Another job no American would want

12357

Comments

  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    my2hands wrote:


    i just find it sad that people value a business's bottom line over the real world affects their greed has at home with our families and neighbors.

    /\ and with that, i am done.

    your future generations will be happy to know how willing you were to sell them out for a companies bottom line
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Dustin51 wrote:
    It matters because a different country may not have healthcare, workers comp, fair wages, safe conditions etc etc. They may have no problem employing 9 years olds or forcing people to work 20 hour days.

    For all of the bleeding hearts on this board I'm surprised that you support these kinds of practices just to bolster a corporations bottom line.

    I don't support those practices, but if the people over there are starving and have no jobs at all, isn't it better for them to have some employment and income - even with less than ideal conditions - as opposed to no prospects at all. Let's face it, they are probably willing to put up with lower wages and worse conditions because they have NOTHING without the job.

    I'll take it one further - In the U.S. a worker can get unemployment compensation, so isn't it better for the U.S. worker to be receiving unemployment and the foreign worker to have a job than it would be for the U.S. worker to have the job and the foreign worker to have nothing?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    In the society we live in, money is a necessity. Not a luxury, not some sort of game piece to be played with, but a necessity. All able bodied individuals "forced" to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone.

    Or, we can stop being hyperbolic, and start dealing with reality.

    Hehe...yes, let's. Here's a very realistic question that might help you determine what money really is:

    What is "necessary" about money in "the society we live in"?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    RainDog wrote:

    Or, we can stop being hyperbolic, and start dealing with reality.

    i thought it was just me? he is fucking ridiculous :rolleyes:
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    my2hands wrote:
    so you support a company that has made its success in America off the backs of americans, then sending their jobs over seas so they can pay workers less and provide fewer benefits?
    Companies do not make their success of the backs of anyone. Unless you believe Pearl Jam is exploiting you. Maybe you believe they should be doing free shows in your backyard?

    Companies, like individuals, profit by exchanging goods or services for more money than they take to produce. There is no exploitation involved. No one can ever take advantage of anyone who has not already submitted to accepting the behavior. At that point there can be no exploitation.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    I don't support those practices, but if the people over there are starving and have no jobs at all, isn't it better for them to have some employment and income - even with less than ideal conditions - as opposed to no prospects at all. Let's face it, they are probably willing to put up with lower wages and worse conditions because they have NOTHING without the job.

    I'll take it one further - In the U.S. a worker can get unemployment compensation, so isn't it better for the U.S. worker to be receiving unemployment and the foreign worker to have a job than it would be for the U.S. worker to have the job and the foreign worker to have nothing?
    When we "provide" jobs to these workers, we are simply enabling the systems under which they live. If we refused to deal with the countries in which they live, then those countries' governments would eventually have to bow to our demands, or they'll have to deal with their own populations. By us "employing" those workers (i.e., allowing them to remain enslaved - this time for reals farfromglorified), we are propping up their abuse.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    RainDog wrote:
    When we "provide" jobs to these workers, we are simply enabling the systems under which they live. If we refused to deal with the countries in which they live, then those countries' governments would eventually have to bow to our demands, or they'll have to deal with their own populations. By us "employing" those workers (i.e., allowing them to remain enslaved - this time for reals farfromglorified), we are propping up their abuse.


    That's a pessimistic way of looking at it. I see it as giving the people a start or a hope. Once the business becomes entrenched there, they can then organize and make demands to try and improve their conditions. Without the jobs, they have no bargaining power.

    That's the way it happened in the U.S.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...yes, let's. Here's a very realistic question that might help you determine what money really is:

    What is "necessary" about money in "the society we live in"?
    Food and shelter for yourself and your family. I'll agree that most beyond that is "luxury" to an extent - in that eating a hot, freshly served hamburger is a "luxury" compared to pulling a cold one out of the trash.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    my2hands wrote:
    i thought it was just me? he is fucking ridiculous :rolleyes:
    The market cures all. Or, if it doesn't cure all, so what? 'Cause the market cures all.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Food and shelter for yourself and your family.

    So, in a society without money, food and shelter wouldn't be necessary?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    That's a pessimistic way of looking at it. I see it as giving the people a start or a hope. Once the business becomes entrenched there, they can then organize and make demands to try and improve their conditions. Without the jobs, they have no bargaining power.

