes such as giving workers pizza dinners and Mets tickets." Last week, the company spokeswoman said managers are encouraged to reward workers regularly with gifts and what she called "random acts of kindness." The organizing effort is being mounted under the retail-workers branch of the IWW, whose international headquarters has been located in West Philadelphia since 2000. The international endorses the Starbucks effort, but it was unclear how much extra support it may give, said general-secretary treasurer Alexis Buss. Unlike traditional trade unions, the IWW is an organization of individual members, not union locals. -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel
> >> can't function without power of the state. (G*rd*n) wrote: > >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels. > >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance > >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once. > <...> bulba >: > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly > exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out for oneself. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel
> >> can't function without power of the state. (G*rd*n) wrote: > >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels. > >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance > >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once. > <...> bulba >: > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly > exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out for oneself. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
(G*rd*n) wrote in :
>> >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel >> >> can't function without power of the state. > > (G*rd*n) wrote: >> >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels. >> >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance >> >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once. >> <...> > > bulba >: >> Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly >> exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. > > > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common > sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of > economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and > one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out > for oneself. Bulba didn't say you couldn't ask the economist for his reasons. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
(G*rd*n) wrote in :
>> >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel >> >> can't function without power of the state. > > (G*rd*n) wrote: >> >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels. >> >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance >> >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once. >> <...> > > bulba >: >> Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly >> exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. > > > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common > sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of > economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and > one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out > for oneself. Bulba didn't say you couldn't ask the economist for his reasons. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
--
bulba > > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly > > exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. G*rd*n > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common > sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of > economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and > one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out for > oneself. So point to one of these monopolies for us. You do not rely on observation, you rely on rigid obsolete Marxist dogma. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cthSFeHv66AOIz32iN7mfoxexxN7y3PUG6IDnQuP 4pGEtkl7XQ5mwNlMzK2Ehn5reu2jk/OyU8ZPYMkYa |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
--
bulba > > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly > > exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. G*rd*n > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common > sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of > economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and > one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out for > oneself. So point to one of these monopolies for us. You do not rely on observation, you rely on rigid obsolete Marxist dogma. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cthSFeHv66AOIz32iN7mfoxexxN7y3PUG6IDnQuP 4pGEtkl7XQ5mwNlMzK2Ehn5reu2jk/OyU8ZPYMkYa |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
bulba
> > > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly > > > exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. G*rd*n > > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common > > sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of > > economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and > > one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out for > > oneself. James A. Donald >: > So point to one of these monopolies for us. > > You do not rely on observation, you rely on rigid obsolete > Marxist dogma. Why don't you shock me by citing the particular item of dogma for once? www.marxists.org awaits you. Or make it up. I described how a the community of workers at a company may play the role of a natural cartel in detail. Of course, this will mean nothing to those who believe the True Faith, but others may wish to look at it. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
bulba
> > > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is greatly > > > exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. G*rd*n > > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and common > > sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the practice of > > economics is heavily freighted with ideological baggage and > > one dare not assume or trust anything one cannot work out for > > oneself. James A. Donald >: > So point to one of these monopolies for us. > > You do not rely on observation, you rely on rigid obsolete > Marxist dogma. Why don't you shock me by citing the particular item of dogma for once? www.marxists.org awaits you. Or make it up. I described how a the community of workers at a company may play the role of a natural cartel in detail. Of course, this will mean nothing to those who believe the True Faith, but others may wish to look at it. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
--
bulba > > > > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is > > > > greatly exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. G*rd*n > > > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and > > > common sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the > > > practice of economics is heavily freighted with > > > ideological baggage and one dare not assume or trust > > > anything one cannot work out for oneself. James A. Donald > > So point to one of these monopolies for us. > > > > You do not rely on observation, you rely on rigid obsolete > > Marxist dogma. G*rd*n > Why don't you shock me by citing the particular item of dogma > for once? I notice you do not tell us the observations that you claim to observe --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ZY5dokA98dqr8CM+ovGdQLoYitaKvxGet+HeK9q4 4epBKMWbHoFZxarjsQDS4HACbi2v9P7eHDMOx1nWG |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
--
bulba > > > > Importance of "natural monopolies" in practice is > > > > greatly exagerrated. Ask any competent economist. G*rd*n > > > Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own observations and > > > common sense. Unlike physics and mathematics, the > > > practice of economics is heavily freighted with > > > ideological baggage and one dare not assume or trust > > > anything one cannot work out for oneself. James A. Donald > > So point to one of these monopolies for us. > > > > You do not rely on observation, you rely on rigid obsolete > > Marxist dogma. G*rd*n > Why don't you shock me by citing the particular item of dogma > for once? I notice you do not tell us the observations that you claim to observe --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ZY5dokA98dqr8CM+ovGdQLoYitaKvxGet+HeK9q4 4epBKMWbHoFZxarjsQDS4HACbi2v9P7eHDMOx1nWG |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Wm James > wrote in message >. ..
