I lay this at the feet of financialization. Companies decided that their _share_holders were the only _stake_holders that mattered. If all you care about is "line go up" it's much easier to treat employees as fungible. But you can't "line go up" forever: the planet's resources are finite. One of those resources is goodwill and "line go up" has been burning it for fifty years.
You know what, let’s do it. These fuckers apparently need a reminder that the alternative to unions and the NLRB is sabotage, riots, bombings and murders.
You can’t violence your way into efficient human labor without repealing the 13th Amendment.
Let’s see if the SCOTUS says that the slavery clause only applies to individual people that congress specifically designates as free, a la the wholly made up rules on the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment.
I’d like to agree with you, but I’d like to note that the 13th amendment of the US constitution specifically states slavery is allowed as a punishment for a crime.
So all you need to do is manufacture laws which make something common criminal and put heavy sanctions on it.
Like say… draconian drug laws around cannabis, or making abortion carry the same sentences as murder. Criminalising trans healthcare. Three strike laws in which you can sentence someone to prison for life for stealing $14.
Thats how the US subsidises labour. Enslaved prisoners.
So you can violence your way into efficient human labour without repealing the 13th amendment. Perhaps there’s a point at which it won’t work anymore, but seems to have worked fine for the past 50-70 years or so
I’d make the argument that slavery provides a higher quantity of workers, but since it’s against the workers’ wills, it is not as efficient (units of work per unit of time).
On my experience, 90% of the time there’s more to the story than what people claim to be banned for. I’m not saying that 100% of that 90% of the time necessarily justifies the ban. But it usually changes the context significantly.
Fair enough. Officially I was banned for making a post that violated the subs rules, which I never did. In reality I was banned because a mod didn’t like my attitude. I made a post asking about union materials, but I noticed that the post never went up, so I sent a mod mail asking if there was something wrong with my post. What I got back was a snarky remark about the mods not being bots and they have to manually approve every post and how dare I ask that question again and waste their precious time. To my surprise I made a post about a year ago and it didn’t get approved after 7 hours so I sent a similar inquiry. Naturally I had completely forgotten about this interaction, so I thank the mod for being petty enough to look it up and mention it. Basically a case of give snark get snark, and they didn’t like it and decided to power trip. That’s the whole story.
Did you read what wrote? I was permanently banned and my post was removed because they said it violated the sub’s rules, which it didn’t. That’s officially why I was banned. I didn’t lie about anything here.
I’d consider it a lie to say you were supposedly banned for violating a rule when you yourself acknowledged that you know that’s not the reason you were banned.
You could have included a qualifier such as supposedly or ostensibly and then explained the full context up front.
Yeah, if one person is fired from the company the default thought in Japan is that person must have done something very wrong to even get to that place, as it's quite rare for fulltime salaried employees.
If a group of people are laid off, in Japanese culture that reflects very poorly on the company, suggesting that management was irresponsible to lead the company into this situation.
If a group of people are laid off, in Japanese culture that reflects very poorly on the company, suggesting that management was irresponsible to lead the company into this situation.
I mean, that's the actual truth. All these tech layoffs are just happening because Executive Leadership Teams copy each other. A few years ago they were all hiring at the same time too.
You should hire when others are firing so you get the best employees. You should hold off on hiring when everyone else is hiring, so you don't overpay. It's pretty simple.
Exactly. We need better laws here in the states. My company has had three layoffs and another is around the corner, in just two years. Yet, they keep acquiring other companies.
So when I criticize Trump and MAGAs respond ORANGE MAN BAD they're asserting I have a bias so its not enough to just dislike Trump. I have to point out his behaviors, his characteristics, his policy decisions that drive my revulsion and public revulsion.
So when an alleged economics expert like Dave Ramsey says bearded man bad he needs to elaborate what specific notion of beard he doesn't like, or why he's wary of it. Otherwise we can just assume he's being partisan like a belligerent Dodgers fan.
"The evidence from diverse interventions
in low-, middle-, and high-income contexts
indicates minimal impact on aggregate
measures of labor market participation,3,5,6
with some studies reporting an increase in
work participation.11 When reductions do
occur, time is channeled into other valued
activities such as caregiving."
Every single study that's ever been performed on UBI has shown a steady level of labor participation, or an increase in it. Any drop, was by a family that now could afford to have a stay at home parent.
He is an idiot. I'm a Marxist Leninist socialist and have read enough to say Marx has never advocated for UBI. It's literally, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. You produce what you can, meaning you work and you earn. A pure Communist society is a cashless one. Dave Ramsey is a conservative, religious nut job whose whole career is based on "only buy what you can pay for. Don't borrow. Save enough money to buy house with cash" He is a dinosaur in today's time.
I'm sure Dave Ramsey has never read Marx, and I'm equally certain he is proud of that fact, so how can he claim to know what Marx did advocate for or would advocate for? I'm not a Marxist, nor an expert in Marxian theory, but I have read and studied some Marx and based on what (admittedly little) I know, I don't see a connection between Marxism and universal basic income. In fact, I think Marx would have been opposed to UBI, maybe even viewing it as something that would strengthen the capitalist class and weaken the working class.
It is. Welfare states are perfectly fine expressions of enlightened self interest under capitalism. The owner class is guaranteed a relatively healthy population to exploit, the wage slaves are kept just happy enough to not rebel.
Work Reform
Hot