Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:43:00 AM
Translation from Magyar: I come from a corrupt country, therefore all countries are corrupt.
So America isn't a slave to big business now all of a sudden? Your anti-establishment (which is more like a desire to be part of the establishment) goes only until it bumps into the chance to dismiss views based on the nationality of the one expressing them.
It is, but that doesn't mean that all efforts toward a rationally planned economy are misguided.
Plus, your experience of Hungary isn't of communism, bur 1)Russian imperialism and 2)prikhvatizatsiya, or however the Russian term goes. Communism can be implemented in a former liberal democracy, or, at least, you must admit it's never been tried.
That said, I'm sorry. I was being a dick, and your buried point about regulatory/legislative capture is hardly frivolous on reconsideration.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 11:29:21 AM
Plus, your experience of Hungary isn't of communism, bur 1)Russian imperialism and 2)prikhvatizatsiya, or however the Russian term goes.
Beetvatizatsiya.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2014, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 11:29:21 AM
Plus, your experience of Hungary isn't of communism, bur 1)Russian imperialism and 2)prikhvatizatsiya, or however the Russian term goes.
Beetvatizatsiya.
I think I had that at a Polish restaurant in Chicago. It was on the relish tray.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:43:00 AM
Translation from Magyar: I come from a corrupt country, therefore all countries are corrupt.
Kind of like Brits assuming that we have the same adversarial relationship with corrupt brewers and bar owners, who are trying to cheat us on the amount of beer we are sold. Bizarre that they expect that to be the case everywhere.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2014, 11:46:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:43:00 AM
Translation from Magyar: I come from a corrupt country, therefore all countries are corrupt.
Kind of like Brits assuming that we have the same adversarial relationship with corrupt brewers and bar owners, who are trying to cheat us on the amount of beer we are sold. Bizarre that they expect that to be the case everywhere.
Que?
Although you'll be glad to hear that the government suffered their first defeat (on which they hadn't suspended collective responsibility) a couple of weeks ago. The defeat was a glorious liberation of pub landlords from the yokes of their owners :w00t:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 11:56:11 AM
Que?
I've tried to explain that we don't have any of that problem here and Brits responded that I must be naive because it has to happen everywhere.
QuoteAlthough you'll be glad to hear that the government suffered their first defeat (on which they hadn't suspended collective responsibility) a couple of weeks ago. The defeat was a glorious liberation of pub landlords from the yokes of their owners :w00t:
No idea what any of that means.
:lol: Separated by a common language.
With few exceptions (police, fire departments, hospitals ...) working on Sundays is not permitted in Germany. The states are permitted to add more exceptions if required to maintain a certain level of infrastructure that's indispensable.
Hessen's law in that regard has now been cancelled by a federal court. The court finds that video stores, libraries, and customer service hotlines are not worthy of exemption. Also not permitted: working production plants for beverages or ice cream on Sundays.
This will have repercussions for similar laws in other German states.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 12:16:18 PM
Well, as long as they cover up the rapes and similar, I guess they figure it's okay. Apparently the University of Virginia are having a few issues right now:
UVA isn't in the Ivy League, but it might as well be. The sense of entitlement is stifling.
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2014, 03:51:07 PM
With few exceptions (police, fire departments, hospitals ...) working on Sundays is not permitted in Germany. The states are permitted to add more exceptions if required to maintain a certain level of infrastructure that's indispensable.
Hessen's law in that regard has now been cancelled by a federal court. The court finds that video stores, libraries, and customer service hotlines are not worthy of exemption. Also not permitted: working production plants for beverages or ice cream on Sundays.
This will have repercussions for similar laws in other German states.
Why? Is it a religious thing? It's also annoying when European cities all but shut down at 7pm. Coming from Nevada, that's a significant dent in the routine.
It's a Nazi thing.
Officially religious, yes. Also, many shops will close earlier on Saturdays than during the week. When I was a kid, shops closed as early as noon on Saturdays. And, in our town, often for an hour or two over lunch time on week days, too. The discussion of whether there should be more relaxation of opening hours (favored by businesses) or preservation of weekend/Sunday rest (unions & churches) is ongoing, and has been for decades.
Many cities will have "Open Sundays" now, where shops are permitted to be open (in my home state, I think it's up to 4 times).
Obviously, in big cities it will be better, where malls might be open for longer during the week, or supermarkets at main train stations are open on Sundays.
It seriously sucks, though, if you want to do some leisurely shopping outside your own work hours, and then either have to do it in an hour or two after work, or on Saturday when EVERYONE goes.
Ugh. Looks like Germany needs more cleansing fire.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 26, 2014, 04:04:41 PM
Why? Is it a religious thing? It's also annoying when European cities all but shut down at 7pm. Coming from Nevada, that's a significant dent in the routine.
I take it you've never been to Spain, Italy or, God help you, Cardiff?
QuoteUgh. Looks like Germany needs more cleansing fire.
Service workers should have rights too :contract:
QuoteNo idea what any of that means.
What you described is Britain in the 70s. Thatcher liberalised (and destroyed) the pubs. She limited the number of pubs a brewery could own to 2000 and required them to allow landlords to sell guest beers. The idea was it'd lead to a more free, competitive market.
Trouble is as the breweries had to sell off their thousands of pubs all at once the people who really took advantage were non-brewery firms, largely property firms, that got a lot of capital together. These pub companies get landlords in on the common English dream of having your own pub, but their contracts are incredibly restrictive. There's no limit on what beers you can sell, but you have to buy them from the PubCo (and they have gadgets to make sure the sales correlate with the beers they've sold). It's a world of managers and marketing teams not the old one of brewers and landlords. Some of it's good - I like Spoons as much as the next man - but it has, I think, contributed to the closing of pubs (PubCo pubs close at three times the rate of independent ones) and they're just more bland than the independent or brewery pubs. There are many decent pubs that are independent that have been reopened in the shell of a PubCo one, over 50% of pub 'landlords' for these companies have an income of £10 000 or lower, which is less than the minimum wage.
Recently the government was passing a Small Business Act. This was a government piece of legislation - so they should be able to pass it - and it hadn't been the cause of big coalition arguments so the cabinet were agreed. Collective responsibility was held Tory and Liberal ministers in the Commons would have to vote on it and both parties were expected to whip it. Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland, with a little support from enthusiasts like CAMRA, got an amendment tabled to be voted on - against the Lib Dem, Tory wishes and PubCo lobbying. The amendment is the market rent only option which allows tied landlords when their contract is up for negotiation, there's change of terms, a new tenancy agreement or anything else like that, with any PubCo with more than 500 pubs to request an independent valuation of their market rent if they were allowed to buy their products anywhere (the rent's normally pretty low as the PubCo companies which purchase the products incredibly cheaply due to the size, don't have to pass that saving onto their landlords).
Mulholland managed to get his amendment passed. Labour voted for it and a significant number of Lib Dems and Tories rebelled - the first government defeat that shouldn't have happened. The government's since confirmed they'll accept the amendment and not attempt to change it back :w00t:
So the future should include freer, better off landlords, more diverse ownership and cheaper, better beer and every Englishman can dream once again of retiring to own a country pub somewhere :w00t: :o :mmm:
There should be tax breaks from pubs to get people to stop drinking at home and drink out instead. For the good of society and all that.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 03:49:28 PM
Beats liberal arts.
Your STEM love may have been overly optimistic though - just saw a thing about a guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology and Pharmacology bemoaning his long term unemployment :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
Service workers should have rights too :contract:
If working evenings and weekends is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly.
Insert the concept of the shift differential.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 04:48:11 PM
If working evenings and weekends is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly.
So what? There's people willing to work in unsafe environments or to bargain away other labour rights for a job that doesn't mean it's okay and we should just let the market set the rate. I don't entirely agree with European system which is way too restrictive for me but it's the same as holidays or health and safety, in my view it's a right that shouldn't be negotiable or set by the market.
Ultimately consumers aren't the only people in the world who matter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 04:48:11 PM
If working evenings and weekends is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly.
So what? There's people willing to work in unsafe environments or to bargain away other labour rights for a job that doesn't mean it's okay and we should just let the market set the rate. I don't entirely agree with European system which is way too restrictive for me but it's the same as holidays or health and safety, in my view it's a right that shouldn't be negotiable or set by the market.
Ultimately consumers aren't the only people in the world who matter.
We went through this a while ago regarding minimum employment standards. Basically there will always be the folks who think the market always provides the best answer despite all the evidence to the contrary.
People sometimes sell themselves or their children into slavery - legal enforced or sometimes not - in response to the incentives of the free market. That doesn't mean it's the right outcome.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
So the future should include freer, better off landlords, more diverse ownership and cheaper, better beer and every Englishman can dream once again of retiring to own a country pub somewhere :w00t: :o :mmm:
Wow. Totally different world. There aren't really many restrictions on bar or pub ownership, except that big breweries aren't supposed to own them nor control distribution.
But what I was referring to were fairly recent discussions (I believe they were here 3 or so years ago, or possibly EUOT) about not trusting the bartender to give you the full pint when you order one, or pub owners watering down their beer. Also about brewers cheating on the amount of beer they put into a can or bottle. I said that was pretty much nonexistent at any halfway decent place around here. Bar owners are more concerned about drawing people in and keeping them in their seats than trying to cut corners on the product, plus bartenders generally don't want to dissuade generous tips. And if a rumor came about that Brewery X was watering down their beer or purposely underfilling, that would kill their business. I was told I was naive and that the same stuff had to be going on here.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 03:49:28 PM
Beats liberal arts.
You're STEM love may have been overly optimistic though - just saw a thing about a guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology and Pharmacology bemoaning his long term unemployment :(
STEM isn't all about monwy, Jake. It's about being a good person.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 05:10:45 PMSTEM isn't all about monwy, Jake. It's about being a good person.
:rolleyes:
You're so materialistic.
:P
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 05:09:29 PM
People sometimes sell themselves or their children into slavery - legal enforced or sometimes not - in response to the incentives of the free market. That doesn't mean it's the right outcome.
[Yi] If selling themselves or their children into slavery is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly. [Yi]
In seriousness, Pharma and Bio are glut subfields, or at least glutting.
Your friend still has a lot to.offer society, tho.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 05:13:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 05:09:29 PM
People sometimes sell themselves or their children into slavery - legal enforced or sometimes not - in response to the incentives of the free market. That doesn't mean it's the right outcome.
[Yi] If selling themselves or their children into slavery is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly. [Yi]
:lol: The Invisible Hand, right up a 12 year old's junk.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:58:28 PM
So what? There's people willing to work in unsafe environments or to bargain away other labour rights for a job that doesn't mean it's okay and we should just let the market set the rate. I don't entirely agree with European system which is way too restrictive for me but it's the same as holidays or health and safety, in my view it's a right that shouldn't be negotiable or set by the market.
Ultimately consumers aren't the only people in the world who matter.
Your punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.
You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK. Why is it not OK? Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?
What's demonstrably wrong about believing people are stupid and horrible and need to be told what to do?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 05:23:05 PM
What's demonstrably wrong about believing people are stupid and horrible and need to be told what to do?
Many things, starting with the fact that the person telling the stupid and horrible person what to do is people too.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2014, 05:09:53 PM
But what I was referring to were fairly recent discussions (I believe they were here 3 or so years ago, or possibly EUOT) about not trusting the bartender to give you the full pint when you order one, or pub owners watering down their beer. Also about brewers cheating on the amount of beer they put into a can or bottle. I said that was pretty much nonexistent at any halfway decent place around here. Bar owners are more concerned about drawing people in and keeping them in their seats than trying to cut corners on the product, plus bartenders generally don't want to dissuade generous tips. And if a rumor came about that Brewery X was watering down their beer or purposely underfilling, that would kill their business. I was told I was naive and that the same stuff had to be going on here.
Oh okay. Honestly that sounds like something either from the seventies, or an urban myth buttressed by the long-standing figure of the crafty cheating bastard of a landlord in British culture :P
QuoteYou hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK. Why is it not OK? Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?
Because those are or should be labour rights. As with other sorts of rights, such as consumer rights, they shouldn't be allowed to be bargained away because the power and knowledge difference between the parties is so large. If legally enforceable rights are just bargaining chips that don't have to be adhered too then there'll be a race to the bottom because the number of situations where there's anything like parity of bargaining position for, say, consumers or employees is tiny.
For example the old British landlord's trick of watering down his beer and not actually selling the product he's alleging to sell.
QuoteYour punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.
I think that's where the difference stems from though. What matters more consumer convenience or workers' rights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:20:26 PMYour punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.
You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK. Why is it not OK? Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?
Are you really arguing that it is okay for someone to bargain away their freedom, health, or life if that is the only options available to them in a free market situation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:25:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 05:23:05 PM
What's demonstrably wrong about believing people are stupid and horrible and need to be told what to do?
Many things, starting with the fact that the person telling the stupid and horrible person what to do is people too.
Turtles all the way down, I guess. Just because it's unpalatable doesn't mean it's untrue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:26:46 PM
Because those are or should be labour rights.
Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 05:30:14 PM
Turtles all the way down, I guess. Just because it's unpalatable doesn't mean it's untrue.
You mean...it trickles down?
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 05:27:01 PM
Are you really arguing that it is okay for someone to bargain away their freedom, health, or life if that is the only options available to them in a free market situation?
If that is the only option available, there's not much bargaining going on.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:31:56 PM
Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic?
Yeah. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 05:13:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 05:09:29 PM
People sometimes sell themselves or their children into slavery - legal enforced or sometimes not - in response to the incentives of the free market. That doesn't mean it's the right outcome.
[Yi] If selling themselves or their children into slavery is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly. [Yi]
[Yi] And why shouldnt they be allowed to sell themselves or their children into slavery? Are they stupid and unable to make informed decisions for themselves? [Yi]
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PM
Yeah. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
Pretend I don't and explain the distinction to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PM
Yeah. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
Pretend I don't and explain the distinction to me.
I am beginning to think we dont have to pretend....
PRAWND
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 05:27:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:20:26 PMYour punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.
You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK. Why is it not OK? Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?
Are you really arguing that it is okay for someone to bargain away their freedom, health, or life if that is the only options available to them in a free market situation?
This is why I bring up the slavery issue in regards to libertarianism. I can imagine a situation where people sign contracts for loans that stipulate that failure to pay back the loan results in enslavement. This situation seems entirely in accordance with libertarian principles.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:20:26 PM
You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK. Why is it not OK? Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?
Because the hypothetical person doesn't have much bargaining power, but does have a need to have food and shelter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 05:33:15 PMIf that is the only option available, there's not much bargaining going on.
Exactly.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2014, 05:57:12 PMThis is why I bring up the slavery issue in regards to libertarianism. I can imagine a situation where people sign contracts for loans that stipulate that failure to pay back the loan results in enslavement. This situation seems entirely in accordance with libertarian principles.
And it's certainly in accordance with the history and practice of slavery as it has been and is practice.
The question is whether Yi thinks this is the way the world should work, or whether some limits should be put in place to prevent the free market from incentivizing slavery.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 06:02:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2014, 05:57:12 PMThis is why I bring up the slavery issue in regards to libertarianism. I can imagine a situation where people sign contracts for loans that stipulate that failure to pay back the loan results in enslavement. This situation seems entirely in accordance with libertarian principles.
And it's certainly in accordance with the history and practice of slavery as it has been and is practice.
The question is whether Yi thinks this is the way the world should work, or whether some limits should be put in place to prevent the free market from incentivizing slavery.
[Yi] First slavery now indentured servitude. Where will this slippery slope of regulation end? People should be able to bargain freely. If people are not willing to be slaves or indentured servants there would be no slaves or indentured servants. [Yi]
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PMAre you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 05:58:20 PM
Because the hypothetical person doesn't have much bargaining power, but does have a need to have food and shelter.
If he doesn't have much bargaining power, that must mean other hypothetical people don't find working evenings and weekends in the German retail sector particularly onerous.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2014, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PMAre you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.
Sure they do. All they have to do is not take the job.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 26, 2014, 06:31:11 PMAll they have to do is not take the job.
many people do this, yes. and an employer is allowed to schedule an employee for a night shift. hence, no right to be free from a night shift.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 05:58:20 PM
Because the hypothetical person doesn't have much bargaining power, but does have a need to have food and shelter.
