Originally posted by Digi
Not going to insult you here, you know you're good with me CM, but I'm with inamilist here in terms of the argument. Presuming that everyone has all kinds of feasible options, or that hard work alone solves all job-related issues, or that everyone has flexibility in their life situation to simply do exactly what they want, is frankly naive at best.You're a DIY case that is successful, and good for you. But it isn't that way for everyone, and that includes those who worked just as hard, are as smart or smarter, and have not stayed in the same track the entire time. Your approach also doesn't count for mitigating circumstances outside a person's control in their life, like family situation. Nor does it account for those who really DON'T know another way of doing things (not all of our life experiences lead to the same methods of thinking), but have applied themselves all the same, or have parents to feed, families to support, etc. etc.
Thousands upon thousands of people are in such circumstances, and many of them would either laugh at you or punch you in the face if you told them these words. I'm not among them, I can't bring myself to be terribly upset about opinions more often than not and can understand your point even while disagreeing with it. But it's easy to bristle at such words as "entitlement" when describing people scrapping for an existence, or "if someone wants something, they'll get it" when we're talking about a system of finite resources where there will be those without anything despite any amount of hard work, and those with a lot despite having done relatively little.
Your independence is cool, but it need not be anti-union. Sure, unions can be corrupt. Any controlling body can. But I really do see more potential for corruption on the side of businesses when there isn't the union "check" to keep it in place.
Nobody should have to insult anybody in a debate, not to mention I was the one insulted. I already made a thread on this topic. Now on to the post...
Firstly there are no presumptions. I'm willing to bet I grew up in farrrr worse conditions than 95% of the people on this board, in a very poor area, with much violence, drugs, etc. One of the worst places in the nation. Highest teen birthrate in the country, and also one of the poorest because of that. Anybody can do what they want to in life if they are willing to put up the work. I didn't make excuses about my family, my skin color, lack of money. But many people I know do just that every day.
I made my success by making the right decisions and working hard and smart. I know many who might want to get upset or some who would want to "punch me in the face" (lol, good luck trying that) and I'm also willing to bet that a high number of people will disagree with me because most people feel entitled to something. I talk about these issues all of the time (and I've done many interviews about this and even had some classes on these issues) and once they see my point they know what I mean.
Working hard alone won't cut it. As smart or smarter? I'm no fool and I have talent in many areas. But I realize the more you know, the more you should realize how little you know, the ones who think they know the most actually end up being the biggest fools. I had a friend of mine that I helped with his homework, and he went to Harvard. I am further ahead than he is because I trained myself to be accustomed to how the world is. Yet, I also realize I'm only at the beginning of what I'm trying to do.
I've had some family members have multiple kids too early, I've had family members shot to death, my own family issues, no kids (by choice) and no wife (by choice). I've had severe conditions with literally no money. My family was not a wealthy family and any time someone has success people attribute it to that. Freedom has a price, a price few are willing to pay.
You do have a good point though, many people *don't* know any better. I'm looking for ways to teach people in real life about how to achieve the freedom in life, and that it *is* possible to do at a young age, and not to live a life of hopelessness. I've had many real life friends that I've talked to about the same thing. People are where they are in life by the choices they make. I've given those "in need" money only to see them broke again and again, people buying junk they don't need, charging up credit cards, gambling, etc. I've had people close to me who don't want to work, or wanted a handout. Or welfare. They didn't want to improve, and now I "owe" them. I've seen/heard many people many times say the same thing, and it's time someone got the balls to tell the truth. The world is as you see it. I live in a world of abundance, and therefore I have it, many live in a world of lack, and they have that. Jobs aren't entitlements, they are privileges. And neither of us live in a 3rd world country, so it is possible to do what you want to do in life. To attribute success to luck is silly and wrong.
I don't agree with unions overall, but I admitted they did some good. But they have ruined many industries and don't bring about work. They are a part of the problem too.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaBut most feel that way. Many dick around on the computer at work, or do nothing and want more.
Says who? Those people are called crooks and cheapskates. Many states have a crime on the books called time theft: not working whille on the clock/being sedentary and draining the employer's money while giving nothing in return.I understand that employees are just there for the money and not for a love of the company, but they still have to earn their keep. An "incentive" to be a leech? I don't think so.
Originally posted by King KandyBut you wouldn't pay 500 dollars for something you could get for 100 dollars.
Only if you hate your job...Well no actually, I also want a product that was produced with humane conditions, including good wages for employees...
Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, depending on what it is, I might.
Well, I myself like quality so I'll pay more for that if I get better and longer returns. But not for the same exact item.
The vast majority of people full well aren't going to pay $500 for something they can get for $100 if it's the same thing.
Look at all the people downloading stuff illegally for free. Most will do just that no matter how cheap the item.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well, I myself like quality so I'll pay more for that if I get better and longer returns. But not for the same exact item.The vast majority of people full well aren't going to pay $500 for something they can get for $100 if it's the same thing.
Look at all the people downloading stuff illegally for free. Most will do just that no matter how cheap the item.
Originally posted by King KandyI meant for the exact same thing though (although I see what you mean).
If I had a choice between a $5.00 piece of humanely raised meat vs some 10cent piece of bush meat that has endangered species in it, i'm going to go for the former even if it is 50 times more expensive and their taste is somehow equal...
If you could get a computer for $500 at Best Buy and $100 at Wal-Mart all things considered equal, you would go to Wal-Mart would you not?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I meant for the exact same thing though (although I see what you mean).If you could get a computer for $500 at Best Buy and $100 at Wal-Mart all things considered equal, you would go to Wal-Mart would you not?
No, I avoid buying "Wal-Mart" products with a passion.
Originally posted by King KandySo you're saying if it was made by different labor you wouldn't buy it. But obviously if all things were considered equal you would.
They are the exact same in nutritional content, quality, grain, whatever (made with magic), the only difference is their ORIGIN. I still think that argument holds.No, I avoid buying "Wal-Mart" products with a passion.
I have a bluetooth that is voice activated. It was $129 in the store. The store has to charge higher because of the land and building, maintenance, worker, insurance costs, etc.
I found it online. It was only $60 brand new. Online can charge less because it has much lower overhead.
I'm sure you know which one I bought.boxing
Originally posted by inimalistWhat? I was talking about people paying as least as they can for the same product.
so because stuff is cheaper online we shouldnt have unions...even though the savings online are about not having a material store and not because of low wages?
Technology keeps prices down. As I've said.
Originally posted by inimalistI've already used both examples though, that was about something else.
ok, but your example isn't really that goodyou say unions inflate prices, then use an example of prices that have nothing to do with unions
But let's do this. Say jobs use technology for far greater leverage and can cut their human work force down by 70%, but the 30% remaining are taken care of, and get better wages.
Is that fine?