> The workers already know there's a strike. I personally know a local example where a 2nd union did not know that the 1st union at a certain place was striking. One day they chatted with the strikers WHILE PASSING THROUGH THE PICKET LINE, and they found out which union was striking, & why, & it was a union with which they had an agreement to honor strikes. The next day, no one from union #2 showed up. Management quickly caved. > It's simple. No... it's not. But your strong belief that it SHOULD be is what keeps you from reaching a defensible position regarding it. The pros and cons of unions are a legitimate topic of debate, but far beyond people who feel it's a "simple" issue. We'd regard as idiots anyone who considered neurosurgeons fools for wasting their time in college because, hey, brain surgery is a "simple" matter, easily mastered with a home study DVD course. It's obviously, to the common man, not simple. But any yahoo with a 300 baud modem seems to have an answer to the most complex issues of the day, because of their clear & piercing insight into the heart of the matter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Wm James > wrote in message >. ..
> The workers already know there's a strike. I personally know a local example where a 2nd union did not know that the 1st union at a certain place was striking. One day they chatted with the strikers WHILE PASSING THROUGH THE PICKET LINE, and they found out which union was striking, & why, & it was a union with which they had an agreement to honor strikes. The next day, no one from union #2 showed up. Management quickly caved. > It's simple. No... it's not. But your strong belief that it SHOULD be is what keeps you from reaching a defensible position regarding it. The pros and cons of unions are a legitimate topic of debate, but far beyond people who feel it's a "simple" issue. We'd regard as idiots anyone who considered neurosurgeons fools for wasting their time in college because, hey, brain surgery is a "simple" matter, easily mastered with a home study DVD course. It's obviously, to the common man, not simple. But any yahoo with a 300 baud modem seems to have an answer to the most complex issues of the day, because of their clear & piercing insight into the heart of the matter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On 6 Jul 2004 19:54:57 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote:
>bulba >: >> On 6 Jul 2004 12:02:28 -0400, (G*rd*n) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> This is NOT some "theological" faith thing. This is >> >> about real people in real courts fighting over real >> >> interests. >> >> >> >> This is pure thought stuff, I concede. But so is yours >> >> or unionization "collective rights" - a notion that I >> >> find bogus, a mere rhetorical device to sugarcoat the >> >> rule of mob. >> >> >You're welcome to point out any logical development which >> >leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently >> >self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] 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." I don't see it. >> >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel >> can't function without power of the state. > > >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels. >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once. >If the employees organize, they can exploit the potential >of these costs as long as they don't try to exploit them >too much, that is, beyond the point where it becomes more >profitable to replace all the employees, or they put the >company out of business. Within that margin, it's just >too expensive and too difficult for a company to be moving >all those bodies in and out. For unskilled labor, it's pretty irrelevant. If government respected the rights of business owners a business with unskilled employees could easily replace the droids for $3 an hour. It's a little more expensive for skilled workers, but those with valuable skills need no union unless they simply aren't willing to do much work for the pay. William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote: > >"Wm James" > wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel" > >> wrote: >> >> >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 . >> > >> >> Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of >> speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the >> law and any argument is just stating opinions"? >> >> Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and >> presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever >> the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all >> the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two >> branches. Sound good to you? >> >> William R. James > >Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the >had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did. Perhaps if you read the constitution and understood the simple process we use to elect presidents in the US, you wouldn't parrot that BS. >Unless you can figure out a way to >change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship". 1) Elect presidents who will appoint judges who respect the constitution. (Don't count on either of the major parties ever nominating such a candidate.) 2) Elect a congress that will do it's duty and impeach federal judges, INCLUDING Supreme Court "Gods", when they violate their constitutional boundries. >Where have >you been you idiot? I have never been "you idiot", not anywhere... Oh wait. I was "you idiot" in a church once... At a wedding.... mine. But that was a long time ago.  >As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or >"think ought to be" ... but what is reality. The constitution isn't real? >You summed it up nicely with a >side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently. Yes I do. What you don't seem to realise is that the thread is cross posted to groups like "this" one (alt.activism) where what is right, what is constitutional, and what is legal, aren't necessarily the same thing, but are all propert topics of discussion. I assume you are reading the thread from one of the groups involved in the union issue strictly from the standpoint of the union and business interactions, and no particularly interested in the constitutional issues. In other words, the group you are participating in is asking what the union can and cannot do while in some groups the relevant questions are regarding what constitutional issues are the courts ignoring to allow the unions activities. Get it now? William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:52 GMT, Grain of Sand >
wrote: >In article . net>, > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > >> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "Stan de SD" > wrote: >> > >> > > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message >> > > ... >> > > > >> > > > There is no future for capitalism. >> > > >> > > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 - >> but >> > > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But >> > > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a >> lot >> > > smarter than you are. >> > >> > Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for >> > capitalism. >> >> Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea - >> and it's clear there's no future for communism. > >Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I >would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is >currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist >nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state >will evolve and will work? > >Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? Why aren't they embargoing us? William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:52 GMT, Grain of Sand >