If he doesn't have much bargaining power, that must mean other hypothetical people don't find working evenings and weekends in the German retail sector particularly onerous.
Or it may mean that other hypothetical people don't have much bargaining power either, and do what they need to do to keep their job.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2014, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PMAre you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.
It appears that several Western democratic nations do think that people have a right to a common day of rest.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 06:44:54 PM
Or it may mean that other hypothetical people don't have much bargaining power either, and do what they need to do to keep their job.
So we have a large group of people, let's call them German unskilled workers, who have "not much bargaining power," and by your analysis will accept pretty much anything that is offered to them. Yet we find, in a country with no legal limits on how much or little a worker must be paid, that these German unskilled workers are being paid significantly more than zero euros per hour.
How is that so?
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 06:58:37 PM
Indeed.
In the real world people *always* have options.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 06:58:06 PMIt appears that several Western democratic nations do think that people have a right to a common day of rest.
it doesn't seem like it. in germany, many employees work on sundays. some german states regulate sunday hours more strictly than other german states, but that doesn't mean no employer may scheduled an employee to work on a sunday. the laws allow it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 07:01:04 PMIn the real world people *always* have options.
That's a fairly broad statement, to the point of being meaningless.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 07:19:54 PM
That's a fairly broad statement, to the point of being meaningless.
No it's not. You claim that people only have no options, thus have no bargaining power. This is patently false.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 07:23:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 07:19:54 PM
That's a fairly broad statement, to the point of being meaningless.
No it's not. You claim that people only have no options, thus have no bargaining power. This is patently false.
I'm curious what sort of bargaining power you think these people have:
http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/bonded_labour/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24560937
Or are you suggesting they don't reside in the real world?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 06:44:54 PM
Or it may mean that other hypothetical people don't have much bargaining power either, and do what they need to do to keep their job.
So we have a large group of people, let's call them German unskilled workers, who have "not much bargaining power," and by your analysis will accept pretty much anything that is offered to them. Yet we find, in a country with no legal limits on how much or little a worker must be paid, that these German unskilled workers are being paid significantly more than zero euros per hour.
How is that so?
No, that is not the conclusion "by my analysis". It may be you analysis, but I would definitely not want to be associated with that kind of analysis.
Lack of bargaining power means that the negotiated price is close to the point at which you would walk away. That most of the economic surplus generated by the transaction all goes to one party. Lack of bargaining power means that two economic actors don't meet in the middle when it comes to settling the price, but rather one party is forced to always agree to a bottom dollar deal.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 07:25:09 PM
I'm curious what sort of bargaining power you think these people have:
http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/bonded_labour/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24560937
Or are you suggesting they don't reside in the real world?
I'm curious what connection you think there is between Punjabi bonded labor and German retail workers.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 07:26:23 PM
No, that is not the conclusion "by my analysis". It may be you analysis, but I would definitely not want to be associated with that kind of analysis.
Your words:
QuoteOr it may mean that other hypothetical people don't have much bargaining power either, and do what they need to do to keep their job.
QuoteLack of bargaining power means that the negotiated price is close to the point at which you would walk away. That most of the economic surplus generated by the transaction all goes to one party. Lack of bargaining power means that two economic actors don't meet in the middle when it comes to settling the price, but rather one party is forced to always agree to a bottom dollar deal.
What does this have to with the question of whether wages would rise for unpleasant evening and weekend shifts?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 07:33:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 07:26:23 PM
No, that is not the conclusion "by my analysis". It may be you analysis, but I would definitely not want to be associated with that kind of analysis.
Your words:
QuoteOr it may mean that other hypothetical people don't have much bargaining power either, and do what they need to do to keep their job.
Doing what they need to do to keep a job doesn't mean agreeing to near-zero wages. Being employed is not costless, for one.
Quote
QuoteLack of bargaining power means that the negotiated price is close to the point at which you would walk away. That most of the economic surplus generated by the transaction all goes to one party. Lack of bargaining power means that two economic actors don't meet in the middle when it comes to settling the price, but rather one party is forced to always agree to a bottom dollar deal.
What does this have to with the question of whether wages would rise for unpleasant evening and weekend shifts?
I don't know. I was talking about what lack of bargaining power means.
I have as much bargaining power now as I did 3 years ago. :smarty:
But I guess you are right under some circumstances. If we enter the enlightened stage where there are no labor protections, and workers have to always get the bottom dollar for their labor, then the bottom dollar would be higher for weekends and holidays.
However, if you start off on the slippery slope of trying to even out the power for the workers by legal protections, then you have to do it evenly. You can't mandate minimum wage but not mandate safe working conditions, for example, or otherwise employers will compensate for the higher mandated wages by making conditions more dangerous if that saves them a penny.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 07:30:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 07:25:09 PM
I'm curious what sort of bargaining power you think these people have:
http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/bonded_labour/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24560937
Or are you suggesting they don't reside in the real world?
I'm curious what connection you think there is between Punjabi bonded labor and German retail workers.
1) They are people in the real world, who according to your overly broad statement always have a choice. And apparently they've chosen bonded labour.
2) In choosing bonded labour, it appears that their other choices were less appealing and/or they suffered from a disparity in information and leverage; in other words there exists - in the real world - situations where people bargain away their basic rights.
3A) Presumably, you think this is a bad thing; in which case it undermines the principal argument you're making, that there is nothing wrong with uneven bargaining positions in a free market. It clearly illustrates the concept that uneven distribution in capital, knowledge, and social power can lead to abhorrent outcomes, and that we need safeguards to prevent that. Many of these safeguards exist in modern Western society, and should be protected and refined, not torn down in the name of the free market.
3B) Alternately, you think that's perfectly fine that people bargain away basic human rights like that, and that it is the way the free market should work. In that case, your principal argument is not undermined, merely abhorrent.
There are many good arguments for having extended shopping hours, but the fact that low wage earners are free to bargain as they wish with their employers is not one of them. In fact, as I understand the restriction on retail hours are partially the result of retail workers - as represented by their labour representatives - have been using their bargaining power.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 07:43:09 PM
But I guess you are right under some circumstances. If we enter the enlightened stage where there are no labor protections, and workers have to always get the bottom dollar for their labor, then the bottom dollar would be higher for weekends and holidays.
However, if you start off on the slippery slope of trying to even out the power for the workers by legal protections, then you have to do it evenly. You can't mandate minimum wage but not mandate safe working conditions, for example, or otherwise employers will compensate for the higher mandated wages by making conditions more dangerous if that saves them a penny.
If only there were organizations that existed to represent workers by protecting them and requiring employers to maintain certain standards, such wages and safe working conditions; one that would unite them in a common cause of empowerment against exploitation. :hmm:
Restricting store hours means fewer jobs and also inconveniences those workers when they want to shop/eat/etc. I really don't see the advantage of having the government step in and enforce such restrictions.
Jacob, what is abhorrent about an individual making a choice that he believes betters his position? If a worker is willing to sacrifice his evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, who are we to tell him that his choice is immoral?
Re your point about German retail unions opposing extended hours, that's all fine and good as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell us if 100% of their membership feels the same way, and it doesn't tell at all how prospective employees who are not members of the union feel.
If in fact 100% of potential German retail workers would absolutely refuse to work evenings and weekends, then the legislation is pointless.
If I need some KY jelly at 2am on Sunday, I can get it.
'Murica.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2014, 08:02:38 PM
If I need some KY jelly at 2am on Sunday, I can get it.
'Murica.
If I need an overpriced cable at 4am I can step to my 24 hour Best Buy.
America. :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
What you described is Britain in the 70s. Thatcher liberalised (and destroyed) the pubs. She limited the number of pubs a brewery could own to 2000 and required them to allow landlords to sell guest beers. The idea was it'd lead to a more free, competitive market.
That's an eye poppingly high limit! That's a significant limitation?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2014, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
What you described is Britain in the 70s. Thatcher liberalised (and destroyed) the pubs. She limited the number of pubs a brewery could own to 2000 and required them to allow landlords to sell guest beers. The idea was it'd lead to a more free, competitive market.
That's an eye poppingly high limit! That's a significant limitation?
Isn't adding more rules to the industry the opposite of liberalizing it? She regulated it more.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2014, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2014, 07:43:09 PM
But I guess you are right under some circumstances. If we enter the enlightened stage where there are no labor protections, and workers have to always get the bottom dollar for their labor, then the bottom dollar would be higher for weekends and holidays.
However, if you start off on the slippery slope of trying to even out the power for the workers by legal protections, then you have to do it evenly. You can't mandate minimum wage but not mandate safe working conditions, for example, or otherwise employers will compensate for the higher mandated wages by making conditions more dangerous if that saves them a penny.
If only there were organizations that existed to represent workers by protecting them and requiring employers to maintain certain standards, such wages and safe working conditions; one that would unite them in a common cause of empowerment against exploitation. :hmm:
Nope not coming up with anything in the Thatcherite/Reaganite/librarytarian canon, might this be hinting at some mythic time before The Modern Age? :unsure:
The big labor conversation of the last few pages should be excised by a mod and made it's own thread.
MiM, I'm not saying she didn't add regulations, I'm just agog at the number. There are only 45,000 bars in the United States and we're more than five times as large as 80s Britain. 2,000 should be a huge percentage of the market there, hardly a limitation at all against anything other than a monopoly. How much higher is the ratio of bars to population in the UK than America for that not to be so?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2014, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PMAre you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.
:huh:
All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 08:29:55 PM
:huh:
All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.
Yeah, laws that you can't work 100 hours in a week. We don't have laws saying you can't work at 2 a.m.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 08:29:55 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2014, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 05:33:44 PMAre you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'? :P
i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.
:huh:
All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.
I have no idea what the absolute maximum number of hours I can work here. I am rather certain I have exceeded that number multiple times though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 08:00:34 PM
Jacob, what is abhorrent about an individual making a choice that he believes betters his position? If a worker is willing to sacrifice his evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, who are we to tell him that his choice is immoral?
It lowers the standards/conditions floor and inculcates a climate of fear amongst workers who would otherwise choose not to sacrifice their evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, but now must.
And at that point, the labor supply is increased, and "more money" becomes "the same amount of money" becomes "less money."
Of course, outside of human bondage there's going to be the natural wage floor, i.e. the amount of money required to feed the caloric expenditure of doing the labor. Hooray for liberty!
Why must they, how does the supply of labor increase, and wut?
The only reason it's preferable to have nights and weekends off is so that you can do social activities at those times, many of which require somebody else to be working. Not letting them work just makes things worse for everyone.
Why must they?: they are now competing with people that will, thus to keep up, they must go what the in-demand employees will. (Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question.)
The other part isn't rigorous, but if the labor supply grows, the extra money is unlikely to exceed whatever the hourly rate is: certainly this is the case at where I work, where they realized that people could be bullied into working extra hours and didn't need to be positively incentivized.
If the wages offered are lower than the natural wage floor, as for example occurred at Auschwitz, laborers die. You won't work for wages that won't keep you fed, or at least not for very long. This was offered as a rhetorical flourish.
That said, I do agree with Eddie Teach. It's a stupid system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 08:00:34 PM
Jacob, what is abhorrent about an individual making a choice that he believes betters his position? If a worker is willing to sacrifice his evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, who are we to tell him that his choice is immoral?
Re your point about German retail unions opposing extended hours, that's all fine and good as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell us if 100% of their membership feels the same way, and it doesn't tell at all how prospective employees who are not members of the union feel.
If in fact 100% of potential German retail workers would absolutely refuse to work evenings and weekends, then the legislation is pointless.
Presumably when you talk about making choices to better their position you are using the libertarian principle of non-coercion. Otherwise you would be allowing people to commit murder or theft. Am I correct in making this assumption?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2014, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
What you described is Britain in the 70s. Thatcher liberalised (and destroyed) the pubs. She limited the number of pubs a brewery could own to 2000 and required them to allow landlords to sell guest beers. The idea was it'd lead to a more free, competitive market.
That's an eye poppingly high limit! That's a significant limitation?
Before the legislation there were around 60-65 000 pubs in the UK. Now there's only about 50 000 (:weep:) though that doesn't include bars, wine bars, clubs that sort of thing. Thankfully the pace of closing down has, I believe, slowed in recent years :w00t:
QuoteIsn't adding more rules to the industry the opposite of liberalizing it? She regulated it more.
Sure but with the intent (if not the effect) of making it easier for new market entrants and promoting competition. There were 6 breweries prior to the law who sold about 75-80% of the beer in Britain (hence why it was shit). The theory was if you break the unnecessary brewery-landlord link there'd be competition and lots of independent brewers/pubs opening up selling whatever they wanted. As it is the PubCos moved in :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 09:25:48 PM
Before the legislation there were around 60-65 000 pubs in the UK. Now there's only about 50 000 (:weep:) though that doesn't include bars, wine bars, clubs that sort of thing. Thankfully the pace of closing down has, I believe, slowed in recent years :w00t:
What the hell!? That's still more than the entire United States! :wacko:
I don't think your figure includes all the restaurants that serve booze.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2014, 09:38:27 PM
I don't think your figure includes all the restaurants that serve booze.
No it wouldn't. Though it would include gastropubs. My parent's village pub for example makes 90% of its money from selling really good food. Without that they'd go under, which makes sense as you can't really sustain a pub anymore on a village of 500 (though the village used to have two), so you need to attract people in and if they're having to drive to get to you then they won't be drinking. So good country cooking is a saviour for many village pubs while keeping a bar for the locals - who provide very welcome atmosphere :lol:
QuoteWhat the hell!? That's still more than the entire United States! :wacko:
To Americans, we're a nation of functioning alcoholics. To Brits, America's a nation of puritans.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 09:04:57 PM
Why must they?: they are now competing with people that will, thus to keep up, they must go what the in-demand employees will. (Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question.)
What do you mean by "keep up." As in, keep up with the Joneses?
QuoteThe other part isn't rigorous, but if the labor supply grows, the extra money is unlikely to exceed whatever the hourly rate is: certainly this is the case at where I work, where they realized that people could be bullied into working extra hours and didn't need to be positively incentivized.
*How* will the labor supply increase? Does working evenings cause people to spontaneously clone?
QuoteIf the wages offered are lower than the natural wage floor, as for example occurred at Auschwitz, laborers die. You won't work for wages that won't keep you fed, or at least not for very long. This was offered as a rhetorical flourish.
Flourish away.
This is getting way too far onto a topic. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2014, 09:18:14 PM
Presumably when you talk about making choices to better their position you are using the libertarian principle of non-coercion. Otherwise you would be allowing people to commit murder or theft. Am I correct in making this assumption?
Correct. Blackmail, torture, etc., all included.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 26, 2014, 09:45:51 PM
This is getting way too far onto a topic. :mad:
I messaged CountdeMoney and he said he'd snip this out into its own thread
Can we keep the pubs? :o
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2014, 08:29:55 PM:huh:
All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.
as mentioned, this doesn't involve time of day.
when a person works doesn't infringe on his life. some people are more than content with working night shifts their entire life, for example. people don't need a specific day or specific time for rest because that's too subjective (not to mention infeasible). some people like working in the late afternoon/night while some prefer morning/early afternoon. there's enough variety that time slots are filled. someone may occasionally be scheduled on a day or time that doesn't fit their plans/preference, but that's not slavery. i think impoverished indentured servants in the third world would take offense to the comparison.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 09:04:57 PM
Why must they?: they are now competing with people that will, thus to keep up, they must go what the in-demand employees will. (Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question.)
What do you mean by "keep up." As in, keep up with the Joneses?
QuoteThe other part isn't rigorous, but if the labor supply grows, the extra money is unlikely to exceed whatever the hourly rate is: certainly this is the case at where I work, where they realized that people could be bullied into working extra hours and didn't need to be positively incentivized.
*How* will the labor supply increase? Does working evenings cause people to spontaneously clone?
:grr:
If Person A doesn't want to work more than 40 hours a week, and Person B wants to work 60, and The Firm wants people to work infinity hours a week, Person B has a competitive advantage over Persona A, unless Person A hides his distaste and agrees to work 60 hours a week. The labor supply of people willing to work 60 hours a week just doubled. IT'S LIKE MAGIC.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
:grr:
If Person A doesn't want to work more than 40 hours a week, and Person B wants to work 60, and The Firm wants people to work infinity hours a week, Person B has a competitive advantage over Persona A, unless Person A hides his distaste and agrees to work 60 hours a week. The labor supply of people willing to work 60 hours a week just doubled. IT'S LIKE MAGIC.
