The right seems to want to remove as many protections and rights of workers as they can when a company wants to hire an employee

[Axulus]

Long as I got the right to quit I be OK.

In an earlier post here, Axulus has strongly implied that quitting at will is very deplorable feature of human employees. So was he wrong?

I said it was a negative feature for the employer that does not exist in the case of a robot or some other sort of technolgy that does work. If you disagree with this plain fact, then you are a denialist.

This says nothing about it being "deplorable". Your brain seems incapable of anything other than extremeist thought.

 

[arkirk]

In an earlier post here, Axulus has strongly implied that quitting at will is very deplorable feature of human employees. So was he wrong?

I said it was a negative feature for the employer that does not exist in the case of a robot or some other sort of technolgy that does work. If you disagree with this plain fact, then you are a denialist.

This says nothing about it being "deplorable". Your brain seems incapable of anything other than extremeist thought.

Actually it could be a positive feature in that a human being can decide to withhold action when it might harm either him or his employer, whereas a robot has to have safegards built in for each situation it might face and if one is forgotten...well so much for robot workers! The ability to reason is always a positive thing, regardless of what you might think, Axulus. You assume you are so brilliant that you can predict no instances where the ability to reason and perhaps change direction would save the employer money along with the employee. Maybe it is the treating of employees as if they are mindless robots is why they quit of their own free will.

 

[Axulus]

I said it was a negative feature for the employer that does not exist in the case of a robot or some other sort of technolgy that does work. If you disagree with this plain fact, then you are a denialist.

This says nothing about it being "deplorable". Your brain seems incapable of anything other than extremeist thought.

Actually it could be a positive feature in that a human being can decide to withhold action when it might harm either him or his employer, whereas a robot has to have safegards built in for each situation it might face and if one is forgotten...well so much for robot workers! The ability to reason is always a positive thing, regardless of what you might think, Axulus. You assume you are so brilliant that you can predict no instances where the ability to reason and perhaps change direction would save the employer money along with the employee. Maybe it is the treating of employees as if they are mindless robots is why they quit of their own free will.

You are right that there will be somr instances where an employee quitting would actually help the company. Some key employee or employees quitting in protest of a decision made by the company could be a wake up call to the company and cause it to reasess the decision that is perhaps morally questionable.

I didn't indend it to be an absolute statement where every instance of quitting is a negative to the company. Rather, in general, the ability for employees to quit is a downside for the employer, something that employers wish wouldn't happen but they deal with it and expect it as a common occurance in any business. My only point was that this is a downside which isn't shared by the equipment used by the business.

Also, people quit for all sorts of reasons: they want to work fewer hours, they want a less stressful job, they want to go back to school, they want a career change, they got a better offer from a competitor, they want to move somewhere else, etc.

 

[dismal]

Long as I got the right to quit I be OK.

In an earlier post here, Axulus has strongly implied that quitting at will is very deplorable feature of human employees. So was he wrong?

I don't see how it's deplorable for the employee.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In an earlier post here, Axulus has strongly implied that quitting at will is very deplorable feature of human employees. So was he wrong?

I would totally hack into the robots and make them quit in the middle of the day and then go stand outside the office demanding to be unionized.

OK, no more Age of Ultron for you.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Who?

If working people are not working because they greedily wanted enough money to make rent AND eat, who will buy?

Who will pay for the now unemployed, or will they starve gently into that good night?

How does the economy absorb people who are not working but won't just die?

Also, it's not a threat, it's simply reality that the best and cheapest method used to produce something is actively being searched for and developed and will be used by businesses once found. And given how difficult and burdensome the left wants to make it to hire employees makes the search and development will be all that more intense and the investment will pour in for alternatives. Denial of this reality will lead to unintended consequences.

Oh it's a threat. If it isn't, then why is presented not so often as the inevitability of economic evolution, but as what happen when workers want too much money, so we had better not raise the MW or disallow tip wages, or enact new safety legislation, etc. ("Too much" being defined by employers, or market true believers with little to no input from or consideration for employees)

It's already happening across Europe where they have implemented the kinds of "rights" and "protections" envisioned by the left in this country. Have you not seen the hordes of unemployed people who can't find any job for any wage?

Can't say I have. Germany and the Scandinavian countries have probably the strongest protections and low unemployment. Other than that, there doesn't appear to be any correlation. As a recent OECD study concluded, “There appears to be little or no association between employment protection legislation strictness and overall unemployment”.

 

[lpetrich]

In an earlier post here, Axulus has strongly implied that quitting at will is very deplorable feature of human employees. So was he wrong?

I said it was a negative feature for the employer that does not exist in the case of a robot or some other sort of technolgy that does work. If you disagree with this plain fact, then you are a denialist.

Thank you for demonstrating my point, Axulus. By your standards, governments allowing employees to quit whenever they want to is yet another of those intolerable burdens that government imposes on business.

