U.S. Politics - Page 552 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5511  
Old 12-08-12, 23:17
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
If your bar is that low then I guess we are doing pretty good over here.



If that's what motivates someone to become successful then, assuming they do it legally, God Bless them.

There is true exploitation in this world. Choosing to work for wal mart ain't it.
The question is one relative to corporate profit set against employee wages. If the former exists to such a considerable extent that the slum wages it offers the later aren't justified, then we have a case of "exploitation." This is where I think politics have a place in regulating the market as well.

I realize that what our high tech corporations have done to entire African regions, in an effort to procure rare metals at the lowest possible cost for the lucrative production of our gadgets, is a type of exploitation on an entirely more appalling scale; however, on the domestic front, Wal Mart is the worst example of a low cost retail model in America.

Getting rich as a motivating factor, something which you always feel the need to reiterate, in one's occupational career was of no concern to the original premise: namely, having minimum salaries meet the basic demands for a "dignified life." In other words it was about poverty, not wealth.

Why can't we have a system that prioritizes forging a collective state of “dignity,” over one that stresses the individual’s earning potential? It isn’t that individual wealth is bad, however, in its presence the absence of minimum wages that meet those standards I mentioned (which includes functioning public medical care, education, etc.) becomes condemnable.

Of course the issues brought to bear in our debate so far, have to do with how one considers life: whether as a personal game to “be won” through achieving an economic status, or through a concept of longue durée, which presupposes an "epistemological break” at some point with the more flagrant injustices of the past, within a protracted historical narrative.

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-09-12 at 13:38.
Reply With Quote
  #5512  
Old 12-09-12, 17:13
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
...ooooh...that hit a nerve!...I'm so sorry, I didn't realize that you considered yourself a CEO...

Cheers

blutto

No nerve hit.

I'm curious why you won't try and answer simple questions? You assert CEO psychopaths are in unusual numbers, or I think that's what you meant.

Can you back it up or is it just more gas?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5513  
Old 12-09-12, 17:30
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
The question is one relative to corporate profit set against employee wages. If the former exists to such a considerable extent that the slum wages it offers the later aren't justified, then we have a case of "exploitation." This is where I think politics have a place in regulating the market as well.

I realize that what our high tech corporations have done to entire African regions, in an effort to procure rare metals at the lowest possible cost for the lucrative production of our gadgets, is a type of exploitation on an entirely more appalling scale; however, on the domestic front, Wal Mart is the worst example of a low cost retail model in America.

Getting rich as a motivating factor, something which you always feel the need to reiterate, in one's occupational career was of no concern to the original premise: namely, having minimum salaries meet the basic demands for a "dignified life." In other words it was about poverty, not wealth.

Why can't we have a system that prioritizes forging a collective state of “dignity,” over one that stresses the individual’s earning potential? It isn’t that individual wealth is bad, however, in its presence the absence of minimum wages that meet those standards I mentioned (which includes functioning public medical care, education, etc.) becomes condemnable.

Of course the issues brought to bear in our debate so far, have to do with how one considers life: whether as a personal game to “be won” through achieving an economic status, or through a concept of longue durée, which presupposes an "epistemological break” at some point with the more flagrant injustices of the past, within a protracted historical narrative.
Quote:
The question is one relative to corporate profit set against employee wages. If the former exists to such a considerable extent that the slum wages it offers the later aren't justified, then we have a case of "exploitation." This is where I think politics have a place in regulating the market as well.
Business isn't static. Employees get paid even when business' lose money. Business rarely has the same profitability year over year. Business has to plan for multitudes of scenarios, conditions and eventualities. Business has to invest in growth, equipment, etc. Most business has to be very mindful of expenses an labor is one of the closest watched. That's the real world.


Quote:
Getting rich as a motivating factor, something which you always feel the need to reiterate, in one's occupational career was of no concern to the original premise: namely, having minimum salaries meet the basic demands for a "dignified life." In other words it was about poverty, not wealth.
Getting rich is a motivating factor for some. I don't think there is much depth to that motivation, but free people can pursue that if they wish.

Keep defining a dignified life for me. And what responsibility does the individual have to obtain a salary that would allow a dignified life?

Quote:
Why can't we have a system that prioritizes forging a collective state of “dignity,” over one that stresses the individual’s earning potential?
Because that's not how human beings are hard wired. It's like asking why can't Contador just be happy riding around as a domestique.

Quote:
Of course the issues brought to bear in our debate so far, have to do with how one considers life: whether as a personal game to “be won” through achieving an economic status, or through a concept of longue durée, which presupposes an "epistemological break” at some point with the more flagrant injustices of the past, within a protracted historical narrative.
And this just leads us back to the start. In my view, the best the government can do is provide a framework to maximize equal opportunity.

Don't get enamored with equal outcomes.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5514  
Old 12-09-12, 20:29
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post

Keep defining a dignified life for me. And what responsibility does the individual have to obtain a salary that would allow a dignified life?