Yep. Try working in service and trying to get even half your weekends or evenings off. And of course by doing it you're being a dick because someone else in the team will be doing it for you. And there's no extra money involved.
I'd have less of an issue if overtime were still a thing :lol:
Working nights and weekends puts people out of synch with the rest of society. Yes it is needed for some professions, and yes everyone is inconvenienced by not be able to do grocery shopping at 2 am on a Saturday night. The people that work those odd hours tend to be the more marginal workers, and this is a big burden for them when providing childcare, obtaining additional educational opportunities, etc.
Up to the point it starts creating unemployment or serious adverse economic impacts, I support the German system (though obviously living in the US system works better for someone like me that has a normal hour job anyway).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 10:34:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
:grr:
If Person A doesn't want to work more than 40 hours a week, and Person B wants to work 60, and The Firm wants people to work infinity hours a week, Person B has a competitive advantage over Persona A, unless Person A hides his distaste and agrees to work 60 hours a week. The labor supply of people willing to work 60 hours a week just doubled. IT'S LIKE MAGIC.
Yep. Try working in service and trying to get even half your weekends or evenings off. And of course by doing it you're being a dick because someone else in the team will be doing it for you. And there's no extra money involved.
I'd have less of an issue if overtime were still a thing :lol:
I'd have less of an issue with it if I were just permitted to do it. Although I've barely been able to get through 40 lately with priv work. It's stressful and exhausting, yet just as tedious!
I find it amazing that I have to explain the mechanism by which this occurs to anyone living in 2014, though. :grr:
Hi. I like pancakes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 08:00:34 PM
Jacob, what is abhorrent about an individual making a choice that he believes betters his position? If a worker is willing to sacrifice his evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, who are we to tell him that his choice is immoral?
Re your point about German retail unions opposing extended hours, that's all fine and good as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell us if 100% of their membership feels the same way, and it doesn't tell at all how prospective employees who are not members of the union feel.
If in fact 100% of potential German retail workers would absolutely refuse to work evenings and weekends, then the legislation is pointless.
There is nothing abhorrent about individuals making a choice, believing it will better their situations. And there isn't anything wrong with choosing to sacrifice evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, that's not immoral at all.
What is abhorrent, however, is using the exact same argument for justifying late shifts and weekend work as is used for justifying straight up slavery without either explaining where and how the line is drawn between the two or alternately owning that you are in fact in favour of slavery.
Because here's the thing - the end of the sixteen hour workday, the end of child labour, the drastic lowering of the "acceptable deaths" amongst workers, the repudiation of sexual harassment being a privilege of being the boss, the end of employers enforcing non-work related morality strictures on their staff, the implementation of safety standards in food and medicine, and many other things that are the foundation of our quality of life did not come about as the result of the free market and employees exercising individual choices as they bargained with potential employers. They all came about due to collective bargaining and/ or regulatory schemes imposed by the government.
It is not abhorrent to trade your labour for a wage to the best of your ability. What is abhorrent are systems that destroy and undermine the bargaining power of workers, and leave them vulnerable to exploitation, as is blithely appealing to "freedom" in arguing for dismantling the systems that have provided unparalleled improvements for the vast majority of the population.
The free market left entirely to its own devices leads to concentration of wealth and power and monopolistic practices at the expense of workers and consumers, as the powerful continue to accumulate advantage and apply it effectively to accumulate even more.
Stores open 24-7 can be perfectly fine. It's the argument you present for it that is not fine.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
:grr:
Don't you go a-screechin' boy. :glare:
QuoteIf Person A doesn't want to work more than 40 hours a week, and Person B wants to work 60, and The Firm wants people to work infinity hours a week, Person B has a competitive advantage over Persona A, unless Person A hides his distaste and agrees to work 60 hours a week. The labor supply of people willing to work 60 hours a week just doubled. IT'S LIKE MAGIC.
I really have no idea how this relates to our discussion.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2014, 09:51:42 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 26, 2014, 09:45:51 PM
This is getting way too far onto a topic. :mad:
I messaged CountdeMoney and he said he'd snip this out into its own thread
:rolleyes:
Jacob, you've completely lost me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2014, 10:44:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 26, 2014, 10:42:09 PM
Hi. I like pancakes.
I'm a waffle man.
A good waffle iron is a wonder, but at the altitude I live at means that a fluffy pancake is great.
But enough of this, how about that Wyoming basketball team?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
:grr:
Don't you go a-screechin' boy. :glare:
QuoteIf Person A doesn't want to work more than 40 hours a week, and Person B wants to work 60, and The Firm wants people to work infinity hours a week, Person B has a competitive advantage over Persona A, unless Person A hides his distaste and agrees to work 60 hours a week. The labor supply of people willing to work 60 hours a week just doubled. IT'S LIKE MAGIC.
I really have no idea how this relates to our discussion.
You asked how the labor supply increases, seems like a pretty basic explanation how that works.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2014, 10:36:09 PM
Working nights and weekends puts people out of synch with the rest of society. Yes it is needed for some professions, and yes everyone is inconvenienced by not be able to do grocery shopping at 2 am on a Saturday night. The people that work those odd hours tend to be the more marginal workers, and this is a big burden for them when providing childcare, obtaining additional educational opportunities, etc.
what's "the rest of society"? for a 35 year old bartender who works five nights a week, those he associates with may not work steady 9-5 office jobs. and childcare and educational opportunities are difficult either way. that you prefer daytime hours doesn't mean everyone else prefers them, too. people choose to work graveyard shifts, so they know what they're getting into.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 10:53:43 PM
Jacob, you've completely lost me.
Okay, I'll simplify.
1) I don't have a problem with late openings, weekend work etc by itself.
2) I think the free-market-independent-bargainers philosophy you espouse (in this case, to support extended opening hours in Europe) is completely bunk, and that it produces undesirable outcomes.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 26, 2014, 11:06:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2014, 10:36:09 PM
Working nights and weekends puts people out of synch with the rest of society. Yes it is needed for some professions, and yes everyone is inconvenienced by not be able to do grocery shopping at 2 am on a Saturday night. The people that work those odd hours tend to be the more marginal workers, and this is a big burden for them when providing childcare, obtaining additional educational opportunities, etc.
what's "the rest of society"? for a 35 year old bartender who works five nights a week, those he associates with may not work steady 9-5 office jobs. and childcare and educational opportunities are difficult either way. that you prefer daytime hours doesn't mean everyone else prefers them, too. people choose to work graveyard shifts, so they know what they're getting into.
Everyone gets a choice. The low skilled single mother working the occasional graveyard shift because it is the only job she can land may not have a practical choice, but at least she does theoretically?
FWIW, in Germany people do work graveyard shifts, and restaurants / bars are open nights and weekends. So even there your hypothetical person will still have a choice.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2014, 11:12:10 PMEveryone gets a choice. The low skilled single mother working the occasional graveyard shift because it is the only job she can land may not have a practical choice, but at least she does theoretically?
a single mother whose only mcjob she can land is a graveyard shift, and there are absolutely no alternatives available for years on end? that's going to be an extreme scenario, and we shouldn't base laws on extreme scenarios.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2014, 10:36:09 PM
Working nights and weekends puts people out of synch with the rest of society. Yes it is needed for some professions, and yes everyone is inconvenienced by not be able to do grocery shopping at 2 am on a Saturday night. The people that work those odd hours tend to be the more marginal workers, and this is a big burden for them when providing childcare, obtaining additional educational opportunities, etc.
Up to the point it starts creating unemployment or serious adverse economic impacts, I support the German system (though obviously living in the US system works better for someone like me that has a normal hour job anyway).
What the hell does that mean?
It means that he thinks he is better than us. Time for him to go to the wall. :menace:
Quote from: sbr on November 27, 2014, 12:20:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2014, 10:36:09 PM
Working nights and weekends puts people out of synch with the rest of society. Yes it is needed for some professions, and yes everyone is inconvenienced by not be able to do grocery shopping at 2 am on a Saturday night. The people that work those odd hours tend to be the more marginal workers, and this is a big burden for them when providing childcare, obtaining additional educational opportunities, etc.
Up to the point it starts creating unemployment or serious adverse economic impacts, I support the German system (though obviously living in the US system works better for someone like me that has a normal hour job anyway).
What the hell does that mean?
I think what AR means is that people who work the shittiest shifts are often the ones who are already having a shitty time of it. They are not taking those jobs because they prefer the timeframe or get better pay, but because they are desperate (i.e. they don't have another choice); furthermore, AR posits that the impact of the shitty shifts is harder on them because of they lack of various resources.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 12:28:08 AMI think what AR means is that people who work the shittiest shifts are often the ones who are already having a shitty time of it. They are not taking those jobs because they prefer the timeframe or get better pay, but because they are desperate (i.e. they don't have another choice); furthermore, AR posits that the impact of the shitty shifts is harder on them because of they lack of various resources.
having worked graveyard shifts in the past, i don't think this holds true for the majority.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 27, 2014, 12:45:22 AMhaving worked graveyard shifts in the past, i don't think this holds true for the majority.
I have no opinion on that.
A shit job is a shit job, but there can be benefits for working off-hours. For pizza delivery drivers, the guy working in the daytime usually gets fewer deliveries & smaller tips and may get tasked with food preparation duties that give no tips. For office security guards, during the day you have workers coming in and out constantly and feel the need to look busy. At night, just sit there and read your book. :D Also, people working nights/weekends tend to have less traffic on their way to work.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 27, 2014, 01:07:28 AM
A shit job is a shit job, but there can be benefits for working off-hours. For pizza delivery drivers, the guy working in the daytime usually gets fewer deliveries & smaller tips and may get tasked with food preparation duties that give no tips. For office security guards, during the day you have workers coming in and out constantly and feel the need to look busy. At night, just sit there and read your book. :D Also, people working nights/weekends tend to have less traffic on their way to work.
exactly. there are so many benefits that people might not realize. it's not for everyone, but lots of things in life aren't for everyone.
there's this attitude that just because it's different then that automatically means poor dreadful souls who are so lowly and desperate for work are forced into a miserable life of graveyard shifts, because why would anyone choose otherwise. i mean, fuck, get off the ivory tower. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:58:28 PM
Ultimately consumers aren't the only people in the world who matter.
Who are there beside consumers?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 27, 2014, 12:45:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 12:28:08 AMI think what AR means is that people who work the shittiest shifts are often the ones who are already having a shitty time of it. They are not taking those jobs because they prefer the timeframe or get better pay, but because they are desperate (i.e. they don't have another choice); furthermore, AR posits that the impact of the shitty shifts is harder on them because of they lack of various resources.
having worked graveyard shifts in the past, i don't think this holds true for the majority.
I loved nighshifts, for a while. And in my previous job I knew guys who had double the skill required to move out of the multiple-shift model and be regular office hours IT guys. They didn't, because they enjoyed that setup.
You know what is not a fun time? Streets of New York at 5am. All the drunk kids are in bed and the city is a ghost town. :cry:
I love being out then. There's something about cities slowly coming awake between 4 and 6 am.
Oh well this city doesn't come awake during that time period. It went to sleep at 4. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2014, 06:59:53 AM
Oh well this city doesn't come awake during that time period. It went to sleep at 4. :D
Today being a holiday probably had something to do with that though.
German cities do start early, with public transportation starting from 04.30 sometimes. In addition to night services running during the night but not as regular of course.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 27, 2014, 07:03:29 AM
German cities do start early, with public transportation starting from 04.30 sometimes. In addition to night services running during the night but not as regular of course.
24/7 subway! :punk:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2014, 05:50:08 AM
You know what is not a fun time? Streets of New York at 5am. All the drunk kids are in bed and the city is a ghost town. :cry:
I love the quiet in NYC at that time. It's like the whole city is taking a breather before the start of the next day.
Now that's a barber:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=679011795499175
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2014, 05:50:08 AM
You know what is not a fun time? Streets of New York at 5am. All the drunk kids are in bed and the city is a ghost town. :cry:
You just got Vanilla Skied. :o
Quote from: LaCroix on November 27, 2014, 12:45:22 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 12:28:08 AMI think what AR means is that people who work the shittiest shifts are often the ones who are already having a shitty time of it. They are not taking those jobs because they prefer the timeframe or get better pay, but because they are desperate (i.e. they don't have another choice); furthermore, AR posits that the impact of the shitty shifts is harder on them because of they lack of various resources.
having worked graveyard shifts in the past, i don't think this holds true for the majority.
I would be stunned if the people working graveyard shifts don't make less than the average worker. The examples you guys are tossing out: delivery driver, restaurant/bar worker, security guards, are generally low wage fairly unskilled work.
I also get the benefits. When I first came home from college and was told to get a job, the job I got was a graveyard shift at a convenience store/gas station because that seemed like a slack job of reading magazines and helping a couple customers an hour. So that works out okay for a single unattached guy on a short term basis. But there were also people working that job that had children.
I am pretty sure whatever job you are doing during nightshift, you are earning at least as much as if you were doing it during the day, maybe more.
And lets not forget, int his flurry of condescending, that if somebody works in the night shift, it means some other guy is working the day. Cut away the graveyard shift and you just closed a job. But hey, at least don't HAVE to stay up late when you are unemployed!
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:18:43 AM
I am pretty sure whatever job you are doing during nightshift, you are earning at least as much as if you were doing it during the day, maybe more.
And lets not forget, int his flurry of condescending, that if somebody works in the night shift, it means some other guy is working the day. Cut away the graveyard shift and you just closed a job. But hey, at least don't HAVE to stay up late when you are unemployed!
Arguments based on jobs created or destroyed are almost always full of shit, because they ignore the dynamic nature of the economy. Jobs follow spending, and people unable to spend by shopping at night will not generally give up on the whole idea of spending the money they allocated for that shopping trip. There may be some permanent effects on employment from some of the policies, but they have to be second-order in nature and are thus impossible to suss out so easily.
Quote from: frunk on November 27, 2014, 07:18:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2014, 05:50:08 AM
You know what is not a fun time? Streets of New York at 5am. All the drunk kids are in bed and the city is a ghost town. :cry:
I love the quiet in NYC at that time. It's like the whole city is taking a breather before the start of the next day.
Must be nice. I feel: unsafe.
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2014, 11:23:46 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:18:43 AM
I am pretty sure whatever job you are doing during nightshift, you are earning at least as much as if you were doing it during the day, maybe more.
And lets not forget, int his flurry of condescending, that if somebody works in the night shift, it means some other guy is working the day. Cut away the graveyard shift and you just closed a job. But hey, at least don't HAVE to stay up late when you are unemployed!
Arguments based on jobs created or destroyed are almost always full of shit, because they ignore the dynamic nature of the economy. Jobs follow spending, and people unable to spend by shopping at night will not generally give up on the whole idea of spending the money they allocated for that shopping trip. There may be some permanent effects on employment from some of the policies, but they have to be second-order in nature and are thus impossible to suss out so easily.
What is this. I dont even.
There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:32:43 AM
What is this. I dont even.
There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.
If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.
There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2014, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:32:43 AM
What is this. I dont even.
There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.
If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.
There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.
But you are seeing what you are writing? "I think people in night shifts are losers. The government should ban night shifts". This is the exact fucking thing we should be done with.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2014, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:32:43 AM
What is this. I dont even.
There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.
If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.
There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.
Piketty explains this in his book by saying that German apparent capital value (reflected in the prices of stocks of the German stock exchange) isseveral percentage points lower than those of the US or the UK, for companies of similar results and net asset value.
He says this is because the social model provides for a wider participation of non-shareholders (such as workers councils or local authorities) in the management of German companies. This discount results in an artifically lower GDP than it should be, if it were to reflect the real strength of German economy.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2014, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:32:43 AM
What is this. I dont even.
There is day and night, if somebody wanting to shop during the night have to delay it for the day, it will not extend the hours needed to be covered during the day. The night guy's job is not saved.
If there is more shopping in the day, there is likely to be more clerks needed during the day.
There are tradeoffs. Germany has a better education system than the US, better infrastructure, and higher population density (which is correlated with higher productivity). Despite these advantages, the US GDP per capita is 18% higher (measured by purchase price parity) or 12% higher (nominal). That probably isn't just due to shops closing for lunch, but it does probably have something to do with the social model.