This says nothing about it being "deplorable". Your brain seems incapable of anything other than extremeist thought.

Cry me a river.

 

[Bronzeage]

That is when the poor people get together and storm the rich man's house, kill him and his family, and take all his stuff. It's not right, it's not particularly pretty, but it's reality. It's what keeps the rich and powerful from making slaves of everybody. The rich get to keep most of what they collect, only if they cooperate just enough to keep the rest of us from breaking down the gate of his gated community.

What scares me about this isn't so much that this could happen again if the rich push and oppress the poor, but that with improving technology this becomes less and less possible. The time will eventually come where the rich can oppress the poor with no real danger of uprising.

That time will never come. There will always be more poor than rich and there is nothing more powerful than a person who has nothing to lose.

 

[zorq]

What scares me about this isn't so much that this could happen again if the rich push and oppress the poor, but that with improving technology this becomes less and less possible. The time will eventually come where the rich can oppress the poor with no real danger of uprising.

That time will never come. There will always be more poor than rich and there is nothing more powerful than a person who has nothing to lose.

Even though that is the exact plot of the movie I mentioned in this context just a few posts up and though your sentiment is awfully poetic....

For some reason I don't think our hobo overlords have sent down any commandments lately.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, it is the LEFTISTS who are forcing Walmart's owners to squeeze billions of dollars out of the labor of it's employees by paying them much smaller amounts than they (the owners) can afford to and the employees themselves are generating.

Those poor poor Waltons. They never had a chance or a choice.

It's amazing how many guises the mythical infinite pool of profits takes.

 

[Bronzeage]

That time will never come. There will always be more poor than rich and there is nothing more powerful than a person who has nothing to lose.

Even though that is the exact plot of the movie I mentioned in this context just a few posts up and though your sentiment is awfully poetic....

For some reason I don't think our hobo overlords have sent down any commandments lately.

Americans kill each other at a higher rate than almost any other country, and that's when things are good. Give us the right motivation and the rich will be looking for a hole in the ground, in the tall grass.

 

[ksen]

Even though that is the exact plot of the movie I mentioned in this context just a few posts up and though your sentiment is awfully poetic....

For some reason I don't think our hobo overlords have sent down any commandments lately.

Americans kill each other at a higher rate than almost any other country, and that's when things are good. Give us the right motivation and the rich will be looking for a hole in the ground, in the tall grass.

I will happily provide holes for them.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, it is the LEFTISTS who are forcing Walmart's owners to squeeze billions of dollars out of the labor of it's employees by paying them much smaller amounts than they (the owners) can afford to and the employees themselves are generating.

Those poor poor Waltons. They never had a chance or a choice.

It's amazing how many guises the mythical infinite pool of profits takes.

You are mistaken if you think repetition of an idiotic meme makes it less idiotic.

 

[zorq]

Yes, it is the LEFTISTS who are forcing Walmart's owners to squeeze billions of dollars out of the labor of it's employees by paying them much smaller amounts than they (the owners) can afford to and the employees themselves are generating.

Those poor poor Waltons. They never had a chance or a choice.

It's amazing how many guises the mythical infinite pool of profits takes.

Where is my claim of infinate pools? STRAWMAN!

Since Auxlus has declined to comment, perhaps YOU would care to explain to me how it is possible that Costco employees produce so much more value with their work that Costco can afford to pay them an average of $20 an hour while Walmart employees are so pittifully unproductive that the Waltons can only afford to pay them an average of $12 an hour.

What makes you think that the value that Walmart employees bring to the Waltons is so small? If it happens to be roughly equivalent to the value that Costco employees bring to Costco, then clearly The Waltons are taking a relatively excessive amount of value from their employees and not paying them their share that provides them a living wage if they have dependents.

 

[zorq]

Even though that is the exact plot of the movie I mentioned in this context just a few posts up and though your sentiment is awfully poetic....

For some reason I don't think our hobo overlords have sent down any commandments lately.

Americans kill each other at a higher rate than almost any other country, and that's when things are good. Give us the right motivation and the rich will be looking for a hole in the ground, in the tall grass.

In the future when Earth is a slum and the rich only live on Mars, I don't think any number of handguns are going to be able to kill the Rich. It doesn't even have to be Mars. It could be a secret bunker in the arctic or a satelite. Even now, once class war is declared, first strike OR retaliation by the wealthy has the potential to completely destroy all life on the surface of the earth.

You threaten a person's life and his familys' why wouldn't he destroy the entire planet to save them? A planet is worth nothing if you and all you care about are dead. You think powerles people are dangerous? Try threatening to take everthing away from the powerful.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Are "the poor people" just a worthless bunch of rabble riff-raff plunderers who have to be bribed?