Because that's not how human beings are hard wired. It's like asking why can't Contador just be happy riding around as a domestique.
Not clear what you mean by responsibility. As to the second, it's not clear how many humans are hard wired. Per Wal-Mart, few rise to Contador's level of self actualization-- even privately. And clearly this culture sells them the fiction that anyone could, while equally offering a material reality in which few do.
Reply With Quote
  #5515  
Old 12-09-12, 23:01
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
Not clear what you mean by responsibility. As to the second, it's not clear how many humans are hard wired. Per Wal-Mart, few rise to Contador's level of self actualization-- even privately. And clearly this culture sells them the fiction that anyone could, while equally offering a material reality in which few do.
Do workers have any responsibility to bring skills and value to an employer? Or is the simple fact that people consume oxygen enough to be provided a job?

Quote:
And clearly this culture sells them the fiction that anyone could, while equally offering a material reality in which few do.
Lots of people have success as they define it. Being a success in most developed economy's is absolutely possible for the vast majority.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5516  
Old 12-09-12, 23:16
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
....while not in anyway definitive here are some paragraphs that illustrate the point...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Psychopath Test around the research of Robert Hare, a Canadian psychologist who is the authority on psychopaths and co-author of Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. Hare is also the author of the definitive psychopath test—Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)—which has become the SAT for diagnosing nutjob behavior. Throughout decades of research, he’s found that many corporate leaders score way above average.

Actually, alarmingly high. While studies suggest that about 1 percent of the general population qualifies as genuinely psychopathic, Hare believes that about 4 percent of people with substantial decision-making power can be classified as such, and their influence is outsized. Hare even tells Ronson he wishes he’d spent less time studying psychopaths in prison and more time studying those who work in the markets. “Serial killers ruin families,” Hare says. “Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies.” Although Ronson leans heavily on Hare’s research, he explains that other psychologists feel the same way. “The higher you go up the ladder,” says Martha Stout, a former Harvard Medical School professor and author of The Sociopath Next Door, “the greater the number of sociopaths you’ll find there.” (Ronson uses the terms socio- and psychopath interchangeably.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

....from... http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-07212011.html

...and btw...how did you arrive at that 5,000,000 number?...

Cheers

blutto

Yeah, it's not definitive.

From Hare;

Quote:
The article to which you refer describes a sample of “203 corporate professionals selected by their companies to participate in management development programs.” The sample was not randomly selected or necessarily representative of managers or executives, or of the corporations in which they work.

The approximately 4% who had a PCL-R score high enough for a research description as psychopathic cannot be be generalized to the larger population of managers and executives, or to CEOs and the “financial services industry.”
203 samples from a whopping 7 companies.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...-a-psychopath/


There are roughly 5 million company entities with at least 1 employee. About 5.7 company's overall. I did not count the single owner/employee entities.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5517  
Old 12-10-12, 00:54
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
....in medical research an n of 6 is the minimum required for a study to have merit....in polling the n compared to the population is also quite small...but done properly, by the right people, polls can yield meaningful results....

...as compared to a wrong wing windbag incessantly blathering on about the "relationship" between greed and laziness and welfare and entitlements....

...as for your 5,000,000 CEO's....so what you're saying is that as long as someone can sign their name, in your eyes they are a CEO...whatever floats your boat, or in your case, backfills your point....

Cheers

blutto
Quote:
in medical research an n of 6 is the minimum required for a study to have merit....in polling the n compared to the population is also quite small...but done properly, by the right people, polls can yield meaningful results....
Yeah.... That's what Gallup says.

Quote:
as for your 5,000,000 CEO's....so what you're saying is that as long as someone can sign their name, in your eyes they are a CEO...whatever floats your boat, or in your case, backfills your point....
Your lack of business acumen is telling. Interesting how you'll rail against that which you know little of. Very Obama-like.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5518  
Old 12-10-12, 02:29
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Yeah, it's not definitive.

From Hare;



203 samples from a whopping 7 companies.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...-a-psychopath/


There are roughly 5 million company entities with at least 1 employee. About 5.7 company's overall. I did not count the single owner/employee entities.
So any company with 1 or more employees has a CEO? That is beyond a loose definition.
Weren't you the one arguing a couple pages ago that there were very few CEOs in the grand scheme of American business?
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200

Last edited by Hugh Januss; 12-10-12 at 02:33.
Reply With Quote
  #5519  
Old 12-10-12, 04:04
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
So any company with 1 or more employees has a CEO? That is beyond a loose definition.
Weren't you the one arguing a couple pages ago that there were very few CEOs in the grand scheme of American business?
Not a loose definition at all. Hiring, firing, rent, insurance, taxes, planning, etc. The scale is different from business to business.

You may or may not be a corporation but you are a CEO, like it or not.

I think you are referring to there being only about 5,000 US companies whose stock is exchange traded.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5520  
Old 12-10-12, 04:39
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

According to Velo, the economy is doing fine and getting better.

Quote:
Food stamp use reaches another high in September: 47.7 million participants

The most recent data on SNAP participation were released Friday, and showed that 47,710,324 people were enrolled in the program in September, an increase of 607,559 from the 47,102,765 enrolled in August.

The new numbers mean that an estimated one in 6.5 people in America were on food stamps in September.

In the 1970s, one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Since 2001, spending on the program has quadrupled and doubled in the last four years.
One in 6.5 people and spending has doubled in the last four years for this program. I guess all the advertising for SNAP is really working.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/09/fo...-participants/
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.