But you are seeing what you are writing? "I think people in night shifts are losers. The government should ban night shifts". This is the exact fucking thing we should be done with.
That isn't what I'm writing at all. But I'm supposed to be going to thanksgiving dinner now so I can't explain the point I was trying to make which seems to have missed quite badly.
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought. You are in good company :)
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
That's fine. But what you coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande has anything to do with Piketty? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought. You are in good company :)
I didnt say I did not like what I have read about his conclusions. I am saying that despite making sense on the surface (although to be fair there is plenty of well formulated criticism out there as well), I can't help thinking that a socialist arguing for more equailty in wealth is hardly a revolutionary revelation. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2014, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
That's fine. But what you coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande has anything to do with Piketty? :huh:
It is highly unfair from me, granted. But it does tell about the views influencing him early, and their colleration to his views today. Still doesn't stop the guy from being right of course, but as I said above, puts his conclusions in context a bit.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:58:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought. You are in good company :)
I didnt say I did not like what I have read about his conclusions. I am saying that despite making sense on the surface (although to be fair there is plenty of well formulated criticism out there as well), I can't help thinking that a socialist arguing for more equailty in wealth is hardly a revolutionary revelation. ;)
Yeah, that is pretty much what every idiot who reviewed the book without reading it thought. You are in good company :)
Ehhh.
I haven't read his book, true. I have read a number of reviews. Some of them were raving it as the next big revelation in human history, some teared it apart (after reading it), and some were in between.
And what I said is that although I don't think I am correct in doing so, but I can't help drawing a correlation between his poltical views and conclusions reached after his research.
I literally started with a mea culpa. But I still get to be called an idiot. Yay Internet.
Tamas, read the book. You are making assumptions which are not accurate. His conclusions are not based on ideology nor are they in any way contraversial. Unless you think that creating a better education system is a bad idea or that governments should not be better at cracking down on tax evasion.
And yeah, you are an idiot for thinking you know the book from such widely varying secondary sources.
I wonder what Marti's reading at the minute, anyone have an idea?
"I did not read Pasternak, but I'm outraged by his works". :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2014, 12:16:35 PM
I wonder what Marti's reading at the minute, anyone have an idea?
For some reason he thought he excused all this summarizing by prefacing that he would be posting arguments from it while he reads it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2014, 12:13:34 PM
Tamas, read the book. You are making assumptions which are not accurate. His conclusions are not based on ideology nor are they in any way contraversial. Unless you think that creating a better education system is a bad idea or that governments should not be better at cracking down on tax evasion.
And yeah, you are an idiot for thinking you know the book from such widely varying secondary sources.
:rolleyes: Fine, I will read it :P
Still don't appreciate being called an idiot.
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2014, 12:18:39 PM
"I did not read Pasternak, but I'm outraged by his works". :mad:
I did not read the official Democrat memos but you and Raz always do good executive summaries.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2014, 12:18:39 PM
"I did not read Pasternak, but I'm outraged by his works". :mad:
I did not read the official Democrat memos but you and Raz always do good executive summaries.
That wasn't clever the first time, and it's not getting any more clever with age.
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2014, 12:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2014, 12:18:39 PM
"I did not read Pasternak, but I'm outraged by his works". :mad:
I did not read the official Democrat memos but you and Raz always do good executive summaries.
That wasn't clever the first time, and it's not getting any more clever with age.
Persistence prevails.
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2014, 12:25:18 PM
That wasn't clever the first time, and it's not getting any more clever with age.
I didn't read the post you responded to, but it was idiotic.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 12:20:25 PM
Still don't appreciate being called an idiot.
On languish? :P
Quote from: Tyr on November 26, 2014, 04:36:43 PM
There should be tax breaks from pubs to get people to stop drinking at home and drink out instead. For the good of society and all that.
Personally, I don;t have a problem with introducing the minimum alcohol levy of around 40p / 50p per unit that has been talked out, as it will actually help even out the price difference between the supermarkets / off licences & the pubs & clubs, and make going out more attractive.
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2014, 03:51:07 PM
With few exceptions (police, fire departments, hospitals ...) working on Sundays is not permitted in Germany. The states are permitted to add more exceptions if required to maintain a certain level of infrastructure that's indispensable.
Hessen's law in that regard has now been cancelled by a federal court. The court finds that video stores, libraries, and customer service hotlines are not worthy of exemption. Also not permitted: working production plants for beverages or ice cream on Sundays.
This will have repercussions for similar laws in other German states.
Poland, despite being a religious country, has no such thing. There are occasional attempts (from an exotic coalition of socialists and religious right) to ban trade on Sundays, but so far our entrepreneurial spirit/jungle capitalism (depends whom you ask) has won each time.
There are only 13 days in a year (public holidays) when trade is not permitted, but even then there are exceptions (self-owned businesses, restaurants, cinemas, etc.) so in practice the only days in a year when there are no restaurants open in my neighbourhood are the Christmas day (25 December), the New Year and the Easter Sunday.
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I can't help being pretty prejudiced against Piketty on account of coming from a communist family and supporting Hollande.
He's not supporting Hollande anymore and described him as "fairly worthless". Hollande once advocated measures from Pickety but did not implement them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2014, 07:49:56 PM
Restricting store hours means fewer jobs and also inconveniences those workers when they want to shop/eat/etc. I really don't see the advantage of having the government step in and enforce such restrictions.
I agree with you. I prefer the Polish system, where (except for emergencies) you have to provide employees with 2 free days per every seven days - and even then when they are required to work on their free day, you have to give them a day off. This way people can still work on Saturdays and Sundays (which I think is a good thing as it helps the economy) while not overworking employees by having them work 7 days a week or so.
The ruling coalition has mused recently about a possibility of replacing the mandatory day off policy with an option to pay the employees for such day instead but this was widely criticised by the opposition and some members of the coalition (and rightly so) as doing away with a 5-work-day week.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
There are only 13 days in a year (public holidays) when trade is not permitted, but even then there are exceptions (self-owned businesses, restaurants, cinemas, etc.) so in practice the only days in a year when there are no restaurants open in my neighbourhood are the Christmas day (25 December), the New Year and the Easter Sunday.
So jealous. We've only got 8 bank holidays :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2014, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
There are only 13 days in a year (public holidays) when trade is not permitted, but even then there are exceptions (self-owned businesses, restaurants, cinemas, etc.) so in practice the only days in a year when there are no restaurants open in my neighbourhood are the Christmas day (25 December), the New Year and the Easter Sunday.
So jealous. We've only got 8 bank holidays :weep:
Well, at least in my line of work, because I have many international clients, I very often have to work on the extra Polish/catholic holidays - although now that I have more French and German clients (as opposed to just American and British) this is getting better, since they often have the same holidays. :P
One thing you Brits are smart about is that several (I think) of your holidays are moving holidays so that they always happen on Monday or some such, which is very convenient. Here because a specific date is "magical" for some obscure religious or patriotic reason, they often happen on Sundays.
Edit: And specifically, Easter Sunday and Pentecost *always* happen on Sunday. So, especially with Pentecost (which is not widely celebrated unless you are a really devout Catholic), it's an "Ambush Holiday" when you go shopping and realise everything is closed...
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2014, 01:47:20 PM
One thing you Brits are smart about is that several (I think) of your holidays are moving holidays so that they always happen on Monday or some such, which is very convenient. Here because a specific date is "magical" for some obscure religious or patriotic reason, they often happen on Sundays.
Yeah. I think it's a sensible system. So much better than situations where you lose the day because it's already on a Sunday or it's on, say Wednesday.
It only really affects Christmas though and if it's on a weekend then we move it to the next two days and take them off instead. All our other bank holidays are on Mondays. With the exception of Easter and Christmas I don't even know why we have them. They're not identified as religious or national, so the bank holiday at the end of August is called 'August bank holiday' :lol:
BC recently added another statutory holiday (as we call them over here) and the justification was pretty much "we need a stat holiday in February, since we have one in every other month."
I think it's a straight up quality of life thing. Long weekends are great.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
BC recently added another statutory holiday (as we call them over here) and the justification was pretty much "we need a stat holiday in February, since we have one in every other month."
I think it's a straight up quality of life thing. Long weekends are great.
we in Ontario got family day too, but we just lost a floating day, rather than gaming another stat holiday
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2014, 07:05:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 27, 2014, 07:03:29 AM
German cities do start early, with public transportation starting from 04.30 sometimes. In addition to night services running during the night but not as regular of course.
24/7 subway! :punk:
We have all this talk about driverless cars, but we cannot even make driverless subways/trains. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2014, 07:05:17 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 27, 2014, 07:03:29 AM
German cities do start early, with public transportation starting from 04.30 sometimes. In addition to night services running during the night but not as regular of course.
24/7 subway! :punk:
We have all this talk about driverless cars, but we cannot even make driverless subways/trains. :P
We can, just not in NYC. The system is too antiquated and hodgepodge, and the unions are too strong.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
We have all this talk about driverless cars, but we cannot even make driverless subways/trains. :P
The Skytrain in Vancouver is driverless.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
We have all this talk about driverless cars, but we cannot even make driverless subways/trains. :P
The Skytrain in Vancouver is driverless.
Great now Seedy is going to accuse us of riding unicorns and having gold at end of rainbows again.
Think of all those poor, potentially employable union train drivers. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 04:53:37 PM
Think of all those poor, potentially employable union train drivers. :mad:
The bus part of BC Transit are continuously looking to hire drivers according to the advertising, so hopefully they can find a job there.
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
1) Take your classist BS and shove it.
2) Bus drivers, and train drivers, are plebs.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
I havent been called that in a very long time. Thank you :wub:
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 05:55:10 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
1) Take your classist BS and shove it.
2) Bus drivers, and train drivers, are plebs.
We are all plebs. :P
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
We have all this talk about driverless cars, but we cannot even make driverless subways/trains. :P
The Skytrain in Vancouver is driverless.
So's the Metro in Athens. Or anywhere modern.
Sadly London's Tube was mostly built 150 years ago which makes for some practical difficulties with driverless trains.
Forcing people to work every weekend as if they were normal days is horrible.
Wages should be higher (used to do time and a half years ago....no longer) and at least one weekend per month allowed off.
But outright banning shops opening Sunday is madness
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
Driving is for plebs. And the very rich . Not normal folks.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 06:04:33 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 05:55:10 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
1) Take your classist BS and shove it.
2) Bus drivers, and train drivers, are plebs.
We are all plebs. :P
Yes, you people are. Smelly plebs.
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2014, 06:30:02 PM
Forcing people to work every weekend as if they were normal days is horrible.
Wages should be higher (used to do time and a half years ago....no longer) and at least one weekend per month allowed off.
But outright banning shops opening Sunday is madness
Assuming you are not religious, in the long run what's the difference if you work every Saturday and Sunday but get Monday and Tuesday off? Many employees, especially younger ones, actually prefer such a set up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 10:53:43 PM
Jacob, you've completely lost me.
:lol:
It's funny especially because, watching from the sidelines, I have been following Jacob's argument from the beginning to an end and at no time I thought I would have done it better. His line of reasoning is crystal clear and, moreover, there is nothing in it that is especially novel or unheard of.
I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you make me wonder whether you are trolling or there is some cognitive deficiency going on (whether psychological or otherwise).
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2014, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Buses are for plebs. :glare:
Driving is for plebs. And the very . Not normal folks.
I'm rather skeptical that poor folk in Britain are better able to handle the costs of car ownership than the bourgeoisie.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:51:23 AM
It's funny especially because, watching from the sidelines, I have been following Jacob's argument from the beginning to an end and at no time I thought I would have done it better. His line of reasoning is crystal clear and, moreover, there is nothing in it that is especially novel or unheard of.
I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you make me wonder whether you are trolling or there is some cognitive deficiency going on (whether psychological or otherwise).
Then be so kind as to explain it to me.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
Assuming you are not religious, in the long run what's the difference if you work every Saturday and Sunday but get Monday and Tuesday off? Many employees, especially younger ones, actually prefer such a set up.
Hell, as long as it wasn't football season, I loved having weekdays off. Can get shit done like shopping without all the crowds, and if there are appointments, you can make them without missing time during the week.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2014, 06:30:02 PM
Forcing people to work every weekend as if they were normal days is horrible.
Wages should be higher (used to do time and a half years ago....no longer) and at least one weekend per month allowed off.
But outright banning shops opening Sunday is madness
Assuming you are not religious, in the long run what's the difference if you work every Saturday and Sunday but get Monday and Tuesday off? Many employees, especially younger ones, actually prefer such a set up.
Especially the young?
They are the ones for whom.it is especially bad.
I worked weekends for several months. It was horrible. Weekends are when most people have their time off and everything is happening. Working weekends ruined my life.
Having days off during the week doesnt feel like a real break. Theres nothing to do but sit at home since most people wait until the weekend to do stuff.
QuoteI'm rather skeptical that poor folk in Britain are better able to handle the costs of car ownership than the bourgeoisie
Its nothing to do with ability to afford a car. Its more aboit the cost of accomodation.
The poor have no choice but to live in the arse end of nowhere and drive if they want to go anywhere.
If you have a decent amount of money though then you can afford to live somewhere with decent rail links, or if youre very lucky/wealthy, somewhere you can walk or bike to work and the city centre.
The rich also like to live in nice places in the countryside or, if they live in cities, they dont care about having a frivelous and unneeded toy.
People in the middle usually are able to afford a car without it damaging their finances too much. But in the 21st century if you can avoid that hastle then all the better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 01:56:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:51:23 AM
It's funny especially because, watching from the sidelines, I have been following Jacob's argument from the beginning to an end and at no time I thought I would have done it better. His line of reasoning is crystal clear and, moreover, there is nothing in it that is especially novel or unheard of.
I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you make me wonder whether you are trolling or there is some cognitive deficiency going on (whether psychological or otherwise).
Then be so kind as to explain it to me.
Explain what to you?
Jacob's argument from beginning to end. The crystal clear one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 02:22:22 AM
Jacob's argument from beginning to end. The crystal clear one.
You must be kidding me?
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2014, 02:06:33 AM
Its nothing to do with ability to afford a car. Its more aboit the cost of accomodation.
The poor have no choice but to live in the arse end of nowhere and drive if they want to go anywhere.
If you have a decent amount of money though then you can afford to live somewhere with decent rail links, or if youre very lucky/wealthy, somewhere you can walk or bike to work and the city centre.
The rich also like to live in nice places in the countryside or, if they live in cities, they dont care about having a frivelous and unneeded toy.
People in the middle usually are able to afford a car without it damaging their finances too much. But in the 21st century if you can avoid that hastle then all the better.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243957/nts2012-01.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243957/nts2012-01.pdf)
If you scroll down to page 18, there's a chart showing average distance traveled per year and the method used. Each quintile travels more miles by car in a year than the ones below it. Also, each travels far more miles by car than by the other methods of transportation combined.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 01:56:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:51:23 AM
It's funny especially because, watching from the sidelines, I have been following Jacob's argument from the beginning to an end and at no time I thought I would have done it better. His line of reasoning is crystal clear and, moreover, there is nothing in it that is especially novel or unheard of.
I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you make me wonder whether you are trolling or there is some cognitive deficiency going on (whether psychological or otherwise).
Then be so kind as to explain it to me.
Done.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2014, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2014, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
We have all this talk about driverless cars, but we cannot even make driverless subways/trains. :P
The Skytrain in Vancouver is driverless.
So's the Metro in Athens. Or anywhere modern.
Sadly London's Tube was mostly built 150 years ago which makes for some practical difficulties with driverless trains.
Possible to do but expensive and time consuming see line 1 in Paris, the oldest one (1900) and now almost as good as line 14, the most recent one, and driverless of course.
Car is freedom. Having good transport links like I do here is great and everything, and yes in a city they make more sense than rotting in a traffic jam, but without a car you are highly inconvinienced in a lot of situations, and basically you are tied to your immediate neighborhood like some feudal peasant.
And as for working weekends: don't like it? Don't do it. Switch and let some other guy have your job. You don't have a choice? Be happy you got that job then.
When I worked multiple shifts I didn't hear anyone wishing the government made their job illegal.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 04:38:17 AM
Car is freedom. Having good transport links like I do here is great and everything, and yes in a city they make more sense than rotting in a traffic jam, but without a car you are highly inconvinienced in a lot of situations, and basically you are tied to your immediate neighborhood like some feudal peasant.
