| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Randall writes: Quote: -------------------------------- The "working class" and "oppressed" that are commonly touted as the "victims" of capitalism enjoy roofs over their heads, food on their tables, and clothes on their backs. Why is this? Because capitalism produces goods and services in a competitive environment, where there is an incentive to provide the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. -------------------------------- The "victims" of capitalism often have no such thing. Apparently you are using the U.S. as your example, in which case you're mostly right, though homelessness is a pretty big problem here. I assume you are referring to low-paid people in countries who make cheap products for America. I have already said that I think it is wrong for American companies to operate in countries where the population is not allowed to democratically address their concerns. The vast majority of people in America who are homeless have put themselves there because of drug addiction and the unwillingness to address mental illnesses. However, unless the society you're using to make that argument is an isolationist society, it just doesn't add up. Where do they get their resources? Maybe Newton's third law of motion doesn't apply exactly here (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: resources move to supply a certain demand, resources are moved away from another demand) What point are you trying to get across with this paragraph? but you said yourself there is a finite amount of (some) resources...so what then? When a resource is gone...it is gone. Quote: -------------------------------- So you feel as if this ideology should be used to rule all people, even the VAST majority of people in this world, who by the way, do not want to live like this. That is tyranny. -------------------------------- Ignoring "used to rule" (tyranny in any case), I just want to say that this is much the same attitude reflected in the "grand arena" idea of the US. To put it basically, our lifestyle, our whole economy, works less and less effectively the less of the world and its resources we have access to. Except in the case where we obtain goods and resources from countries where the civilian population has little or no say in the government, the resources that we acquire are willingly given to us at agreed upon prices. This economic interaction benefits both the buyer and the seller. I agree with you, though: no matter how worthy the intentions, and no matter how benevolent the leader(s), a top-to-bottom installation of any ideology is not the way to go. Someone else sees the light! Quote: -------------------------------- Admittedly, competition does create waste. But, in order to control an entire economy, it takes a vast bureaucracy. This vast bureaucracy is unwieldy and not efficient. This creates MUCH more waste and inneffiecency than any capitalist economy ever has. -------------------------------- Like "ideal" Capitalism, "ideal" Communism actually doesn't want a centralized beaurocracy. Its power is spread through workers' unions, for example. It's actually as founded in democracy as our own system. It also relies as much on the active participation of its constituents, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be an easy task. Ideal - An idea that expresses hope for Mankind in the way of an idea that should be followed by all humans. Yet, in real life, not everybody is going to agree with it. And the people that do, will not always be able to fulfill the obligations of the idea. However, it is true that in the U.S., the government is by far the most wasteful and inefficient component of American society! Yes, because it is so damn big. The more you regulate and control people's lives, the more unwieldy the bureaucracy becomes. By the way, Randall, I've appreciated the even-handedness in your posts. All in a day's work... *puffs up chest*  RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Thanks, Luvdem.
| |||||||
 Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
RandalFlagg,
You may be surprised, but the US and its imperialist friends actually perferred Stalinism, over trotskyism. Though nonetheless they still aimed at smashing the deformed stalinist states, Stalin did his job for the imperialists by betraying the workers of the world, with his ideology of "socialism in one country" and "peaceful co-existance" with the imperialists. His betrayal lead to the failure of numerous revolutions, including the chinese in the 1920's and the spanish revolution. You obviously have a side however, against the working people. Either that or you just have the wrong understanding of marxism. The working class is NOT lazy. They work their asses off to survive, and a lot of them would continue to do so in a socialist society, if it meant the betterment of their living conditions, something that is NOT true in a capitalist country where wages are constantly dropped in the interests of capital. In Russia, which was a backward impoverished country from the beginning, socialism started off in a bad position, and the Bolsheviks recognized that it would not survive for long unless a revolution happened in an advanced industrial country, in order to supply it with resouces, technology, industries...etc. The revolution failed in Germany for many reasons which i wont go into right now, but that caused a wave of demoralization in the USSR, and Stalin being able to build up a beaurcracy, with his ideology of "socialism in one country". A revolution in Germany would have changed history dramaticly, most importantly it would have prevented the rise of fascism, which was actually brought in to terrorize the German workers and rescue capitalism there. The USSR, even being in an impoverished backward country, despite the beurcratic deformities, were able to industrilize faster then the advanced capitalist states. A revolution in an advanced country....lets say...the United States for example, would have enormous prospects for the future of communism, and a liberating effect on the world. After the working class takes power in the US, the powerful military apparatus and all its resources would immediately be put at the command of the