"Freedom" thread or something

The Doctor wrote: 3rd part O (for Owner) agrees to pay C $75 an hour to run his company, and E1, E2 and E3 respectively $10 an hour to do the basic work of the company.  Remember, it is O paying E1,2 and 3, not C.  However, C has an idea, he will get rid of E3 and make E1 and E2 work harder for the same amount of pay, and some of that $10 an hour that E3 used to make will go in his pocket and he'll be a hero to O.  Now C is making $80 an hour, E3 is making nothing and E1 and E2 are each working 1.5 times as hard for the same amount of money.  O is also raking in an extra $5 an hour, but for purposes of my argument, that is irrelevant.  C has stolen not only from E3 but also from E1 and E2.  I know you don't think there is any property right in a job, which is why your property rights are all about protecting the rich, but people have a moral property interest in their job if not a legal one.  To avoid argument over the issue, let's also say that there was no other reason to fire E3, he wasn't a bad employee, and none of them were standing around with their thumbs up their butt with nothing to do.  The firing was in no way business related.  It was solely for the purpose of enriching the CEO further.

Interesting. Let me see if I have this straight.

You claim that E3 is being stolen from because he is no longer making $10 an hour to perform a job. Was he then entitled to this $10 an hour forever? Are all layoffs theft? What if instead of being fired he leaves to take a better job, and his unexpected departure reduces output and profits for O. By your logic, would he not be stealing from O?

Also, E3's time and effort has value, does it not? He now has more time and has to expend less effort on his job, so his loss is not 10 an hour, but somewhat less. In fact, it is possible that he may value his time at exactly $10 an hour, and that any drop in salary would have caused him to quit. In this case, he is no worse off for having been fired. Of course, we have no way of knowing how much he values his time, but it is conceivable.

Next, you say that E1 and E2 are forced to work harder for the same amount of money. Of course, you mean that they are asked to work harder for the same amount of money, since slavery is illegal. Maybe they accept, maybe they don't and take their labor elsewhere. If they accept, then clearly they value the $10 more than the time and effort they spend working. Now, suppose that they never had the original job, but were instead offered a more demanding job at the same pay. We already know they would accept, since they have revealed their preferences. Does offering this second job count as stealing as well?

Finally, since E3 can be dispensed with without any loss of profits, clearly the company was being run inefficiently in the first place. O can use some of the extra money to pay C for making things run smoother, and use some of it to expand his business, build more plants and hire more people, and use some of it to invest in research and development for better products that benefit consumers, and use some of it to buy himself a nice new car.

The crux of your argument seems to be that once you have a job, you are entitled to that at least that same wage without any additional responsibilities for the rest of your life. Anything else is theft. Is that right?

If you choose to buy a product or service from someone else, you have hired them.

If you choose to stop buying a product or service from someone else, you have fired them.

The Doctor wrote: I will say this again.  I said it yesterday but it was twisted and turned into something else entirely.  If I don't buy from Walmart, I'm not ruining Walmart's business.  If a person is fired unjustly, their life may be ruined.  Heck, it can be even if they are fired justly, but I do think there are valid reasons to fire someone regardless.

You may not be ruining their business, but you are stealing from them according to your own definition of the term.

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I will say this again.  I said it yesterday but it was twisted and turned into something else entirely.  If I don't buy from Walmart, I'm not ruining Walmart's business.  If a person is fired unjustly, their life may be ruined.  Heck, it can be even if they are fired justly, but I do think there are valid reasons to fire someone regardless. I've lost my job when I didn't deserve it.   I was unemployed three years.   I didn't kill myself. If you kill yourself because you lost a job, then something is wrong with you, not the job makers.

Job makers?  Why don't we build an altar and worship them? 

CEOs do not "make" jobs.  A vibrant middle class spending its money on goods and services creates jobs. 