I don't feel like this at all. Since I moved to Warsaw, I have never been in a situation where I couldn't get somewhere cheaper and/or more conveniently either on foot, on a bike, in a taxi, on a bus/metro or by plane. :huh:
Admittedly I got a car at the nagging of my boyfriend but he is the only one using it now, pretty much.
Let's imagine you cannot use taxis regularly, because, you know, you are not stinking rich.
Car is freedom.
A taxi ride within Vienna rarely comes out at above 15 EUR. And that is discounting excellent public transport in the center - the outskirts can be a bit cumbersome to get to a subway/major tram line, but it's manageable. And even if we talk hauling of stuff there's alternatives for that or delivery options. And if push comes to shove you might still use a rental (if you move apartments, for example).
Still we are talking about depending on others' services for doing stuff you could do on your own with a car.
It is a matter of taste. Personally, I miss my car, but in no hurry to get one because there is not much point right now. But I won't be able to hold off forever.
Having a car in Vienna would be way too expensive for me with taxes, parking space and insurance, considering my annual ticket costs me under €40.- a month (just a parking space in a garage will be more expensive than that), public transport to work and around my usual haunts is as fast as taking a car, and the only benefit would be to use it to get out of town once in a while, and that seems hardly worth it.
YMMV, of course (literally). If I was living on the outskirts or in the countryside, I'd have a different perspective.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 04:57:44 AM
Still we are talking about depending on others' services for doing stuff you could do on your own with a car.
I fail to see how this is different from depending on fuel, parking places, insurance and technical checks for your car.
And a car makes your options more limited than you think - for example forget about driving anywhere where you would drink alcohol and then go home.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 05:40:43 AM
And a car makes your options more limited than you think - for example forget about driving anywhere where you would drink alcohol and then go home.
You still have all the same options to get there you do without the car.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 02:22:22 AM
Jacob's argument from beginning to end. The crystal clear one.
Why do it twice? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2014, 06:30:02 PM
Forcing people to work every weekend as if they were normal days is horrible.
Wages should be higher (used to do time and a half years ago....no longer) and at least one weekend per month allowed off.
But outright banning shops opening Sunday is madness
Assuming you are not religious, in the long run what's the difference if you work every Saturday and Sunday but get Monday and Tuesday off? Many employees, especially younger ones, actually prefer such a set up.
As having been a non religious young person who worked weekends, I certainly did not prefer working those days. I suppose if one doesnt have a lot of social contact it wouldnt matter but it really sucks when our friends are not working but you are.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 09:02:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2014, 06:30:02 PM
Forcing people to work every weekend as if they were normal days is horrible.
Wages should be higher (used to do time and a half years ago....no longer) and at least one weekend per month allowed off.
But outright banning shops opening Sunday is madness
Assuming you are not religious, in the long run what's the difference if you work every Saturday and Sunday but get Monday and Tuesday off? Many employees, especially younger ones, actually prefer such a set up.
As having been a non religious young person who worked weekends, I certainly did not prefer working those days. I suppose if one doesnt have a lot of social contact it wouldnt matter but it really sucks when our friends are not working but you are.
Whether its the same to work on weekends and weekdays should not be part of this conversation about whether the government should make weekend work verboten.
What if its worse? Working on a garbage truck is considerably worse than working in an air conditioned office browsing the Internet between actually working.
This is one of the most typical examples of needless state involvement. If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway. If there is one, and they can find somebody to do it, then it is no place for the government to prevent those people from having a job. And if they do, they screw over two groups of people with one stroke: those who would be willing to work weekends instead of being on the dole, and the customers who would need the particular service during the weekends.
I dont think anyone is saying to ban it outright.
Weekends hoewever shouldnt be treat like any other day. Higher wages should apply at the least. Better would be at least one weekend a month where you dont have to work
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway.
That makes about as much sense as saying that if there was a demand for slaves or indentured servants then laws prohibiting that should be abolished. It is just silly to argue that there shouldnt be minimum employment standards because the market will regulate everything perfectly.
Rather the argument is, as a matter of good public policy, what regulations should be put in place.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 04:43:47 AM
Let's imagine you cannot use taxis regularly, because, you know, you are not stinking rich.
Car is freedom.
It really sounds like you should move to the US.
Or you should check out the study I linked earlier. Majority of trips in the UK are taken by car(graph on page 13). The proportion goes up even higher when looking at mileage, naturally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway.
That makes about as much sense as saying that if there was a demand for slaves or indentured servants then laws prohibiting that should be abolished. It is just silly to argue that there shouldnt be minimum employment standards because the market will regulate everything perfectly.
Rather the argument is, as a matter of good public policy, what regulations should be put in place.
Yeah. Listening to Yi and Tamas it's become clear how intellectually vacuous the dogmatic free market position is when turned into a political philosophy rather than a useful economic tool.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway.
That makes about as much sense as saying that if there was a demand for slaves or indentured servants then laws prohibiting that should be abolished. It is just silly to argue that there shouldnt be minimum employment standards because the market will regulate everything perfectly.
Rather the argument is, as a matter of good public policy, what regulations should be put in place.
Did you really just put an equal sign between weekend shift and slavery?
I actually typed the explanation of the difference here but then realised I will not sink that low. I mean come on.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 12:13:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway.
That makes about as much sense as saying that if there was a demand for slaves or indentured servants then laws prohibiting that should be abolished. It is just silly to argue that there shouldnt be minimum employment standards because the market will regulate everything perfectly.
Rather the argument is, as a matter of good public policy, what regulations should be put in place.
Yeah. Listening to Yi and Tamas it's become clear how intellectually vacuous the dogmatic free market position is when turned into a political philosophy rather than a useful economic tool.
Yes. Letting willing people earn money on weekends equals legalisation of slavery.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:16:12 PMYes. Letting willing people earn money on weekends equals legalisation of slavery.
Have you read the thread?
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:16:12 PMYes. Letting willing people earn money on weekends equals legalisation of slavery.
Have you read the thread?
There can be a debate about what kind of regulation there should be for weekend word. But the argument against "next to nothing" is not "well then you are fine with slavery"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2014, 02:36:45 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2014, 02:06:33 AM
Its nothing to do with ability to afford a car. Its more aboit the cost of accomodation.
The poor have no choice but to live in the arse end of nowhere and drive if they want to go anywhere.
If you have a decent amount of money though then you can afford to live somewhere with decent rail links, or if youre very lucky/wealthy, somewhere you can walk or bike to work and the city centre.
The rich also like to live in nice places in the countryside or, if they live in cities, they dont care about having a frivelous and unneeded toy.
People in the middle usually are able to afford a car without it damaging their finances too much. But in the 21st century if you can avoid that hastle then all the better.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243957/nts2012-01.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243957/nts2012-01.pdf)
If you scroll down to page 18, there's a chart showing average distance traveled per year and the method used. Each quintile travels more miles by car in a year than the ones below it. Also, each travels far more miles by car than by the other methods of transportation combined.
The important point there is that it doesn't divide by age and the overall number of car journeys is sharply in decline. Give it time. As the old people die off and/or stop driving and millenials and touchies (whatever they're called) become the primary adult age group things will look very different.
For wealthy people driving more- I think there we need to see median miles per day rather than miles per year. There's a big difference between living a sub-human car-based life and going on road trips in the holidays.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway.
That makes about as much sense as saying that if there was a demand for slaves or indentured servants then laws prohibiting that should be abolished. It is just silly to argue that there shouldnt be minimum employment standards because the market will regulate everything perfectly.
Rather the argument is, as a matter of good public policy, what regulations should be put in place.
Did you really just put an equal sign between weekend shift and slavery?
Tamas, I am glad to see that you see some limit on your theory that government should not regulate employment conditions. Prebumably you now agree that the discussion is really what regulations should be put in place as a matter of good public policy rather than the rather unhelpful argument that if there is a demand there should be a supply.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:16:12 PMYes. Letting willing people earn money on weekends equals legalisation of slavery.
Have you read the thread?
There can be a debate about what kind of regulation there should be for weekend word. But the argument against "next to nothing" is not "well then you are fine with slavery"
And no one has made that argument :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 12:29:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
If there is no demand in a particular job to work weekends, then nobody will employ weekend-workers anyway.
That makes about as much sense as saying that if there was a demand for slaves or indentured servants then laws prohibiting that should be abolished. It is just silly to argue that there shouldnt be minimum employment standards because the market will regulate everything perfectly.
Rather the argument is, as a matter of good public policy, what regulations should be put in place.
Did you really just put an equal sign between weekend shift and slavery?
Tamas, I am glad to see that you see some limit on your theory that government should not regulate employment conditions. Prebumably you now agree that the discussion is really what regulations should be put in place as a matter of good public policy rather than the rather unhelpful argument that if there is a demand there should be a supply.
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:16:12 PMYes. Letting willing people earn money on weekends equals legalisation of slavery.
Have you read the thread?
There can be a debate about what kind of regulation there should be for weekend word. But the argument against "next to nothing" is not "well then you are fine with slavery"
But your argument is that policy should be driven by market economic demand alone. If you follow that logic to its logical economic conclusion there should be no laws regulating any employment conditions. Once you acknowledge that other facts must also be taken into consideration then we enter the realm of reasonable policy debate.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
:huh: It is the most basic of workplace regulation - workers must be paid a wage and must not be compelled to perform a contract of employment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 12:45:16 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
:huh: It is the most basic of workplace regulation - workers must be paid a wage and must not be compelled to perform a contract of employment.
Nice troll.
I simply refuse to believe you don't know the difference between slavery and sub-standard working conditions.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:55:30 PMNice troll.
I simply refuse to believe you don't know the difference between slavery and sub-standard working conditions.
I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.
But I'll try once more:
Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2014, 12:45:16 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
:huh: It is the most basic of workplace regulation - workers must be paid a wage and must not be compelled to perform a contract of employment.
Nice troll.
I simply refuse to believe you don't know the difference between slavery and sub-standard working conditions.
Ok
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 04:57:44 AM
Still we are talking about depending on others' services for doing stuff you could do on your own with a car.
It is a matter of taste. Personally, I miss my car, but in no hurry to get one because there is not much point right now. But I won't be able to hold off forever.
Yeah, weird.
I need to learn to drive because I aspire to be in Tyr's rich class who lives in the country :lol:
But I've never felt in my current life that I've needed a car. I enjoy just getting on a train/bus/tube and being able to read or sleep until I get where I'm going. Whether it's for a holiday or just to work. That's nice time for me.
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2014, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?
For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.
If only all the black people in the Americas knew they didnt have it any different than Tyr when he hated his weekend shifts.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2014, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?
For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.
What if the contract you signed precludes you from quitting?
Then it's probably illegal and unenforceable.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2014, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2014, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?
For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.
What if the contract you signed precludes you from quitting?
Well, admittedly, in Tamas's favour, such contracts can only provide for a financial penalty for quitting. You cannot be effectively forced to work for someone against your will (I am not talking about stuff like conscription, of course).
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 04:43:47 AM
Let's imagine you cannot use taxis regularly, because, you know, you are not stinking rich.
Car is freedom.
Taxis are dirt cheap in Warsaw. A standard fare within the downtown is approximately 5 euros and a trip to the airport from my flat is about 7-10 euros.
Single fare bus/metro tickets are about 1 euro.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 04:43:47 AM
Let's imagine you cannot use taxis regularly, because, you know, you are not stinking rich.
Car is freedom.
Taxis are dirt cheap in Warsaw. A standard fare within the downtown is approximately 5 euros and a trip to the airport from my flat is about 7-10 euros.
Single fare bus/metro tickets are about 1 euro.
While that is not expansive, that is not cheap.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 01:35:16 PMFor starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.
What if you can't quit because you owe your employee money, due to the contract you signed with them governing the terms of your employment or your place of residence?
What if you can't quit because your employee controls all the jobs you can get to, they control all means of travel into and out of the area, and they control everywhere you can spend your money?
What if you can't quit because your contract says you can't, and you have no access to legal advice as to whether you have other means to escape your contract?
What if you can quit, but you'll starve to death if you do so?
What if you can quit, but the options available to you make staying at your work and accepting sexual harassment, dangerous working conditions, and/or severe long-term health degradation seem the better choice nonetheless?
... all these things should be resolved merely by deferring to supply and demand, and letting the invisible hand of the market do its thing?
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:47:15 PM
Well, admittedly, in Tamas's favour, such contracts can only provide for a financial penalty for quitting. You cannot be effectively forced to work for someone against your will (I am not talking about stuff like conscription, of course).
You can of course volunteer for the military. They typically don't let you out whenever you feel like it. There are other situations such as when the employer controls the means of egress like on a ship at sea. Generally the only reason you cannot be forced to work against your will is because there are laws forbidding it, not because something innate in the concept of contracts. Debt bondage has been quite widespread in history still occurs in a lot of the third world. Tamas wishes to create a clear distinction between the idea of "labor" and "unfree labor". I (and other here), do not see this separation. Unfree labor is simply a category of labor. Laws concerning the regulation of unfree labor are laws concerning labor. That seems self evident. I understand why Tamas doesn't like this, it puts his ideology in a bad light, and is in my opinion a central flaw in it.
If you wish to create a society where a person has maximum freedom over themselves, then you have to allow them to voluntarily forfeit that freedom if they so choose. Since you'll have lots who make poor choices in life or are in desperate situations you'll have a large number of people who will end up forfeiting that freedom. Thus you would have a lot of slaves.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.
But I'll try once more:
Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?
Is this the gist of the crystal clear argument?
While I sympathise with your side, Raz and Jacob, I think you are moving the post somewhat here.
Sure, the economical coercion exists and this is why Tamas/Yi are wrong. But some of the examples you quote would constitute physical coercion and would be illegal.
While I do recognise a need to protect against some forms of economical coercion - this is not the same as physical coercion.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 03:10:34 PM
While I sympathise with your side, Raz and Jacob, I think you are moving the post somewhat here.
Sure, the economical coercion exists and this is why Tamas/Yi are wrong. But some of the examples you quote would constitute physical coercion and would be illegal.
While I do recognise a need to protect against some forms of economical coercion - this is not the same as physical coercion.
No goal post moving going on. I'm trying to find out where, how, and why (or indeed if) Tamas draws the line on the limit of the actions of the invisible hand and freedom of contracting. Thus there is a range of situations.
Maybe he'll say they are all fine. Maybe he'll say they're all bad. Maybe some are okay, and some are not. I'm interested in his position and the reasoning behind it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.
But I'll try once more:
Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?
Is this the gist of the crystal clear argument?
It's an attempt to understand your - or at this point, Tamas' - position. It is a question that proponents of a completely free market have to address, one way or the other. Are there things that cannot be contracted away? Do unequal bargaining positions matter or not, including at the extreme?
My argument proceeds differently, depending on the answer. When I was talking to you, I attempted to account for several potential answers, since none was forthcoming.
Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2014, 04:48:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
Service workers should have rights too :contract:
If working evenings and weekends is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly.
Are you saying that in order to combat increasing working hours and stagnating wages for several decades in this country we just need to have a massive nationwide general strike? To indicate our unwillingness to continue to work harder for less? That this will bring about a massive improvement in wages and working conditions? That is a very revolutionary idea Yi one I am very surprised you would advocate. I have to say I am impressed.
I am not sure it is foolproof though. It may just tank the economy and be socially destabilizing. But I applaud your radical ideas.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2014, 04:30:42 PM
Are you saying that in order to combat increasing working hours and stagnating wages for several decades in this country we just need to have a massive nationwide general strike? To indicate our unwillingness to continue to work harder for less? That this will bring about a massive improvement in wages and working conditions? That is a very revolutionary idea Yi one I am very surprised you would advocate. I have to say I am impressed.
I am not sure it is foolproof though. It may just tank the economy and be socially destabilizing. But I applaud your radical ideas.
A strike is not what I'm talking about. A strike is an attempt to impose terms and conditions on an existing job.
What I'm talking about is less people being willing to perform that job at the terms and conditions that exist. Supply and demand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 04:47:45 PM
A strike is not what I'm talking about. A strike is an attempt to impose terms and conditions on an existing job.
What I'm talking about is less people being willing to perform that job at the terms and conditions that exist. Supply and demand.