wrote: >In article . net>, > "Stan de SD" > wrote: > >> "Grain of Sand" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article . net>, >> > "Stan de SD" > wrote: >> > >> > > "Miguel O'Pastel" > wrote in message >> > > ... >> > > > >> > > > There is no future for capitalism. >> > > >> > > Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 - >> but >> > > funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But >> > > then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a >> lot >> > > smarter than you are. >> > >> > Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for >> > capitalism. >> >> Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea - >> and it's clear there's no future for communism. > >Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I >would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is >currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist >nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state >will evolve and will work? > >Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? Why aren't they embargoing us? William R. James |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Wm James wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:52 GMT, Grain of Sand > > wrote: >>>Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea - >>>and it's clear there's no future for communism. >> >>Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I >>would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is >>currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist >>nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state >>will evolve and will work? >> >>Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded? > > Why aren't they embargoing us? (Raises hand.) "Because the workers' paradise, freed from the constricting boa of the capitalist parasites, is overflowing with bountiful products, rightfully belonging to ALL the proletarians of the world, struggling as they are under stifling weight of oppressive capitalist incubus, comrade!" -- Dan Clore Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In the referenced article, writes:
>(Raises hand.) >"Because the workers' paradise, freed from the constricting boa of >the capitalist parasites, is overflowing with bountiful products, >rightfully belonging to ALL the proletarians of the world, struggling >as they are under stifling weight of oppressive capitalist incubus, >comrade!" If you can find it, you need to hear Atilla the Stockbroker's `North Korea mourns Comrade Mickey Finn of T. Rex'. I can't find an MP3 online, unfortunately but you might be able to dig it out somewhere. -- E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale. No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
> >> >> This is NOT some "theological" faith thing. This is
> >> >> about real people in real courts fighting over real > >> >> interests. > >> >> > >> >> This is pure thought stuff, I concede. But so is yours > >> >> or unionization "collective rights" - a notion that I > >> >> find bogus, a mere rhetorical device to sugarcoat the > >> >> rule of mob. (G*rd*n) wrote: > >> >You're welcome to point out any logical development which > >> >leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently > >> >self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] 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." I don't see it. bulba >: > >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel > >> can't function without power of the state. (G*rd*n) wrote: > >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels. > >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance > >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once. > >If the employees organize, they can exploit the potential > >of these costs as long as they don't try to exploit them > >too much, that is, beyond the point where it becomes more > >profitable to replace all the employees, or they put the > >company out of business. Within that margin, it's just > >too expensive and too difficult for a company to be moving > >all those bodies in and out. : > For unskilled labor, it's pretty irrelevant. If government respected > the rights of business owners a business with unskilled employees > could easily replace the droids for $3 an hour. It's a little more > expensive for skilled workers, but those with valuable skills need no > union unless they simply aren't willing to do much work for the pay. That depends on conditions, obviously. I've seen labor markets where you couldn't hire a sleepwalker, and others where highly skilled people like machinists or computer programmers were on the street in hordes and could be hired very cheaply. So have most people who care to observe (not many, it appears). It is obvious that, under conditions of a tight labor market, employees acting together can squeeze more out of the employer acting together than they can individually. And since the relation between traditional capitalist employers and their employees are rather adversarial, that's pretty much what it comes down to: squeezing. By your own words, you're a pretty good example of that, so you should understand it. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >You're welcome to point out any logical development which > >leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently > >self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] 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." I don't see it. He acknowledges that "theory", > >that is, axioms, evidence and logic point the other way, so I > >take it "reality" is an appeal to mystical knowledge, but it > >might be connected to _something_ -- who knows? Do you? : > What kind of BS is that? My point is simply that unions have no tools > other than extortion, vandalism, and otherwise infringing on the > rights of others to get their way. ... And I have pointed out why you were wrong. However, you would have to be capable of following a rational argument to see how I did it. I'm not interested in exchanging slogans -- but I'm sure you can find somebody who is. -- (<><>) /*/ }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
Joseph K. > wrote
> > The idea defended here by conventional philosophers (believers of the > True Faith as you call them) that exchange value is completely > subjective stems from the same roots and is wrong for similar reasons. Except that no economist claimed that exchange value is entirely subjective. Exchange value is determined ultimately from two sources, the subjective preferences of consumers and the scarcity of goods. Cheers, Alex |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Celebrating Six Months of IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the TwinCities | Coffee | |||
| Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Coffee | |||
| Free Starbucks 4 U - Winner of Last Weeks $20 Starbucks Gift Card | Recipes | |||
| JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
| JOIN THIS .... DON'T MISS IT.... ITS THE MUST JOIN STOCK MARKET CLUB. | Beer | |||
Linear Mode