    That's the way it happened in the U.S.
    When it happened in the U.S., the U.S. didn't have someone as large and powerful as the current U.S. demanding that everything stay the same. If you're going to judge events in the past through context, you have to do the same with the present.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So, in a society without money, food and shelter wouldn't be necessary?
    No, but when did I say anything about a society without money?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    surferdude wrote:
    Companies do not make their success of the backs of anyone. Unless you believe Pearl Jam is exploiting you.


    if Pearl Jam didnt have a road crew, drivers, management, manufacturers, etc. then they would have no career or business. so they have been built on the back of american labor. that doesnt mean they are exploiting people? but i would guess that after all is said and done they wont be outsourcing their "roadies" to find someone cheaper. they will be loyal to what made them what they are. and that is why they are loyal to their fans. just the fact that they have $50 tix tells me that.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    my2hands wrote:
    if Pearl Jam didnt have a road crew, drivers, management, manufacturers, etc. then they would have no career or business. so they have been built on the back of american labor. that doesnt mean they are exploiting people? but i would guess that after all is said and done they wont be outsourcing their "roadies" to find someone cheaper. they will be loyal to what made them what they are. and that is why they are loyal to their fans. just the fact that they have $50 tix tells me that.
    Do you realize that Pearl Jam effectively outsourced their live concert cd's? They stopped having American companies produce, distribute and sell them. And instead went to a model that is out of reach of poor people. An internet based model that is built upon people using computers made in foreign countries. Pearl Jam demands you outsource jobs in order to listen to their recorded concerts. Shame, shame, shame. How can you support them?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    my2hands wrote:
    just the fact that they have $50 tix tells me that.
    Fifty dollar tickets or not, where's my damn New Orleans show?

    I demand - through force and violence - that Pearl Jam play here. It's enough to just say it, right?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    No, but when did I say anything about a society without money?

    "In the society we live in, money is a necessity."

    I'm asking you if money weren't a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    know1 wrote:
    Right - that's why I put the "I don't know" phrase into my original statement that confused you.

    Unless it's me losing the job, or perhaps one of my friends or relatives, it shouldn't matter whether it's an American or someone of another nationality who gets it.

    But some people - like the original post I quoted - seem to think that it's better for an "American" to have a job as opposed to someone from a different background.

    It's not about John or Jose "getting" a job, they have jobs. It's about fair competition of "keeping" their jobs. Under this proposed pilot program, there's little if any oversight for the influx of these long haul carriers or drivers within the U.S. borders that the government is willing to outline specifically. What is the carrier's responsibility to the public, especially for contact information in the case of an emergency or spill that presents a danger to the public. Is the carrier considered a foreign entity not subjected to the U.S. civil judicial system or only the driver as an individual? Will drivers under this pilot program be subject to the same rules, regulations and requirements placed on other long haul drivers by state and federal regs. or are they exempt to only federal laws or laws specific to NAFTA?

    No, everyone's job can not be protected under trade deals, but here is a "backbone" industry of america what's the rush? So much has been not "clearly" addressed by DOT to the American Trucking Industry and all they're seeking are the rules on the playing field.

    As far as technologies goes. High speed internet is good, but a couple of high speed train systems would be better. Right now the only thing reducing highway congestion is the price of gas.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    "In the society we live in, money is a necessity."

    I'm asking you if money weren't a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
    When did I say that at some point money wouldn't be a necessity? You're the one that brought slavery into it.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    puremagic wrote:
    It's not about John or Jose "getting" a job, they have jobs. It's about fair competition of "keeping" their jobs. Under this proposed pilot program, there's little if any oversight for the influx of these long haul carriers or drivers within the U.S. borders that the government is willing to outline specifically. What is the carrier's responsibility to the public, especially for contact information in the case of an emergency or spill that presents a danger to the public. Is the carrier considered a foreign entity not subjected to the U.S. civil judicial system or only the driver as an individual? Will drivers under this pilot program be subject to the same rules, regulations and requirements placed on other long haul drivers by state and federal regs. or are they exempt to only federal laws or laws specific to NAFTA?

    No, everyone's job can not be protected under trade deals, but here is a "backbone" industry of america what's the rush? So much has been not "clearly" addressed by DOT to the American Trucking Industry and all they're seeking are the rules on the playing field.

    As far as technologies goes. High speed internet is good, but a couple of high speed train systems would be better. Right now the only thing reducing highway congestion is the price of gas.

    So before this program, were American drivers/companies the ones making the runs from the U.S. to the plants in Mexico?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    When did I say that at some point money wouldn't be a necessity?

    You didn't. I'm asking you if money were not a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
    You're the one that brought slavery into it.

    No, I didn't. You said this:

    "In the society we live in, money is a necessity. All able bodied individuals 'forced' to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."

    The above implies that if money were not a necessity, no would would be forced to work. Since you've already correctly identified "food and shelter" as the real reason you are "forced" to work, I'm wondering why you're blaming money as the root of our slave status.

Categories