Exactly. You are saying the cause of our labor conditions is willingness to work under them. We need to refuse to work until those are rectified. Supply and Demand.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 04:47:45 PM
A strike is not what I'm talking about. A strike is an attempt to impose terms and conditions on an existing job.
What I'm talking about is less people being willing to perform that job at the terms and conditions that exist. Supply and demand.
Exactly. You are saying the cause of our labor conditions is willingness to work under them. We need to refuse to work until those are rectified. Supply and Demand.
You will always have scabs.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
Exactly. You are saying the cause of our labor conditions is willingness to work under them. We need to refuse to work until those are rectified. Supply and Demand.
A strike is more than a refusal to work under the existing conditions. It's also a message that others who find the conditions acceptable should not take the job.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 03:26:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.
But I'll try once more:
Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?
Is this the gist of the crystal clear argument?
It's an attempt to understand your - or at this point, Tamas' - position. It is a question that proponents of a completely free market have to address, one way or the other. Are there things that cannot be contracted away? Do unequal bargaining positions matter or not, including at the extreme?
My argument proceeds differently, depending on the answer. When I was talking to you, I attempted to account for several potential answers, since none was forthcoming.
It is the usual tactic: I/somebody else mentions the idea of keeping regulation to a minimum in order to help the creation of jobs, and your side of the argument pretends we are calling for anarchy.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 05:25:04 PMIt is the usual tactic: I/somebody else mentions the idea of keeping regulation to a minimum in order to help the creation of jobs, and your side of the argument pretends we are calling for anarchy.
I'm not pretending you are calling for anarchy. I'm saying that the argument you're making is facile, ill-considered, and morally bankrupt.
It has nothing to do with any given amount of regulation (or whether it "aids job creation"). I've stated several times in this thread already that I have no issue with 24-7 store openings in principle. My objection is to the argument you bring to the discussion.
You live in a society where your entire economic existence is predicated on a tight network of regulations and laws that ensure that unequal exploitation is lesser than it's been in pretty much any period or place in history; and that is to your benefit. Yet you dogmatically stake a claim that regulation is fundamentally anathema. Your contribution to any discussion involving regulation is always and unerringly that it is bad and inhibits the free market, with no allowances and no exceptions; thus you appear callow.
By all means argue that any given set of regulations are counter productive. That's completely legitimate and should be discussed on the merits; I agree that counter productive regulations should be done away with (especially if it helps with job creation). However, when someone points out problems associated with removing certain regulation, a sweeping reference to "the market will sort it out" or "supply and demand" is straight up juvenile.
My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy. The policy may be good, or it may not, but the justification for it is bunk.
That is absolutely not the only argument I've offered. :mellow:
I argued that little regulation in this particular case is good because it preserves jobs and is beneficial to the customer, and I did try to outline those. I concede of being dogmatic in some cases, but I was not in this one, hence my flipping over CC's claim of my support for slavery.
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
I argued that little regulation in this particular case is good because it preserves jobs and is beneficial to the customer, and I did try to outline those.
Fair enough. Personally, I favour longer opening hours in Europe as well, though I do like the pace the closed-Sundays rule gives as well. It isn't a moral issue though, but a technocratic one of quality of life and efficiency.
QuoteI concede of being dogmatic in some cases, but I was not in this one, hence my flipping over CC's claim of my support for slavery.
I'm still curious on where, how, and on what grounds you (and Yi) are willing to place limits on the free market and contracting; but we can save that for some other time if you're up for it :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 05:55:51 PM
That is absolutely not the only argument I've offered. :mellow:
What other arguments have you offered? :mellow:
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 06:03:08 PM
What other arguments have you offered? :mellow:
If German workers find evening and weekend hours onerous, fewer of them will make themselves available. This diminished labor pool will drive up wages. Some German workers, who may be indifferent to working hours or who are willing to sacrifice for the higher wages, will see an improvement in their conditions.
People make money by doing what others are unwilling or unable to do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 06:03:08 PM
What other arguments have you offered? :mellow:
If German workers find evening and weekend hours onerous, fewer of them will make themselves available. This diminished labor pool will drive up wages. Some German workers, who may be indifferent to working hours or who are willing to sacrifice for the higher wages, will see an improvement in their conditions.
People make money by doing what others are unwilling or unable to do.
How is "supply and demand will sort it out" not an accurate summary of what you just posted?
You're right, it is a decent summary.
But to compare that to Marxist claptrap is ridiculous.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 03:10:34 PM
While I sympathise with your side, Raz and Jacob, I think you are moving the post somewhat here.
Sure, the economical coercion exists and this is why Tamas/Yi are wrong. But some of the examples you quote would constitute physical coercion and would be illegal.
While I do recognise a need to protect against some forms of economical coercion - this is not the same as physical coercion.
Where do company towns paying in scrip fall into this? Somewhere in the middle, IMO.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2014, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2014, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2014, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 28, 2014, 12:41:35 PM
But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation :bleeding:
Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?
For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.
What if the contract you signed precludes you from quitting?
Well, admittedly, in Tamas's favour, such contracts can only provide for a financial penalty for quitting. You cannot be effectively forced to work for someone against your will (I am not talking about stuff like conscription, of course).
If you have been following along a little more closely Tamas' contention is that market forces should dictate labour conditions not legal regulation. The reason contracts of employment are not enforceable by way of specific performance is a public policy decision unrelated to the market.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2014, 04:26:28 PM
Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.
Isn't that more a matter of individual differences than it is of regulations? Some people will sign anything you hand them, others won't sign anything without having a lawyer go over it with a fine-tooth comb. And even among those who read a contract themselves, how much they understand it varies greatly.
And that's not even considering that most employees don't have a written contract.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy.
:angry:
Nationalize game development.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-0DT01jWExZ8%2FT-fxE_UmjCI%2FAAAAAAAAADw%2FLl92ePJDouI%2Fs1600%2Fcommanifesto.png&hash=bcc74bb1bdb2f143487ace4e4b5abf2b50d25442)
I liked Rush'n Attack.
Btw, Toni, is your avatar from They Live? :D
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 06:02:07 PM
Fair enough. Personally, I favour longer opening hours in Europe as well, though I do like the pace the closed-Sundays rule gives as well. It isn't a moral issue though, but a technocratic one of quality of life and efficiency.
I disagree. I have lived in places where Sunday trade was allowed and in those where it was not. I 100% prefer the places where it is allowed. I often work very long hours during the week and sometimes work on Saturdays as well, so it improves my quality of life a lot to be able to shop on Sundays (not to mention, in addition to shopping such regulations usually affect places like barbers, gyms etc., which I am usually only able to visit on weekends and a single day in the week would not be enough) and besides places where Sunday trade is not allowed often look like ghost towns on Sundays as well. Plus, for social engineering reasons, I'd much rather have people spend time in a shopping mall than in a church.
Not sure what's the "efficiency" argument that you mention, by the way. I'd imagine closing large malls and similar facilities for one day every 7 days (while obviously keeping it heated, illuminated etc.) is extremely inefficient. Likewise it must be very inefficient for places selling quickly perishable goods, such as fresh seafood. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 01:56:23 AM
Btw, Toni, is your avatar from They Live? :D
One of the greatest bad movies of all time.
I have been thinking about this debate in a broader sense and I think I have come to a conclusion that I am somewhere in the middle.
On one hand, I tend to agree with Yi and Tamas that one's situation in life - whether it is the fact that one has to work a night shift on Sunday at a mall; or that one is a single working class parent with three kids - is much more often than not a result of a choice - or, more specifically, a sequence of choices, most of them bad - that such person (or, more rarely, the closest family of such person) has made in his or her life (of course, sometimes an out-of-blue tragedy happens, but even then, when the consequences of such tragedy are truly devastating for a person's livelihood, this can very often be traced to a bad choice such person has made earlier - such as preferring to buy a flat screen tv instead of insurance, for example).
On the other hand, I also recognise that this should not be a reason to say that, because of this, a person should be let to his or her own devices because it is his or her "fault" - not least of all, because bad choices are often a result of inexperience/naivete, bad upbringing (for example, the parents' and educators' failure to install the mechanism of "delayed reward" in a person), peer pressure and similar factors which, while possible for a person to overcome, are not entirely within one's control.
But at the same time, we should avoid taking the position that is the extreme opposite to Tamas and Yi, and argue that a person's bad situation in life is entirely the product of the environment/society and people should be hand-held and nannied into the "right" choices or protect them from all negative consequences and inconveniences of their bad choices.
That is why I prefer the (non-libertarian) American model to the European model.
So, to apply this reasoning to the issue at hand - and to answer your question, Jacob, where the point of equilibrium between banning slavery on one hand and allowing Sunday shopping on the other is - I would say as follows:
A decision to allow Sunday shopping decreases the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made some bad choices in their life (with the exception of temporary workers, such as students etc, who can be discounted for this purpose) but improves the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made a number of good choices in their life and are now probably working very hard during the week, so they can only shop and use services (without a major inconvenience) on weekends.
Since on both sides the quality of life decrease / increase is not substantial, I would say we have to err on the side of the "good choosers", since all things being equal we should actually encourage, not discourage them.
With slavery, the situation is different because the decrease of the "quality of life" (to put it mildly) for the "bad choosers" who would sell themselves into slavery is of such a magnitude, it cannot be justified by the improvement of quality of life for the "good choosers".
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2014, 02:53:01 AM
A decision to allow Sunday shopping decreases the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made some bad choices in their life (with the exception of temporary workers, such as students etc, who can be discounted for this purpose) but improves the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made a number of good choices in their life and are now probably working very hard during the week, so they can only shop and use services (without a major inconvenience) on weekends.
I disagree. Forcing retail stores to close on Sunday decreases the quality of life of both groups in aggregate.
Then argue with Jacob, not me. He made the quality of life argument. I was just showing why it shouldn't trump the other considerations.
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 01:02:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2014, 04:26:28 PM
Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.
Isn't that more a matter of individual differences than it is of regulations? Some people will sign anything you hand them, others won't sign anything without having a lawyer go over it with a fine-tooth comb. And even among those who read a contract themselves, how much they understand it varies greatly.
And that's not even considering that most employees don't have a written contract.
If we remove government as much as possible the only way to compel behavior from someone is through contracts so when you can back out of contract is kind of important. A person in a desperate situation may sign a very unfavorable contract. Imagine a private fire department that is also a real estate broker. They'll only put out the fire if you sell them the land at 25% of it's estimated value. You better sign fast because the value of the property is decreasing very, very rapidly.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2014, 02:53:01 AM
So, to apply this reasoning to the issue at hand - and to answer your question, Jacob, where the point of equilibrium between banning slavery on one hand and allowing Sunday shopping on the other is - I would say as follows:
A decision to allow Sunday shopping decreases the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made some bad choices in their life (with the exception of temporary workers, such as students etc, who can be discounted for this purpose) but improves the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made a number of good choices in their life and are now probably working very hard during the week, so they can only shop and use services (without a major inconvenience) on weekends.
Since on both sides the quality of life decrease / increase is not substantial, I would say we have to err on the side of the "good choosers", since all things being equal we should actually encourage, not discourage them.
With slavery, the situation is different because the decrease of the "quality of life" (to put it mildly) for the "bad choosers" who would sell themselves into slavery is of such a magnitude, it cannot be justified by the improvement of quality of life for the "good choosers".
What if random chance made some "choices" on your behalf and you end up in a disadvantaged group that leaves you with less choices than others? Might you still be worthy of protection by larger society?
Zanza, you are assuming I said something I didn't. I think it is a balancing act, not an either/or alternative.
Have you read the post where I said:
QuoteOn the other hand, I also recognise that this should not be a reason to say that, because of this, a person should be let to his or her own devices because it is his or her "fault" - not least of all, because bad choices are often a result of inexperience/naivete, bad upbringing (for example, the parents' and educators' failure to install the mechanism of "delayed reward" in a person), peer pressure and similar factors which, while possible for a person to overcome, are not entirely within one's control.
In other words, while I fully recognise a need for a system of safety nets and protection of weaker participants, there is a risk with going overboard with it to a degree when consequences of one's bad choices (eg. of choosing immediate gratification over long term investment) become meaningless which encourages moral hazard.
A good example in Poland right now is a debate whether to help people who took mortgage loans in foreign currency, especially the Swiss franc, in early 2000s. These people claim now they were duped by banks and are now having to pay off loans with a nominal amount twice their property. But the same people were considering people like me - who took a loan in Polish zloty, ie the currency in which my salary is paid - fools before 2007, for paying a much higher interest rate.
It's the grasshopper vs. the ant dilemma. Sure, don't let the grasshopper starve or freeze to death, but this shouldn't get to the point where the ant is a dupe for working hard.
And speaking of disadvantaged groups, while they surely exist, I don't think in modern Western world there are groups the members of which are structurarily prevented from getting ahead.
The problem is different - shitty people, who do not manage to even get their own lives togerher, having kids. And noone - no politician, no activist, no priest - is saying that. Instead, children are presented as something you do to make your life less miserable, something you are congratulated on having. If your life is miserable, if you can't afford to keep yourself above the water line, you have no goddamn business bringing more people into this world. If people just sticked to this rule, there would be much much less cases of people having their lives (and the opportunity for making good choices) fucked up from the moment they are born.
One of the few advantages of the Swedish system is that people have NO excuse. You're poor? Well you chose to be. Now get away from me.
I think that's the wrong tact to take when discussing low-paid workers. They are doing necessary work and not necessarily because of their own choices. Like we tell Mono all the time, not everybody can be in the top 30%.
The better argument would be the utilitarian one. If, say, all hardware stores are prohibited from operating on Sunday, that may benefit some hardware store clerks, presuming that:
They don't lose their jobs or get their hours cut.
They don't want to buy hardware on their day off.
They want Sundays off.
On the other hand, everyone who doesn't work for a hardware store loses out.
If this trend is extended across multiple industries, it gets to the point where there's little value in having that day off, because you can't do much. No restaurants, no grocery stores, no movie theaters? You can sit at home on a Wednesday off just fine.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2014, 08:03:43 AM
I think that's the wrong tact to take when discussing low-paid workers. They are doing necessary work and not necessarily because of their own choices. Like we tell Mono all the time, not everybody can be in the top 30%.
The better argument would be the utilitarian one. If, say, all hardware stores are prohibited from operating on Sunday, that may benefit some hardware store clerks, presuming that:
They don't lose their jobs or get their hours cut.
They don't want to buy hardware on their day off.
They want Sundays off.
On the other hand, everyone who doesn't work for a hardware store loses out.
If this trend is extended across multiple industries, it gets to the point where there's little value in having that day off, because you can't do much. No restaurants, no grocery stores, no movie theaters? You can sit at home on a Wednesday off just fine.
I pretty much agree with this.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 01:33:42 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy.
:angry:
Nationalize game development.
Ethics in game development
For the record I want to totally distance myself from Marty's position. We should permit, and approve of, sweatshops in Vietnam not because the ladies that work there are bad people, or have made bad choices, but because they're better off there than they are breaking their backs in rice paddies. Banning sweatshops doesn't make their life any better, it makes it worse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 05:03:39 PM
For the record I want to totally distance myself from Marty's position. We should permit, and approve of, sweatshops in Vietnam not because the ladies that work there are bad people, or have made bad choices, but because they're better off there than they are breaking their backs in rice paddies. Banning sweatshops doesn't make their life any better, it makes it worse.
Way to totally misunderstand my position. You really have some cognitive issues.
I would like to distance myself from Yi's postion on this. Whatever it may be. And the next two debates we have. The third one is okay, and for the fourth one I'll start out disagreeing but let myself be won over by the end.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2014, 11:21:24 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 01:33:42 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy.
:angry:
Nationalize game development.
Ethics in game development
Jacob: white male? Yes. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2014, 11:21:24 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 01:33:42 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy.
:angry:
Nationalize game development.
Ethics in game development
Jacob: white male? Yes. :(
#jacobsgate
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2014, 06:12:22 PM
#jacobsgate
Oh God no. The world's most tedious argument :weep:
Ethics in tedium
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 05:03:39 PM
For the record I want to totally distance myself from Marty's position. We should permit, and approve of, sweatshops in Vietnam not because the ladies that work there are bad people, or have made bad choices, but because they're better off there than they are breaking their backs in rice paddies. Banning sweatshops doesn't make their life any better, it makes it worse.