The question is, where is the right balance? Is the left's vision of putting in as many burdens, expenses and barriers up as possible on the company when a company wants to hire an employee the right balance here?

I'm not sure where the balance is, but I know what happens when there is no balance and everything falls over.

That is when the poor people get together and storm the rich man's house, kill him and his family, and take all his stuff. It's not right, it's not particularly pretty, but it's reality.

No it's not reality -- it's a slander against the poor. The poor do NOT storm anyone's house and kill anyone, etc. simply because companies or the powers that be

-- Remove minimum wage

-- Roll back health and safety regulations

-- Remove privacy rights

etc. (reduce the coffee break from 20 minutes to 15? curtail employees from viewing porn sites on company time?)

The vast majority of poor people do absolutely none of this. Rather, there is a minority of labor activists and thugs and derelicts who go on a rampage and commit violence against employers and against other workers who don't join their employer-bashing crusade and against the company's customers.

It is not true that poor people generally are impulsive criminals as implied by "That is when the poor people get together and storm the rich man's house, kill him and his family, and take all his stuff. It's not right, it's not particularly pretty, but it's reality."

Even if it's true that the petty crime rate among the poor is higher than average and that the crime rate is higher during bad times (which is not clear), still, the vast majority of the poor do not go on such a rampage or even come close, nor pose any threat to the rich. And the few who do pose any threat actually pose a greater threat to other poor people than to the rich, because it's mostly in their own poor neighborhoods where they commit their crimes.

But it's interesting that those who want more benefits to wage-earners (or oppose reducing these benefits), and want to impose higher and higher costs onto employers, scapegoating them and forcing them not only to pay workers more than their value but also to be their babysitters, end up finding the ultimate rationale for this by accusing the poor workers themselves of being essentially parasites and pillagers who are so rotten and worthless and savage that that they have to be bought off, like extortionists or protection racketeers.

But these ideologue-crusader-left-wing fanatics are wrong, because most of the poor are not such extortionists who need to be bought off. And those who pretend to speak for the poor should stop doing it by disparaging the poor with slander such as this.

 

[lpetrich]

The vast majority of poor people do absolutely none of this. Rather, there is a minority of labor activists and thugs and derelicts who go on a rampage and commit violence against employers and against other workers who don't join their employer-bashing crusade and against the company's customers.

Lumpenproletariat, look at the history of labor unions some time. It wasn't some tiny minority of troublemakers, it was a lot of rank-and-file workers who often joined in. Look at the Blair Mountain Mine War some time. It was a massive revolt.

As to "a small minority of troublemakers", I wouldn't be surprised if that's what King George III had believed about the American Revolution.

Lumpenproletariat, do you believe that you have a right to get everything for free? Your perpetual screeching about workers getting overpaid suggests that. I ask you, what would you have thought about plantation slavery if you had been living before the US Civil War? Would you have defended it as providing that all-important good, that great end that justifies even the most heinous means, Low Prices For The Consumer? If not, then would you have been willing to accept higher prices for the consumer as a consequence of abolishing slavery, and would you have been willing to be very loud about that? Yes, *very* loud.

But it's interesting that those who want more benefits to wage-earners (or oppose reducing these benefits), and want to impose higher and higher costs onto employers, scapegoating them and forcing them not only to pay workers more than their value but also to be their babysitters, end up finding the ultimate rationale for this by accusing the poor workers themselves of being essentially parasites and pillagers who are so rotten and worthless and savage that that they have to be bought off, like extortionists or protection racketeers.

Lumpenproletariat, define "worth" of labor. How would you measure it? Since you are so deserving of a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, you should have no trouble describing how you measure the worth of labor.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, it is the LEFTISTS who are forcing Walmart's owners to squeeze billions of dollars out of the labor of it's employees by paying them much smaller amounts than they (the owners) can afford to and the employees themselves are generating.

Those poor poor Waltons. They never had a chance or a choice.

It's amazing how many guises the mythical infinite pool of profits takes.

No one is saying there's an infinite pool of profits. Considering that the Waltons are the richest family in the world however, that pool is Marianas trench deep.

 

[lpetrich]

It's amazing how many guises the mythical infinite pool of profits takes.

No one is saying there's an infinite pool of profits. Considering that the Waltons are the richest family in the world however, that pool is Marianas trench deep.

Look at how unbalanced the US distribution of wealth has become -- the 1% vs. the 99%. Loren Pechtel's argument may have been somewhat valid in the 1950's and 1960's, but it isn't very valid now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even though that is the exact plot of the movie I mentioned in this context just a few posts up and though your sentiment is awfully poetic....

For some reason I don't think our hobo overlords have sent down any commandments lately.

Americans kill each other at a higher rate than almost any other country, and that's when things are good. Give us the right motivation and the rich will be looking for a hole in the ground, in the tall grass.

At a rate higher than other western countries. There are plenty of third-world places with higher murder rates.