American working people, and would be in a much better position to defend itself from imperialist hostility then the USSR had. You talk about communism being a utopian ideal, yet at the same time you deny there were any gains made in these historic revolutions. Your indifference to these working class victories does not change the fact that these revolutions did have popular support, and did bring gains to the working people, despite its deformities, which as Trotskyists, we do recognize. While we are opposed to the stalinist dogma, of socialism in one country and its berucracy, we nonetheless defend the deformed workers states (Cuba, China..etc) AGAINST capitalist restoration, while at the same time calling upon the workers of these states to overthrow their leaders in a political revolution and return to the road of proletariet internationalism, and democratic centralism. Socialism is the only way to end this system where the interests of the exploiting class are looked after, against the exploited which constitute the majority. All the buildings in the US, the technology you use, the car you drive, they are made from the blood and sweat of working people of this world. Without the workers, capitalism cannot survive. Until a revolution comes, it is the duty of trotskyists like myself to educate workers of their historic task, their victories, their defeats, and how to win. The interests of the workers and the bourgeoisie, are counterposed, and thus irreconcillable. In china for example, while you may think changes are for the better, the working class obviously does not think so. What you dont understand, is that when a social revolution happened in china, the property forms changed, and thus, the chinese government cannot simply "legislate" capitalism into action. Any restoration of capitalism in china, will ultimately come to an OPEN CONFLICT between classes and open the possibility of a political revolution or civil war for the chinese working people against their stalinist traitors.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
As long as people are the way they are communisim just won't work. All it would do would be to turn a society where some work hard, some mediocre, and some piss poor into one where the mediocre workers outnumbered all others.. While I'm sure you're special and would work as hard as you could even when those around you do the minimum to get by, most would not.
What would the incentive be to excel? The good of your fellow man? Give me a fucking break. Until the tooth fairy comes down and waves his/her magic wand it's a pipe dream. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
luvdemshrooms
Like I have said, and I will say again, the working class are not lazy asses, unlike the bourgeois exploiters which profit off them. This is no different in a workers state. The USSR industrilized rapidly, because of the working class. Contrary to what you may believe, workers in workers states are still paid according to their skills. The difference is the abolition of private property, which in turn ensures that workers have proper housing...etc, and that they cant be exploited by a minority of the property owning classes. When the productivity, and material abundence reaches their highest point, and there ir a surplus of wealth, (i.e. if a revolution happens in an advanced industrial country) that is the end of the transitional phase where workers can "work according to their abilities" and recieve "according to their needs". By that time, as classes disappear, the state will too wither away, as if there are no classes, a state is no longer nessasary to surpress another class. The governments duties at this point will be strictly administrative, and organizational, and not require an apparatus of the police, military, prison...etc to surpress anyone.
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Auto-SummaryThe US aimed to destroy deformed Stalinist states, despite their perceived affinity for such regimes. Stalin's betrayal of workers and his "peaceful co-existence" with imperialists were seen as betrayals. While some Marxist ideologies have beneficial policies, the economic output in communist countries was lower due to lack of incentive. Post-revolutionary communist states often turned into totalitarian regimes, and their existence posed a threat to capitalism. The author argues against extreme liberalism and advocates for socialism as the only way to end exploitation. You may be surprised, but the US and its imperialist friends actually perferred Stalinism, over trotskyism. Though nonetheless they still aimed at smashing the deformed stalinist states. You stress that totalitarian communist countries are "deformed", yet you still seem to have an affinity for them. It's hilarious how you repeatedly stress the supposed "imperialist" actions of capitalist countries, but ignore the outright evil actions of communist countries. America aimed at smashing them because they made efforts to smash us. That is called self-defense. Stalin did his job for the imperialists by betraying the workers of the world, with his ideology of "socialism in one country" and "peaceful co-existance" with the imperialists. Peaceful co-existence?? Don't make me laugh. The only reason Stalin allied himself with the capitalist democracies in World War II was out of necessity. In fact, there is a rule of negotiation that Lenin espoused(if you have read Lenin extensively, you should recognize it). He said that sometimes it is necessary to make deals with a capitalist country, even though they were the enemy. These deals are only made to obtain breathing room, or to serve some other temporary necessity. When the agreement has served its purpose, and it is in the best interest to end the agreement, you then proceed to break or ignore it. Once World War II was over, the communists proceeded to try to undermine America(and America tried to do the same thing to them). Stalin was not advocating "peaceful co-existence" when he built up the Soviet arsenal or when he instructed the KGB to infiltrate the American government. You obviously have a side however, against the working people. Oh please...spare me the "defender of the proletariat" crap. The polarization of people and their beliefs(the