What do you think? It seems to me that it would be a good incentive to make the rich spend their cash, if they are certain to lose it for not spending it.
Proposition: boycott corporations who don't hire?
What do you think? It seems to me that it would be a good incentive to make the rich spend their cash, if they are certain to lose it for not spending it.
Explain.Originally Posted by Dynamicism
Why are they not hiring?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Obama has nothing to do with it.
But if what you say is true and these people are actively trying to reduce the power of the Democratic Party, then no mercy should be shown them. They should be ruined utterly.
Obama is nothing compared to the threat that our research poses. Nothing. The dealmakers won't even be able to get a job without the supervison of our ethics consultants.
And Ashton you are wrong in saying that Obama has whims... I can assure you, the Democratic agenda does not serve him -- he serves the agenda.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 06-22-2010 at 12:01 AM.
I don't understand why the government doesn't just appropriate corporate money by force, then invade other countries and exploit their resources and slave labor. Seriously, this democracy charade is getting old and survival isn't random. It has to be ensured some how.
I'm not the problem. They are. They created the whole fucking mess through their moral ambiguity.
In any case it's not looking like the Republicans are going to win after all. They had momentum for a while but it's stalled and it's too late for the polls to shift any further in their direction. The Dems will lose a few seats but eh, we basically accomplished most of what we wanted to anyhow for the near term. We don't have the organization yet to do more...
And Obama is invincible in 2012. The only guy who stands a chance of beating him says he's sitting it out.
I'm speaking the truth and you know it. The Spartans knew it. They cut to the fucking chase. None of that democratic Athenian shit.
The Romans knew it and they earned their place in history.
If you think America comes even close to matching the glory of the Roman empire, think again. People 1500 years from now are going to be as familiar with it as people now are familiar with the Hapsburg empire.
I think that's an exaggeration. America is an icon of democracy. If anything they'll look at it for an example of what not to do. Assuming it crumbles into dust ...
No team, we got his. America will make it through. Maybe even to the end of days.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
A lot of people in America don't understand just how idolized this country is. People look at America and they see potential, for either great good or ill. We've done both, more than any other country. You don't see leaders of European nations making the sort of sweeping propositions and agreements that Democratic presidents do. Democratic presidents have shaped the world far more than Republican presidents have.
Still, we have a capitalist system because we believe it's the best way to balance freedom with progress. Yeah I really feel comfortable right now about the hiring boycott idea... the purpose of a company is to employ people... without that, it shouldn't exist. Non-profits or even hobbyists can get the work done that a company can if no money is involved. Companies exist so that people can make money. (and not just the owners)
I mean really somewhere or another you must draw the line: money does not grow on trees and without startup capital you can't run a business. Demand is limited, moreover. It's not for nothing that the little guys get squeezed out by the big guys.
I'm actually looking for work right now, because I can't get enough financial aid from the government to make ends meet past the end of the year. But I can't expect to get employed when I've not been employed for five years and the unemployment rate in my state is 12 1/5%.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 06-22-2010 at 01:03 AM.
Naw, the purpose of a company isn't to hire people; it's to funnel money. There would be nothing wrong with a family business going public, selling shares and delivering dividends to their stockholders... and of course that family business would probably only hire from within the family. There are also, IIRC, corporations that don't do any work of their own, but own other companies and funnel the money on up the chain - perhaps to another corporation, which in turn delivers its money to stockholders and a few management personnel. Of course, the ones in the public eye tend to hire people, probably because they can't produce enough products to get the public's attention without quite a few workers - even if half the work is done by robots.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
The situation just isn't working out. I mean really, how long are you going to put up with being stuck at the same job? Right now the hiring is not brisk enough to keep up with the rate of new entrants into the market. I thought for sure there would be money in the pipe... but last month a measely 50k new jobs were created that had nothing to do with the census. Hell, my mom was one of those census workers!
Brilliand, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose of for-profit corporation is to hire people. There are other purposes, but employment is the most important.
According to Brzezinski, the way mechanization is progressing, only 20% of the workforce will be needed to produce most of what the world needs.
On a related note, technology doesn't just have to replace bottom level workers but top level workers too. Algorithms are incorruptible and can learn to make better decisions than human CEOs, which should be of great interest to shareholders.
Xerxes if that happens then there will be no more justification for either corporations or even private ownership. I mean our system is based on work and effort... that's what the people from killing the entrepreneurs, anyway.
Algorithms aren't going to beat humans for adaptability... or, if they do, they will lose their magnificent correctness.
As for Brzezinski... that's why we make so much stuff that we don't need. :wink:
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Well what would probably happen is that a massive welfare state would emerge since there would be little point in having a free market (or speculating on commodities for that matter) if the results of all competition are nearly predictable.
If not then the 80% out of work young men and women would overthrow every government on the planet.
Either that or (*crosses fingers*) a machine xenocide.
They'll still need human operators to input the correct algorithms, but the process would be more transparent than if a CEO just made a decision based on his instincts and experience.
The work of imputing algorithms can be given to a team of "economic engineers" and doesn't have to be centralized in one person. Because of added certainty in making business choices, CEO decisions can be mass-produced.
Finite resources?As for Brzezinski... that's why we make so much stuff that we don't need. :wink:
Okay, so you're suggesting temporary algorithms what mak better decisions for a short time before being replaced by new, improved algorithms. That actually seems like a good idea, and I suspect that some companies are already doing it.
Make more work (making new things that no one needed before) until everyone is covered.
Sounds like some people get jobs hunting for more resources in outer space.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
You edited out the answer. The 80% will either die off or study engineering.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Yes that's a valid point. But I think what he implied was that the rate of automation would exceed the rate of needing to hire new employees (not sure if it ever bottoms out). Sorry I stated something different before.
The best CEOs are always determined types. They don't function by setting a bold vision but by realizing what the market actually wants. This requires a great deal of dedication -- effective CEOs never "get away from it all" because their minds are always on their work. Still, they are no more deserving of a high-falutin' lifestyle than the coal miner or factory worker.
If a CEO switches place with the coal miner, the former CEO can still work effectively, and the former coal miner can't. Imo high-falutin' lifestyles have to be considered in terms of what we're rewarding, not in terms of one person being better than another.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Removed at User Request
x
Most people have never read a book and they want to be productive in the 21st Century. Amazing
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Yeah but to be honest coal miners now get paid really well from what I've heard, obviously not as much as CEOs but definitely more than an "average worker".
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Ah ah ah you are wrong! The CEO would never mine coal. They wouldn't even if they were forced -- they would resist and overcome the pressure. CEOs are CEOs because they don't like working for other people.
I hope we do only need 20% of the world's workforce to produce everything for everybody. Because the way it is now, 40 hour work weeks are not the norm in the United States. The average may be 40 hrs, but the median is different, more like 50. My dad often works anywhere from 60 to 70 hrs.
Less worker demand = less work for same pay.
Say you own a company, and you decide you don't need anymore staff due to eg don't want to/can't expand, don't need them w/e then why would you? It's not a charity and workers aren't there simply on 'good grace'.
Also - if you want to look at it this way, there is also EXISTING staff to consider, and for instance supposing you brought extra staff on resulting in the place loosing money and closing down, or experienced proven staff leave due to the increased company instability it may create, what happens then?
I don't think it's a prudent course to boycott them, anyway, assuming you've got little cash since you've said you need a job? In all honesty you prolly won't be buying much, if anything from them.
This isn't about sole proprietorships, its about corporations.
No, less work for less pay. Supply and demand: less demand = less pay.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