:yes:
Ethics in Beets
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2014, 06:22:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 05:03:39 PM
For the record I want to totally distance myself from Marty's position. We should permit, and approve of, sweatshops in Vietnam not because the ladies that work there are bad people, or have made bad choices, but because they're better off there than they are breaking their backs in rice paddies. Banning sweatshops doesn't make their life any better, it makes it worse.
:yes:
:yes:
QuoteLast year, three teenage boys jumped out of a third-floor window in Ho Chi Minh City and ran as fast as they could until they found help. It was one in the morning and they did not know where they were going.
"I was really scared someone would catch us," recalled Hieu, 18.
Hieu, who did not want to give his real name, is from the Khmu ethnic minority. He grew up in a small village in Dien Bien, a mountainous area in north-western Vietnam, one of the country's poorest provinces and bordering China.
When he was 16 he had a job making coal bricks in his home village when a woman approached him offering vocational training.
"My parents were happy I could go and earn some money," he said.
He and 11 other children from his village were taken by bus on a 2,100km (1,300 miles) journey and put to work in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), south Vietnam.
They spent the next two years locked in a cramped room making clothes for a small garment factory with no wages.
"We started at 6am and finished work at midnight," he said. "If we made a mistake making the clothes they would beat us with a stick."
Prostitution, begging and garment factories
Hieu is one of more than 230 child-trafficking victims that the Vietnam-based charity Blue Dragon Children's Foundation has rescued since 2005.
The charity helps children forced into a variety of jobs from prostitution to begging, but in the past year just over a quarter of that number have been rescued from garment factories in Ho Chi Minh City, the country's largest metropolis and industrial centre.
Conditions are often harsh.
"Last year we raided one factory. I think 14 people work, sleep, eat in a small room with the machines," says Blue Dragon's lawyer. "The factory owner only let them go to the bathroom for eight minutes a day, including brushing your teeth, washing, going to the toilet. "
The youngest was 11 and most were from ethnic minorities.
"They are taking kids from central and northern Vietnam because they are assuming those kids can't escape," said Blue Dragon co-founder Michael Brosowski.
"If they get kids from nearby, those kids can just walk out or walk home."
Mr Brosowski believes traffickers are targeting more remote areas such as Dien Bien province because communities there do not know about the risks of human trafficking.
Gangs approach local officials pretending to offer jobs or vocational training to children of the poorest families. Many are happy to send the children away.
Some villages Blue Dragon visit are missing dozens of children.
Parents and officials only realise there is a problem when the charity shows them pictures of garment factories they have raided in the past.
"When they realise the kids are now slaves in sweatshops, they want them back," he said.
Mr Brosowski believes the problem is getting worse, partly because it is so lucrative and other people in the trafficking business want "a piece of the pie", he said.
It also fits a nationwide trend as the rural poor seek jobs in the city. He does not believe the clothes are produced for export, but cannot say for sure.
'Tens of thousands of kids and adults'
Tackling external trafficking has long been on the government's agenda, and Vietnam has been praised for an increase in the number of prosecutions involving overseas gang activity.
According to official figures, a total of about 7,000 people, 80% of whom are women and children, have been trafficked internationally or domestically since 2005.
Independent experts say the number is likely to be much higher.
Children are taken from all over the country to work in brothels in China, South East Asia and Europe.
China's one-child policy has also led to a demand for male babies, which is met partly by Vietnamese mothers selling their infants, but there have also been cases of Vietnamese girls being sold to Chinese men to be impregnated.
Young men or boys are also trafficked to the UK to work in cannabis farms.
Government figures do not give the ratio of external and internal trafficking. However, the scale of the problem within the country is only just emerging.
"At any given time there must be tens of thousands of kids and adults in situations they have been trafficked [to, within Vietnam]," an expert who works in the field said on condition of anonymity.
The estimate was accepted as accurate by others who work for organisations with expert knowledge on human trafficking in Vietnam who also did not want to go on the record.
Legal confusion
Much of the problem arises because of the legal status of trafficking victims, says Florian Forster, head of the International Office of Migration (IOM) in Vietnam.
"Trafficking across international borders was recognised for a much longer time but internal trafficking has only been officially recognised since 2011. It takes time to implement those things, for the government to spread the message," he says.
The new law came into effect in January last year but as yet no guidelines exist on how to use it.
Mr Forster says the details are "being worked on" but it "requires training."
In the meantime, most internal labour traffickers are generally not treated as criminals but are punished with administrative sanctions, such as illegal detention or use of weapons, Vu Thi Thu Phuong, of the United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking (UNIAP), said.
The factory owner who imprisoned Hieu was fined $500 and the factory was closed down, but he did not go to court.
While the government is deciding how to punish internal trafficking, debate continues about the severity of the problem. This is partly because some children receive wages.
"We have come across kids who are paid, and the amount might come to $50 or $100 for a year," said Mr Brosowski. "Given that the children work 18 hours per day, seven days per week, that money is ridiculously paltry.
"No one is doubting that a girl taken to a brothel in China is extremely severe," Mr Brosowski said.
"But culturally there's still a bit of discussion about whether it's so bad that a child whose family are very poor, doesn't have enough to eat, has dropped out of school, if he goes to a factory, is that such a bad thing?"
For Hieu at least, the horror of the sweatshop is in the past. He decided not to go back to Dien Bien, and Blue Dragon is helping him train as a mechanic in Hanoi.
"I hope my life will be better and I can help my family," he said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23631923
Saigon. Shit. They were still only in Saigon.
Sounds like they need a visit from Dr. Jones. :(
Aqua. :wub:
Raz, if they had been kidnapped and forced to work in restaurants, would that make all restaurant work evil?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
Raz, if they had been kidnapped and forced to work in restaurants, would that make all restaurant work evil?
What part do you consider evil in this situation? The fact they agreed to something didn't understand or that they were not being payed or being payed very little?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 07:26:59 PM
What part do you consider evil in this situation? The fact they agreed to something didn't understand or that they were not being payed or being payed very little?
I'm not answering your questions if you don't answer mine.
I'd like to state that I don't think that either Yi or Tam aupport slavery, even cryptoslavery.
They're decent hearted people both, who wouls need only minimal reedecuation to perform their functions in the perfect society, and I want them to know they are loved.
What if the kids had been forced to work in STEM?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 07:34:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 07:26:59 PM
What part do you consider evil in this situation? The fact they agreed to something didn't understand or that they were not being payed or being payed very little?
I'm not answering your questions if you don't answer mine.
A restaurant is not defined by it's labor standards, a sweat shop is. Unsafe conditions, low or no pay, or child labor is what makes a sweat shop a sweat shop. So your question doesn't make much sense.
B: They'd have been prepared for lives of excellence and social value, like yours. :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 07:39:32 PM
I'd like to state that I don't think that either Yi or Tam aupport slavery, even cryptoslavery.
They're decent hearted people both, who wouls need only minimal reedecuation to perform their functions in the perfect society, and I want them to know they are loved.
Yi, yes if it is voluntary. Tamas considers the question irrelevant because slavery is not a form of labor.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 07:43:21 PM
B: They'd have been prepared for lives of excellence and social value, like yours. :hug:
:hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 07:39:32 PM
I'd like to state that I don't think that either Yi or Tam aupport slavery, even cryptoslavery.
They're decent hearted people both, who wouls need only minimal reedecuation to perform their functions in the perfect society, and I want them to know they are loved.
Yi, yes if it is voluntary. Tamas considers the question irrelevant because slavery is not a form of labor.
Now, I think if they said that they didn't mean it. But I also think you're doing good work in forcing them to confront their ideological biases and sharpen their arguments. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 07:43:21 PM
B: They'd have been prepared for lives of excellence and social value, like yours. :hug:
If the Capitalists knew that restaurants were producing Reds at such a prodigious rate, there would be serious reform in that industry.
Yi is Homo economicus, he looks at everything from a free market perspective. Tamas just doesn't want to live in place like Hungary anymore. He blames lack of free market for why Hungary is so screwy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 07:42:17 PM
A restaurant is not defined by it's labor standards, a sweat shop is. Unsafe conditions, low or no pay, or child labor is what makes a sweat shop a sweat shop. So your question doesn't make much sense.
The existence of any of those three things makes it a sweat shop? That makes no sense. Kids used to work in mines in England; they weren't sweat shops. Neither are paper delivery routes or snow shoveling jobs. A sweat shop is typically a labor intensive operation producing clothing.
Now to answer your question, what makes the story about the kids wrong is they were lied to.
Strangely relevant that you're all talking about slavery:
QuoteUp to 13,000 working as slaves in UK
Government launches strategy to end slavery as number of victims found to be up to four times higher than thought
David Batty and Chris Johnston
theguardian.com, Saturday 29 November 2014 09.34 GMT
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F11%2F29%2F1417253600021%2FA-young-Lithuanian-woman--009.jpg&hash=45dba7b54d6ea1ea46f62936c6acdc2484e1aef9)
A young Lithuanian woman who was a victim of trafficking and forced into prostitution in the UK. Photograph: Karen Robinson for the Guardian
As many as 13,000 people in Britain are victims of slavery, about four times the number previously thought, analysis for the government has found.
The figure for 2013 marks the first time the government has made an official estimate of the scale of modern slavery in the UK, and includes women forced into prostitution, domestic staff, and workers in fields, factories and fishing.
The National Crime Agency (NCA)'s human trafficking centre had previously put the number at 2,744.
Launching the government's strategy to eradicate modern slavery, the home secretary, Theresa May, said the scale of abuse was shocking.
"The first step to eradicating the scourge of modern slavery is acknowledging and confronting its existence," she said. "The estimated scale of the problem in modern Britain is shocking and these new figures starkly reinforce the case for urgent action."
The data was collated from sources including the police, the UK Border Force, charities and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The Home Office described the estimate as a "dark figure" that may not have come to the NCA's attention.
Professor Bernard Silverman, the chief scientific adviser to the Home Office, said the new statistical analysis aimed to calculate the number of "hidden" victims who are not reported to the authorities.
"Modern slavery is very often deeply hidden and so it is a great challenge to assess its scale," he said. "The data collected is inevitably incomplete and, in addition, has to be very carefully handled because of its sensitivity."
The modern slavery minister, Karen Bradley, told the BBC the issue was a hidden crime. "What we have to do today is not make people acknowledge it's wrong - everybody knows it's wrong - but we have to find it," she said.
"It's going on in streets, in towns, in villages across Britain and we need to help people find the signs of it so we can find those victims and importantly then find the perpetrators."
The modern slavery bill going through parliament will provide courts in England and Wales with powers to protect victims of human trafficking. Scotland and Northern Ireland are planning similar measures.
May said: "Working with a wide range of partners, we must step up the fight against modern slavery in this country, and internationally, to put an end to the misery suffered by innocent people around the world."
The Home Office said the UK Border Force would introduce specialist trafficking teams at major ports and airports to identify potential victims, and the legal framework would be strengthened for confiscating the proceeds of crime.
But Aidan McQuade, the director of the Anti-Slavery International charity, questioned whether the government's strategy went far enough.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you leave an employment relationship, even if you're suffering from any sort of exploitation up to and including forced labour, even if you're suffering from all sorts of physical and sexual violence, you'll be deported.
"So that [puts] enormous power in the hands of unscrupulous employers. And frankly, the protections which the government has put in place are not worth the paper they're written on in order to prevent this sort of exploitation once they've given employers that sort of power."
Many victims are foreign nationals from countries such as Romania, Poland, Albania and Nigeria, but vulnerable British adults and children are also systematically preyed upon by traffickers and slave drivers. The NCA estimates that the UK was the third most common country of origin for slavery victims.
In November last year three "highly traumatised" women were rescued from a house in south London where they appear to have been held captive for three decades, Scotland Yard said. One of the women contacted Aneeta Prem, the founder of the Freedom Charity, after seeing her on TV.
A couple, both in their late 60s, remain on bail after being arrested on suspicion of being involved in forced labour and domestic servitude.
Prem said the south London case had raised awareness of the problem, and that the charity had been receiving more calls.
One of the biggest barriers to freeing victims was the repercussions that family members living in other countries could face, she said. That meant action had to be coordinated with authorities overseas and could take time to arrange.
People needed to be more aware of the problem, she said, and urged anyone who had concerns that "something doesn't seem right" to contact Freedom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 07:54:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 07:42:17 PM
A restaurant is not defined by it's labor standards, a sweat shop is. Unsafe conditions, low or no pay, or child labor is what makes a sweat shop a sweat shop. So your question doesn't make much sense.
The existence of any of those three things makes it a sweat shop? That makes no sense. Kids used to work in mines in England; they weren't sweat shops. Neither are paper delivery routes or snow shoveling jobs. A sweat shop is typically a labor intensive operation producing clothing.
Now to answer your question, what makes the story about the kids wrong is they were lied to.
Okay, fine. A
manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay. The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.
I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work. I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 03:26:20 AM
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 01:02:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2014, 04:26:28 PM
Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.
Isn't that more a matter of individual differences than it is of regulations? Some people will sign anything you hand them, others won't sign anything without having a lawyer go over it with a fine-tooth comb. And even among those who read a contract themselves, how much they understand it varies greatly.
And that's not even considering that most employees don't have a written contract.
If we remove government as much as possible the only way to compel behavior from someone is through contracts so when you can back out of contract is kind of important. A person in a desperate situation may sign a very unfavorable contract. Imagine a private fire department that is also a real estate broker. They'll only put out the fire if you sell them the land at 25% of it's estimated value. You better sign fast because the value of the property is decreasing very, very rapidly.
My point was that no matter how much regulation you have, some people will still sign contracts that they don't understand, maybe that they don't even read, and not necessarily because they are desperate, they may be just careless or simply over-trusting. We have protections under contract law in that the provisions of a contract are not enforceable if they are unconscionable or were entered into under duress. In the situation you stipulate, the contract to sell the property would have been entered into under duress and wouldn't be enforceable.
I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations. I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because: A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations. I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because: A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.
But I would point out that this is where talk of a monolithic 'state' or 'government' falls down in our system. A huge amount of the regulations around contract law - such as duress - come from the Common Law. It's definitely the government in its role of providing legal remedies for parties to a contract, but it's not what would normally be considered 'state' regulation or anything like that.
Incidentally the European Parliament has demanded the Commission pass a binding European Code of Contract which if they do would make me a dyed in the wool 'Better Off Out' voter and campaigner <_<
I know the EU is evil, but you can't mean that. It's the first step on the road to World Government where differences no longer exist between peoples, and all are content and cared for and are given the opportunity to reach their potentials.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 08:03:23 PM
Okay, fine. A manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay. The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.
I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work. I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.
Then for purposes of this discussion let's assume I'm talking about adults working voluntarily in low paying production/assembly jobs.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 08:17:23 PM
I know the EU is evil, but you can't mean that. It's the first step on the road to World Government where differences no longer exist between peoples, and all are content and cared for and are given the opportunity to reach their potentials.
English contract law is fine as it is and it'll be a cold day in hell before I agree with the idea of an implied duty of 'good faith' <_<
You might not like American contract law, then...
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 08:22:15 PM
You might not like American contract law, then...
I've no problem with it. But if someone were to try and force the UCC on me :ultra:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 08:14:45 PM
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations. I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because: A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.
But I would point out that this is where talk of a monolithic 'state' or 'government' falls down in our system. A huge amount of the regulations around contract law - such as duress - come from the Common Law. It's definitely the government in its role of providing legal remedies for parties to a contract, but it's not what would normally be considered 'state' regulation or anything like that.
Incidentally the European Parliament has demanded the Commission pass a binding European Code of Contract which if they do would make me a dyed in the wool 'Better Off Out' voter and campaigner <_<
I didn't bring up the common law origins of a lot of contract law because a number of posters here don't live in common law jurisdictions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 08:20:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 08:03:23 PM
Okay, fine. A manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay. The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.
I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work. I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.
Then for purposes of this discussion let's assume I'm talking about adults working voluntarily in low paying production/assembly jobs.
It is kinda neat how the issue of slavery was bouncing around and then you brought up Vietnamese sweat shops aren't bad and I find an article about sweat shops in Vietnam that are using slave labor. There should be a word for that.
I can't believe this shit is still going on. I mean sure it is doing its downward slide in quality from CC to Raz, but who is the dogmatic here, when you are unable to properly argue for your slightly different opinion, because you are immediately being declared a supporter of slavery and physical coercion, despite the original topic completely sealed off from slavery by very basic laws of any half-decent state.