mentality that either you are with us or against us), unwavering biases, and fondness for outright falsehoods, are symptoms of Leninism and communist ideology in general. Either that or you just have the wrong understanding of marxism. I understand Marxism perfectly. If you had thoroughly read my former posts, you would see why it doesn't work in real life. The working class is NOT lazy. They work their asses off to survive, I never said they were. I have been a member of the "working class" before(I worked in a warehouse, factory, grocery store, etc..). Nowadays, I have my own business. and a lot of them would continue to do so in a socialist society I disagree. You have yet to address my main point; if everything that everyone produced was taken away from them and given to the community, you would eliminate the incentive for individuals to strive and achieve. If individuals did not put forth as much of an effort, there would be less economic output. This low economic output would be spread evenly among the population, resulting in an equal but low standard of living. if it meant the betterment of their living conditions, The betterment of their living conditions?? Have you ever read about the living conditions in communist countries? They are FAR below what the living conditions are in capitalist countries. something that is NOT true in a capitalist country where wages are constantly dropped in the interests of capital. That is nothing but extreme left-wing garbage and communist hyberpole. Don't let yourself be so blinded by ideologies, that you refuse to see reality. Wages are not being "constantly dropped". What people are paid is usually proportional to the skill, talent, and effort they expend. If the employee doesn't feel as if he is being compensated well enough, he is free to leave. In Russia, which was a backward impoverished country from the beginning, socialism started off in a bad position, and the Bolsheviks recognized that it would not survive for long unless a revolution happened in an advanced industrial country, in order to supply it with resouces, technology, industries...etc. Is "revolution in another country" a euphemism for "taking over another country so that Russia could steal it's resources"? Communist Russia had an extensive history of taking over other countries. A revolution in Germany would have changed history dramaticly, most importantly it would have prevented the rise of fascism I shudder to think that European history might have been even more grim that it is, if Germany had turned into a communist state. You say it would have prevented the rise of fascism? Yet, EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that is and has been communist, has descended into fascism. The USSR, even being in an impoverished backward country, despite the beurcratic deformities, were able to industrilize faster then the advanced capitalist states. The economic output of the Soviet Union was pathetic compared to the United States. Why is that? Because, there is an incentive to achieve in a capitalist economy, while in a communist economy there isn't. Therefore people try harder and produce more, which leads to a higher standard of living. Let me add, that even though our economic output far exceeded theirs, they were still a massive threat to us, considering that they had nuclear weapons, tried to spread their ideology everywhere (often at gunpoint), and made every attempt to infiltrate and damage America. A revolution in an advanced country....lets say...the United States for example, would have enormous prospects for the future of communism, and a liberating effect on the world. In order to make the world into what you think it should be, are you willing to ignore the will of most of the world's citizens? If you answer yes, then you are no better than any idea-obsessed power-hungry dictator. Liberation is the last word that should be used to describe what you are advocating. You talk about communism being a utopian ideal, yet at the same time you deny there were any gains made in these historic revolutions. Some valuable policies have originated from "progressive" political movements. But, I don't think anything was gained from any of the communist revolutions. Your indifference to these working class victories does not change the fact that these revolutions did have popular support How can you say that these revolutions were "working class victories", when all that resulted from them were ruthless totalitarian states? These revolutions had popular support because they occurred in countries that were ruled by unpopular regimes. And, the communists, who were experts at propaganda, influenced and outright brainwashed the general public into supporting their cause. Once they gained control, they saturated the public with communist ideology and allowed no independent thinking or dissent to take place. My indifference? What about your indifference to the fact that MOST people do not want to live under this system that you love so much. That is utter bullshit. If you were to take a poll right now, and ask the people of this world what kind of economy they wanted to live under, the vast majority would resoundingly pick regulated capitalism. we nonetheless defend the deformed workers states (Cuba, China..etc) AGAINST capitalist restoration, while at the same time calling upon the workers of these states to overthrow their leaders in a political revolution and return to the road of proletariet internationalism, and democratic centralism. I'm sure they would love to do that. The only thing in their way is those pesky totalitarian governments that seem to not respect the rights of individuals. These governments have no problem mowing down defenseless demonstrators with tanks and machine guns to protect their power. Socialism is the only way to end this system where the interests of the exploiting class are looked after, against the exploited which constitute the majority. All the buildings in the US, the technology you use, the car you drive, they are made from the blood and sweat of working people of this world. Without the workers, capitalism cannot survive. Until a revolution comes, it is the duty of trotskyists like myself to educate workers of their historic task, their victories, their defeats, and how to win. The interests of the workers and the bourgeoisie, are counterposed, and thus irreconcillable. I am going to post part of an essay called "Liberalism" that I wrote. I posted an earlier version of it in this forum about two months ago. I have updated it however, and I believe part of it can be used to effectively counter these claims that you have. To anybody who has seen these paragraphs before, I apologize for the redundancy: Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to talk about extreme liberalism, because I used to be heavily influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young, naive, and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly embraced. Nowadays, this brand of liberalism merits the most scorn from me. As someone gets more towards extreme liberal beliefs, they have a tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their observations of the world. The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a very shrill and audacious way. They examine a situation and seperate the participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control, and the victimized and oppressed group, who have to live under such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always side with the perceived underdog, and oftentimes sympathize with, attempt to justify, or outright ignore, any innappropriate behaviour of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of, the oppressed. Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant, warped, and misguided egalitarianism that is brought about by disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is almost always confined to young people, because the impetuousness and irrationality that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level, I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of extreme liberalism. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom and open-mindedness that mark it. The more extreme a liberal gets, the more pronounced their simultaneous acerbic pessimism and hopeless idealism is. They distrust any institution that they deem as having power and influence, whether it be a government, organized religion, a corporation, or anything else. They are almost always viciously disdainful of religious ideas of any type. They view them as backward fairy tales that keep the masses brainwashed and confined to a certain way of thinking, which serves the people who are in power. They preach a sanctimonious tolerance for everything and everyone, but are often possessed by an arrogant elitism. They have a tendency to view their fellow humans(especially people who happen to not hold their beliefs) in a condescending manner, yet they have undying hopes and dreams for humanity. These hopes and dreams usually translate into obsessive utopian yearnings for Mankind. As with all extremists, they think that only they know what ails the world, and only their beliefs provide relief for it. Their unrealistic assessments of the world are followed by unrealistic prescriptions for its improvement. They think that if only the institutions, attitudes, and policies that they deem are self-serving, exploitative, and ignorant would melt away, the world would magically become happy, free, and idyllic. This will never happen and the following paragraph explains why: For a society to work, you need a majority of participants who agree to live their lives in a certain way. In a utopian society where there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level of material sustenance(even those that are not physically or mentally capable of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest. This will never happen. No matter what system people live under, no matter what they strive for, and no matter what they think the world should be like, they will never be able to live up to these unattainable dreams for humanity. Mankind is not capable of making a perfect world. There has never been an idea that originated from Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of it's depravity, and there never will be. Human beings are too enslaved by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior. Of course, we must strive to make things as tolerable and as much to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality and to attempt the impossible; especially if you are armed with something as pathetic as a hopelessly idealistic philosophy. It is like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But, extreme liberals who think that their beliefs contain the answer for mankind, attempt it again and again. How can perfection arise from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man? Extreme liberals never have an answer for that simple question, and as a result, their efforts and rantings are nothing but dogmatic exercises in futility. The only way to ensure the complete safety, equality, tolerance, tranquility, and "enlightenment" that extreme liberals crave, would be to control Mankind mercilessly(which ironically is something that they claim to abhor). I would rather eat dirt and live in my own filth, than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude that dictated what I should think, how I should act, and what I should be. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Eric, I truly believe that you think that way. On the other hand I see lazy asses every day who sit back and wait for things to come to them. One of my means of income involves dealing with several people who collect welfare. If they looked for jobs while collecting I might have some sympathy for them. Frankly, the majority (of those I know) are lazy fucks. I live in an area where there happens to be a concentration of the aforementioned lazy fucks. I try to hire people to work ($10.00 per hour) I can't get people willing to work. Now this is not hard work, or even skilled work. They'd rather wait for the hand-out from the state. Funny thing is, you enter these peoples homes and there are frequently large screen TV's, stereo's, fancy furniture. They rent these items, pay foolish amounts of money, smoke, drink, and more. If they didn't spend money on these things they'd not have much trouble getting a job they can handle and live off their EARNINGS.
Frankly, there will never be your desired revolution because most of the people you'd like to see revolt, are too fucking lazy. Now there are of course exceptions to my observations. They're too busy trying to get the "goodies" to revolt. Fortunately people who feel like you are in the minority. So... feel free to keep tossing around your $9.99 words like"bourgeois exploiters" and keep dreaming. The world you wish for will never come to pass. I suspect if it did you wouldn't like it as much as you think. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers Edited by luvdemshrooms (12/29/02 11:28 AM)
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I have already said that I think
it is wrong for American companies to operate in countries where the population is not allowed to democratically address their concerns. That's good of you to think so. How exactly do you determine if a population is allowed to democratically address their concerns? What do you think about the way the U.S. government has used its power to implement certain "democracies" in nations throughout the world? However, unless the society you're using to make that argument is an isolationist society, it just doesn't add up. Where do they get their resources? Maybe Newton's third law of motion doesn't apply exactly here (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: resources move to supply a certain demand, resources are moved away from another demand) What point are you trying to get across with this paragraph? Simply that for a nation such as the U.S. to be as "succesful" (and excessive) as it is, it requires very inequal trade arrangements. but you said yourself there is a finite amount of (some) resources...so what then? When a resource is gone...it is gone. This is going off-topic a bit, but I just want to say that I really wish more people would want to seek a lifestyle that used less energy and less of other resources. Lifestyle is like the big unmentionable where this issue is concerned. Except in the case where we obtain goods and resources from countries where the civilian population has little or no say in the government, the resources that we acquire are willingly given to us at agreed upon prices. This economic interaction benefits both the buyer and the seller. I think the claim of "equally beneficial interaction" is often a lie. Often enough to be a big part of our problem. Furthermore, we in the U.S. have, theoretically, quite a bit of say in government. What's going on here ? My point is that we can't look at these serious global issues and say, "Well as long as there is 'democracy' of one form or another, the problem must lie elsewhere." I agree with you, though: no matter how worthy the intentions, and no matter how benevolent the leader(s), a top-to-bottom installation of any ideology is not the way to go. Someone else sees the light! I see the same thing going on when the U.S. supports, funds, trains, or outright installs governments it prefers in countries all over the world. "Democracies", of course. I also see top-to-bottom methodism in the way the American people are fed certain information while other information is so marginalized. Ideal - An idea that expresses hope for Mankind in the way of an idea that should be followed by all humans. Yet, in real life, not everybody is going to agree with it. And the people that do, will not always be able to fulfill the obligations of the idea. Yes. And yet, as far as I can tell, an ideal is still the best thing to work towards. It's all about direction. We'll never arrive at a state, ever. We're always changing. So we think in terms of direction.
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I try to hire people to work ($10.00 per hour) I can't get people willing to work.
You can't find people to take a $10/hour job? You're full of it. I know the dole sydrome is bad (I'm from Hawaii and plenty a surfer contributes to it) but ten bucks an hour? Get out.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
You don't have to believe it. Even when I do find someone to work they generally last until they have enough money to get wasted and then it's goodbye.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Oh, so you do find someone to work.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
That depends. Do you consider finding a person who works a few days and then isn't seen again (except to collect the pay) "finding someone to work"?
I don't. When I run an ad I get a few calls, funny how they seem to lose interest when they're told they actually HAVE to work. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
I try to hire people to work ($10.00 per hour) I can't get people willing to work. What area of the country are you in and what are you employing them for? The reason I ask is that $10.00 an hour seems quite reasonable for unskilled and not very difficult work. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
In the N.E.
The work involves cleaning, painting, light repair work. I think $10.00 is unreasonable for the work involved. It's an overpayment. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!!   Registered: 02/09/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****All it would do would be to turn a society where some work hard, some mediocre, and some piss poor into one where the mediocre workers outnumbered all others.. ****
Sounds like a union shop if ya ask me.. -------------------- 
America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I still think you're bluffing. But that aside--someone pays you to find work and you either can't find anyone period or you find bums? You may be close to losing your job. But don't worry--I know a painting/light repair job that pays real well...
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Believe what you will. It's a free country.
For now anyway. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Skikid16 fungus fan  Registered: 06/27/02 Posts: 5,666 Loc: In the middle of Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Scary how true you are. You can't find anyone to work for you. I get paid half that, damn 10 bucks an hour would be great. -------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Exactly. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Half that is less than minimum wage.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
6,234 | 132 | 11/18/05 09:09 PM by bukkake |
|
|
marxism. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
3,113 | 37 | 02/04/04 07:53 PM by Tao |
|
|
Communism / socialism ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 overgrower |
5,465 | 58 | 12/18/04 08:04 AM by vampirism |
|
 |
Artificial Desire ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Sclorch |
3,639 | 48 | 01/08/04 10:56 PM by phreakyzen |
|
 |
Karl Marx was wrong ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
Sclorch |
8,554 | 122 | 08/17/03 05:43 PM by d33p |
|
|
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism | lonestar2004 |
1,356 | 10 | 07/28/06 01:40 PM by Vvellum |
|
|
communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state | Anonymous |
1,489 | 12 | 08/31/03 02:35 AM by Malachi |
|
|
Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas |  TrueBrode |
833 | 10 | 11/07/03 04:43 AM by zeronio |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 16,214 topic views. 2 members, 56 guests and 50 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