Edited by The Doctor - January 25 2013 at 21:21

I am going to respond to you twice.  Here we go.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I will say this again.  I said it yesterday but it was twisted and turned into something else entirely.  If I don't buy from Walmart, I'm not ruining Walmart's business.  If a person is fired unjustly, their life may be ruined.  Heck, it can be even if they are fired justly, but I do think there are valid reasons to fire someone regardless. I've lost my job when I didn't deserve it.   I was unemployed three years.   I didn't kill myself. If you kill yourself because you lost a job, then something is wrong with you, not the job makers. Job makers?  Why don't we build an altar and worship them?  CEOs do not "make" jobs.  A vibrant middle class spending its money on goods and services creates jobs.

I said "job makers" and you assumed CEOs.

This tells me two things about you.

1. You don't know what a CEO is.
2. You don't know what CEOs do.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Doctor wrote:   A vibrant middle class spending its money on goods and services creates jobs.

That's why government shouldn't take my money.  I would like to spend it on products and services.  Right? 

The Doctor wrote: ^From what you've told us about yourself, the government doesn't take your money.  And I'm all for middle class tax cuts.

Doc, I raise a family of five as a public school teacher.  I pay $2000+ a year in state and local taxes. 

We are paycheck to paycheck people.

We home school our children (which means we don't rely on the burdened public ed system and we save them money).

I delivered my last child at home myself (which means we don't burden the hospital or ask for government funds).

Yet we can't get a f**king birth certificate for our son, nor a social security card, so that I can file taxes with the IRS who requires me to do so each year.

Now they take 2% more out of my pay.  We can't manage that.

Consider it.  I'm a goddamned government employee, and I'm not able to take care of my family.  And we f**king HOME SCHOOL AND DELIVER OUR OWN CHILDREN.

rogerthat wrote: I would like all kinds of differences and discrimination to be broken down permanently.

You can't be serious. You want everyone to look the same, talk the same, think the same, have the same preferences, the same interests, the same ideas, the same sense of humor, the same beliefs, the same fears, the same ambitions, the same habits and the same talents?

My god, man, what would we have to argue about?

rogerthat wrote: thellama73 wrote: rogerthat wrote: I would like all kinds of differences and discrimination to be broken down permanently. You can't be serious. You want everyone to look the same, talk the same, think the same, have the same preferences, the same interests, the same ideas, the same sense of humor, the same beliefs, the same fears, the same ambitions, the same habits and the same talents? My god, man, what would we have to argue about? I don't want everyone to look the same.  I just want people to accept that even if somebody else is black or brown or yellow or woman or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or poor or rich or middle class, he/she is just another human being like you, not vermin to be got rid of.   If there was sufficient acceptance of that, we would see just how meaningless national barriers are.   Obviously, we don't, not nearly.

Ah, so just discrimination then, not differences. I think we're well on our way. Naturally, there is still a lot of racism in many parts of the world and the Middle East could treat women better, but I find life in America immensely bearable. I think the intolerance here is minimal.

rogerthat wrote: thellama73 wrote: rogerthat wrote: I would like all kinds of differences and discrimination to be broken down permanently. You can't be serious. You want everyone to look the same, talk the same, think the same, have the same preferences, the same interests, the same ideas, the same sense of humor, the same beliefs, the same fears, the same ambitions, the same habits and the same talents?My god, man, what would we have to argue about? <div id="_dyhb23rg4374"><div id="_dyhb23rg4374"> I don't want everyone to look the same.  I just want people to accept that even if somebody else is black or brown or yellow or woman or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or poor or rich or middle class, he/she is just another human being like you, not vermin to be got rid of.   If there was sufficient acceptance of that, we would see just how meaningless national barriers are.   Obviously, we don't, not nearly. <div id="_dyhb23rg4374"><div id="_dyhb23rg4374">

But people group together man. And national barriers are meaningless when they are artificial (like in many many if not most cases). But as recent developments in places like Catalunya, Spain, and many others around the world prove, people prefer autodetermination within national barriers. The whole "one world one government one people" doesn't ring true and never will for a few centuries at least. Maybe one day.

The T wrote:  But people group together man. And national barriers are meaningless when they are artificial (like in many many if not most cases). But as recent developments in places like Catalunya, Spain, and many others around the world prove, people prefer autodetermination within national barriers. The whole "one world one government one people" doesn't ring true and never will for a few centuries at least. Maybe one day.