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
My point was that no matter how much regulation you have, some people will still sign contracts that they don't understand, maybe that they don't even read, and not necessarily because they are desperate, they may be just careless or simply over-trusting. We have protections under contract law in that the provisions of a contract are not enforceable if they are unconscionable or were entered into under duress. In the situation you stipulate, the contract to sell the property would have been entered into under duress and wouldn't be enforceable.
The point is that what constitutes unacceptable duress is a matter for debate and policy - it is not clear cut.
Raz's example about (private) fire fighter company is actually quite good. It's not so different from a situation where you need a job or your family will starve - and the only job available for you is one with very low work conditions, in a local sweat shop.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 08:14:45 PM
Incidentally the European Parliament has demanded the Commission pass a binding European Code of Contract which if they do would make me a dyed in the wool 'Better Off Out' voter and campaigner <_<
Why? That's a silly position to take. If there is one thing that is unambiguously great about the EU, it's the uniformisation of laws, so you don't get different rules and standards every 100 miles.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 08:17:23 PM
I know the EU is evil, but you can't mean that. It's the first step on the road to World Government where differences no longer exist between peoples, and all are content and cared for and are given the opportunity to reach their potentials.
English contract law is fine as it is and it'll be a cold day in hell before I agree with the idea of an implied duty of 'good faith' <_<
Wow, that's so ignorant. The more I read about various "pearls of wisdom" like this from British posters here (and from the ones I used to consider less stupid), the more I am convinced we will be better off if you guys just fuck off and leave the EU already.
The honeymoon is over. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 08:14:45 PM
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations. I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because: A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.
But I would point out that this is where talk of a monolithic 'state' or 'government' falls down in our system. A huge amount of the regulations around contract law - such as duress - come from the Common Law. It's definitely the government in its role of providing legal remedies for parties to a contract, but it's not what would normally be considered 'state' regulation or anything like that.
Incidentally the European Parliament has demanded the Commission pass a binding European Code of Contract which if they do would make me a dyed in the wool 'Better Off Out' voter and campaigner <_<
But dps is quite correct that the law (both common law and statutory law) can only be enforced by a strong state because it is only a strong state that can create the legal system needed to rule on and enforce the law. Put simply, the Rule of Law can only thrive in a strong state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 08:20:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2014, 08:03:23 PM
Okay, fine. A manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay. The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.
I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work. I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.
Then for purposes of this discussion let's assume I'm talking about adults working voluntarily in low paying production/assembly jobs.
Its not so voluntary when the only other choice is unemployment and starvation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2014, 08:17:23 PM
I know the EU is evil, but you can't mean that. It's the first step on the road to World Government where differences no longer exist between peoples, and all are content and cared for and are given the opportunity to reach their potentials.
English contract law is fine as it is and it'll be a cold day in hell before I agree with the idea of an implied duty of 'good faith' <_<
What is wrong with an implied duty of good faith?
It is in our law of contract and I believe it is pretty well entrenched in the US (JR will set me right if it isnt).
edit: and just to make sure whe are not talking past eachother here is a recent SCC decision that clarified the duty in Canada. You will see that Freedom to Contract is important but there are limits.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14438/index.do
Quote from: Tamas on November 30, 2014, 03:17:40 AM
I can't believe this shit is still going on. I mean sure it is doing its downward slide in quality from CC to Raz, but who is the dogmatic here, when you are unable to properly argue for your slightly different opinion, because you are immediately being declared a supporter of slavery and physical coercion, despite the original topic completely sealed off from slavery by very basic laws of any half-decent state.
What, now you are a statist?
Quote from: Tamas on November 30, 2014, 03:17:40 AM
I can't believe this shit is still going on. I mean sure it is doing its downward slide in quality from CC to Raz, but who is the dogmatic here, when you are unable to properly argue for your slightly different opinion, because you are immediately being declared a supporter of slavery and physical coercion, despite the original topic completely sealed off from slavery by very basic laws of any half-decent state.
So you never really understood the argument.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 04:10:52 AM
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
My point was that no matter how much regulation you have, some people will still sign contracts that they don't understand, maybe that they don't even read, and not necessarily because they are desperate, they may be just careless or simply over-trusting. We have protections under contract law in that the provisions of a contract are not enforceable if they are unconscionable or were entered into under duress. In the situation you stipulate, the contract to sell the property would have been entered into under duress and wouldn't be enforceable.
The point is that what constitutes unacceptable duress is a matter for debate and policy - it is not clear cut.
Raz's example about (private) fire fighter company is actually quite good. It's not so different from a situation where you need a job or your family will starve - and the only job available for you is one with very low work conditions, in a local sweat shop.
Well Crassus thought if it before I did.
I guess my point is that the Yi/Tamas/dps side's assertion that some choices (except for a strictly defined duress) are fully free is illusory; but at the same time, it is very often that the choices become illusory because of earlier actual bad decisions made by a person (for example, it may very well be that your family will starve unless you take a job that has bad working conditions and pays pittance - so the choice is not really there; but this is often a consequence of the fact that you did not study to be qualified for a better job and started a family you could not afford in the first place).
I think we should strive to alleviate the consequences of the former, while not forgetting the broader picture of the latter.
I guess my position actually crystallises as that of the meritocratic paternalism. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2014, 09:19:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 08:20:15 PM
Then for purposes of this discussion let's assume I'm talking about adults working voluntarily in low paying production/assembly jobs.
Its not so voluntary when the only other choice is unemployment and starvation.
Dude, you're not getting it. You
don't have to apply for a low-paying job because you don't have one, and you
don't have to accept a job offer for the only job you can get.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:38:11 AM
I guess my point is that the Yi/Tamas/dps side's assertion that some choices (except for a strictly defined duress) are fully free is illusory; but at the same time, it is very often that the choices become illusory because of earlier actual bad decisions made by a person (for example, it may very well be that your family will starve unless you take a job that has bad working conditions and pays pittance - so the choice is not really there; but this is often a consequence of the fact that you did not study to be qualified for a better job and started a family you could not afford in the first place).
I think we should strive to alleviate the consequences of the former, while not forgetting the broader picture of the latter.
I guess my position actually crystallises as that of the meritocratic paternalism. :P
No the point is that there are millions of reasons why somebody would take a shitty job, and it is way more efficient to let individuals sort this out assuming free will n both sides, then creating a byAntine labyrinth of rules.
And once again regarding strong state: what you mean with that is exactly what I mean by that: a state strong enough to enforce a level playing field. That is no opposition to the idea of a modern free market. It is a requirement for it.
Quote from: Tamas on November 30, 2014, 11:44:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:38:11 AM
I guess my point is that the Yi/Tamas/dps side's assertion that some choices (except for a strictly defined duress) are fully free is illusory; but at the same time, it is very often that the choices become illusory because of earlier actual bad decisions made by a person (for example, it may very well be that your family will starve unless you take a job that has bad working conditions and pays pittance - so the choice is not really there; but this is often a consequence of the fact that you did not study to be qualified for a better job and started a family you could not afford in the first place).
I think we should strive to alleviate the consequences of the former, while not forgetting the broader picture of the latter.
I guess my position actually crystallises as that of the meritocratic paternalism. :P
No the point is that there are millions of reasons why somebody would take a shitty job, and it is way more efficient to let individuals sort this out assuming free will n both sides, then creating a byAntine labyrinth of rules.
And once again regarding strong state: what you mean with that is exactly what I mean by that: a state strong enough to enforce a level playing field. That is no opposition to the idea of a modern free market. It is a requirement for it.
Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.
This is the opposite of the truth. Free markets without restriction lead to intellectual stagnation, because one cannot use one's own ideas to establish market advantage. Free markets without restrictions are too easy for competitors to enter using stolen ideas/advantages.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2014, 11:43:23 AM
QuoteIts not so voluntary when the only other choice is unemployment and starvation.
Dude, you're not getting it. You don't have to apply for a low-paying job because you don't have one, and you don't have to accept a job offer for the only job you can get.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is only one sweat shop in Vietnam (which there obviously isn't) and that the alternative to accepting whatever that sweat shop is offering is starvation (which obviously it is not); given all that, how do the conditions of all the prospective Vietnamese sweat shop workers improve if we close that one sweat shop in outrage?
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2014, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.
This is the opposite of the truth. Free markets without restriction lead to intellectual stagnation, because one cannot use one's own ideas to establish market advantage. Free markets without restrictions are too easy for competitors to enter using stolen ideas/advantages.
This is clearly proven by the EU where there are more regulations than in the US, and as a result it is the home of successful startup companies and groundbreaking innovations, in stark contrast of the less regulated United States.
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2014, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.
This is the opposite of the truth. Free markets without restriction lead to intellectual stagnation, because one cannot use one's own ideas to establish market advantage. Free markets without restrictions are too easy for competitors to enter using stolen ideas/advantages.
Uhm no.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2014, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.
This is the opposite of the truth. Free markets without restriction lead to intellectual stagnation, because one cannot use one's own ideas to establish market advantage. Free markets without restrictions are too easy for competitors to enter using stolen ideas/advantages.
Uhm no.
:lol: What a persuasive argument!
Stick to being a faux lawyer. Your understanding of economics is even less than your understanding of law.
Smell the love!
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2014, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.
This is the opposite of the truth. Free markets without restriction lead to intellectual stagnation, because one cannot use one's own ideas to establish market advantage. Free markets without restrictions are too easy for competitors to enter using stolen ideas/advantages.
Uhm no.
Great. Now Grumbler is an economist in addition to being a lawyer, admiral, doctor, scientist, and cowboy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2014, 04:28:06 AM
The honeymoon is over. :lol:
I get angry in the mornings. Especially on my birthday. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 04:40:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2014, 04:28:06 AM
The honeymoon is over. :lol:
I get angry in the mornings. Especially on my birthday. :P
I know how that feels. We all get angry on your birthday.
Holy crap, 37? What is that in Homo, 80?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 30, 2014, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2014, 05:07:54 PM
Holy crap, 37? What is that in Homo, 80?
Dead.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fblogger%2F6111%2F1189%2F1600%2Farmy_of_darkness-3.jpg&hash=044b0109c37f865a021861d2c2325712223969bd)
Mart turns 37
Assholes. :lol:
Hungary is now planning banning work on Sundays :w00t:
First step, they will ban it for supermarkets which are bigger than the shops the pro-Fidesz supermarket chain owners has. Then supposedly will be extended to most of all jobs.
I wonder how that will effect my ex colleagues giving 24/7 remote IT support.
But at least Hungary will become a safe haven for those fleeing from slavery.
Just to be clear, if the government will be retarded enough to prevent 24/7 IT services, the companies doing that over there (employing thousands of people) will just shift over to India, as they have contractual obligations to their customers.
Man, you are really not leaving us any grey area between Slavery & no-work sundays there Tamas.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Man, you are really not leaving us any grey area between Slavery & no-work sundays there Tamas.
I was referencing the past hysteric arguments of certain posters. :P Not in the mood to restart them, however.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Man, you are really not leaving us any grey area between Slavery & no-work sundays there Tamas.
That's pretty much the argument of the Languish Left. I agree that it is retarded, but the left uses "slavery" like the right uses "communism:" with far more enthusiasm than intellectual honesty.
Double Whooooooooooooosh!
Megawhoooshes from Jacksonville.
Grumbler takes offense at that. He owned slaves once. Also was a slave.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2014, 02:42:39 PM
Grumbler takes offense at that. He owned slaves once. Also was a slave.
:lol: As a Carolina plantation owner, grumbler never forgot his roots coming up in the Hittite salt mines.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2014, 11:02:51 AMSo you never really understood the argument.
It appears that he did not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 01, 2014, 02:58:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2014, 02:42:39 PM
Grumbler takes offense at that. He owned slaves once. Also was a slave.
:lol: As a Carolina plantation owner, grumbler never forgot his roots coming up in the Hittite salt mines.
Hittites? I would have guessed a Roman galley. :hmm:
Grumbler should be thankful, for he has repeatedly stated that slave labor is impossible in an industrial setting since the slaves would just destroy the machines. The article I posted documents people being held against their will and forced to work in a sweatshop for years before finally escaping. Now that he knows it is possible he should have new opportunities to exploit.
Thanks for expending the lifespan to tell me what I think, guys. It is amusing to see how wrong people can be when they really try. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2014, 02:14:05 AM
Now that he knows it is possible he should have new opportunities to exploit.
I suspect he knew it all along but only feigned ignorance to throw us off his masterplan.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
You're STEM love may have been overly optimistic though - just saw a thing about a guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology and Pharmacology bemoaning his long term unemployment :(
Overly broad, maybe. Not too much market love for extremely advanced degrees in microbio. Maybe a handful of biotech research firms or the CDC. A BS in microbio could conceivably land you a grunt spot in just about any lab that deals with life sciences, though.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 02, 2014, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
You're STEM love may have been overly optimistic though - just saw a thing about a guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology and Pharmacology bemoaning his long term unemployment :(
Overly broad, maybe. Not too much market love for extremely advanced degrees in microbio. Maybe a handful of biotech research firms or the CDC. A BS in microbio could conceivably land you a grunt spot in just about any lab that deals with life sciences, though.
Or the NIH. Or the FDA. Or the USDA. Or the US Army. His problem is he went the pharmacology route, and not genetics. That's where the demand is.
What a coincidence. :hmm:
Links inside to Buisness News, Forbes, the National Labor Relations Board, etc.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/20/walmart_accused_of_closing_stores_to_punish_activist_workers_union_files.html
Quote
Following the abrupt shutdown of five stores for what the company calls plumbing problems, Walmart is the subject of a complaint lodged Monday with the National Labor Relations Board alleging the closures are a "retaliatory" move meant to punish workers for demanding better pay and conditions.
Forbes reports that the history of activism at the now-closed Pico Rivera, California store, the site of the earliest wage protests in 2012 of worker group OUR Walmart and a target for demonstrations ever since, might have played a role in Walmart's decision to include Pico Rivera in the list of locations marked for extended closure.
The retail giant, which employs 1.3 million workers in the United States, temporarily closed five stores—two in Texas and one each in California, Florida, and Oklahoma—for six months of plumbing repairs. The stores closed at 7 p.m. on April 13, which gave workers just a few hours notice that they were losing their jobs. The company provided two months of paid leave for both full-time and part-time workers. Employees could try to transfer to a different Walmart location during that time. Full-time workers who fail to find another Walmart job are eligible for severance starting June 19, but part-time workers aren't entitled to that benefit.A Walmart spokeswoman told NBC that the lost jobs were "not layoffs" and that rather than being recalled, employees will have to reapply as new applicants when the stores reopen. The NLRB complaint, filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, asks for an injunction forcing Walmart to reinstate the 2,200 workers displaced by the closures.
Brian Nick, Walmart's Director of National Media Relations, told Slate by email that "it would be unfortunate if this outside group [UFCWI] attempts to slow this process down for our associates and customers." Nick further stated that while closing down a store with only a few hours of notice might be unusual, it was nothing nefarious.
To your question, this is not a typical occurrence but a decision that wasn't taken likely to address serious issues at these stores. We did close a handful of stores this year that will not reopen, unlike these five stores that will reopen with improvements. All associates were notified at once. The difficult decision to temporarily close these stores were made for the stated reasons and not any other motives.
While Walmart has announced a few initiatives recently to ease tensions with its lowest-paid workers—including instituting a modest wage hike and eliminating a layer of management for workers to navigate at the store level—the company continues to strenuously resist efforts at unionization. The support garnered by OUR Walmart over the past three years represents the closest Walmart employees have come to formally joining a union.
Walmart insists the affected workers can ask for their jobs back when the stores reopen with buildings equipped to "better serve our customers and the community in the long run." There's no telling exactly how long that will take; an ABC affiliate in Tampa reports that Walmart has not sought any permits to perform plumbing work at those locations.
It would be a better story without typos and misused words.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2015, 11:18:57 PM
What a coincidence. :hmm:
Links inside to Buisness News, Forbes, the National Labor Relations Board, etc.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/20/walmart_accused_of_closing_stores_to_punish_activist_workers_union_files.html
So the argument is that, because of a 2012 protest at one store, Walmart closed 5 stores, including that one, in 2015?
:tinfoil: