Obama: "Profits have to be shared by workers" ... Idiodic Statements for $500 please!

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I don't see where I cherry-picked. Haha if anything you interpreted my statement how you saw fit. Capitalism is solely an idea; an idea that currently shapes the world view. To destroy capitalism is not synonymous with destroying civilization or replacing all members of every capitalist regime. One thing I disagree with when it comes to Marx, is that he believed socialism would replace capitalism through organized revolution. That has already happened, and failed numerous times in my opinion. It will come through sheer chaotic upheaval when the modern man has no other choice but to avoid becoming a complete soulless automaton.

reply to post by links234


maybe some of the people who don;t put forth an effort are incapable of really caring? You know, the ones who just have been beaten and broken by the system?

I would think that inner city America is as far from "natural" as you can get for a human environment. I can also imagine that this is not intellectually, mentally, or emotionally healthy.

reply to post by gncnew


If I hear 1 more Moth3rtrucking excuse to give leeches my money im gonna snap!
honestly geezikriest
i am in a state of denial at how much $$$$ i pay to support losers and those that cannot provide for themselves
survival of the fittest mentality has gone by the way side and now it's like im paying for human pets that take care of themselves.

The fact is that the world has changed.

Over the past few decades and continuing into the present, other countries have become better educated and more involved in the marketplace, and the market has shifted from primarily American to global.

American workers must now compete with workers all over the globe for a job. Most countries do not have as high of a standard of living as America and thus accept lower wages, so American workers must adopt a lower pay and a lower standard of living in order to compete in the global market.

Unless individuals voice their concerns and use their leverage as vital members of the economic system, the unspoken consensus are the lowest possible wages and living standard, or as Obama states, "the bottom line."


An important question to ask is, how did Americans gain such a great standard of living throughout the majority of the 20th century instead of the corporate "bottom line" that we generally see now? The answer to this question would inform the steps that we must take to ensure a comfortable standard of living into the future, perferably for the entire world.

Ever heard of a CO-OP?

Oh, and I like how you group together stupid people with people who earn minimum wage, real classy.

reply to post by civilchallenger


While you say a lot of good things, you're also arrogantly ignorant about hard work.

There are a lot of jobs that will always require hard work. It is unavoidable. There will never be a technology that is so good that it maintains itself and everything else around it - not that will allow humans to still have their place in this world.

We humans are gods and machines. But if you forego one part, the other is meaningless.

Be appreciate of those people who bust their asses for peanuts so that you can have all you want in the air conditioning.

Unless you're farming your own food, working on the machines, building the machines, mining the metals and minerals, taking care of your sick and dying self - all by yourself?

You are smart, but spoiled. With wisdom comes true power.

And working hard is sometimes fun for the physical and mental challenges... if we rely on machines, we become obsolete.

Originally posted by links234
I love this thread.

Both sides arguing over who's 'more correct' in their ideas and ideals.

I'll just say that I believe that if an employee knows they have some stake in how well their employer does they'll work harder and be happier for it. Where you're forced into a situation that regardless of hard you do or don't work has no effect on your paycheck is when you'll see the greatest problems arise.

"I don't have to put forth an effort because I'll still get paid."
"No matter how hard I work, I get paid the same."

To simply say that employers shouldn't care about the amount of money or benefits their employees recieve is asinine. If you're working a sh*t job you'll do a sh*t job. There's no incentive there. If you give people tangible benefits to working hard they will work harder.

With the exception of a very few .com companies the employee morale does NOT correlate to a profitable business.

Speak for yourself.

I have enough respect for myself, my family, and the human race that I will bust my ass no matter what it is that I do. I will do everything I do perfectly and I will prove the power of a human. A power that all humans have.

Money doesn't tell me what to do. I do what I want to do. Everything I do is my choice.

Put a gun to my head and I'll tell you to pull the trigger or I will break your finger and that's all you'll get out of me. Because life is a gift but so is free will and I won't give up one for the other.

Originally posted by holyTerror
Ever heard of a CO-OP?

Oh, and I like how you group together stupid people with people who earn minimum wage, real classy.

To be honest, there is something to this.

The people who work for minimum wage are usually:

1. mentally deficient
2. young and inexperienced
3. dysfunctional (borderline personality, drug seeking personality, etc)

I have managed a lot of entry level employees in my life. That is what i usually see. But i still love them. You just have to adjust what you expect from them so that you can find a happy medium (as best you can).

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by holyTerror
Ever heard of a CO-OP?

Oh, and I like how you group together stupid people with people who earn minimum wage, real classy.

To be honest, there is something to this.

The people who work for minimum wage are usually:

1. mentally deficient
2. young and inexperienced
3. dysfunctional (borderline personality, drug seeking personality, etc)

I have managed a lot of entry level employees in my life. That is what i usually see. But i still love them. You just have to adjust what you expect from them so that you can find a happy medium (as best you can).

Usually, but definitely not all friend.

I know a couple of geniuses who have figured out life working close to minimum wage.

And their lives are an adventure for sure.

There is a quote from a movie somewhere... "Your education will most certainly interfere with your learning."

reply to post by TarzanBeta


i couldn't agree more. People who truly are intellectual do not need the baubles of modern life, and thus do not need the money that it takes to purchase such baubles.

But...sssshhhhh.....lets keep some things secret.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

i couldn't agree more. People who truly are intellectual do not need the baubles of modern life, and thus do not need the money that it takes to purchase such baubles.

But...sssshhhhh.....lets keep some things secret.

This is the second time in this thread I have been hushed.

Don't the few matter? We can learn from the few man. The few. How can something sound so weird and yet epic?

Originally posted by lilsmurf
Obama is talking sense.

This is not Socialism, it is just capping Capitalism something that should have been done many, many years ago.

That is pretty much the definition of socialism, caps and chains. Everything must be equal. It's like education, a equal access to education does not mean that the class should progress at the pace of the dumbest kid.

reply to post by TarzanBeta


Listen, i make over minimum wage. Is that my desire? Well...i guess it is by proxy. It makes my wife happy. She is what makes me happy. So, by proxy, baubles do make me happy, i suppose. But for me, i just want quiet and a place to think. If i have that, everything else is a distraction.

The only reason i say "shh" is because it is a secret that a simple life leads to a happier existence. Not really a secret, but more of me being facetious.

I do realize that you are a Christian (if my memory serves me). However, you might find some interesting reading in the "8 fold path" in Buddhism. And the Noble Truths. They touch on this subject, and were a real eye opener for me back in my 20's.

I don't know what Obama meant exactly by saying "opening markets (will somehow lead to) raising the standard of living", since usually the term is applied to sending jobs overseas.

He probably meant that "in the long run", such a thing might happen.

Which is idiodick in the short-term!

However you spell it, unbridled corporatism has an established track-record, of pretty much hosing the country.

As they go about their "business" of maximizing profits (actually, their big bonuses), it's not just jobs lost, and little people stepped-upon, and environments crapped-up to high-heaven, even their shareholders get the shaft! Anyone ever hear of Enron?

As a person who is self-employed, and who has employed dozens of people over the years, I can see what the OP is saying. But there is a bit of subtle deception going on, IMO, at many of the universities that seem to get the rational "micro" versions of laissez faire, mixed up with what the global corporate behemoths are doing. And this "subtle" difference, makes all the difference in the world.

In reality, corporations seem to have become monsters of the modern era, enjoying tremendous power, which is all out of proportion to the "responsibility" they have (as a result of that power), and the almost worthless consequences that they can be held to.

In the not-so-distant past, this relatively young monster was taken notice of, and responsible elements in government, acted accordingly. For example, anti-trust laws were not seen as a hindrance to commerce, rather, this level of governmental involvement was considered absolutely necessary, else the corporate mega-power would finally make a joke of "free enterprise".

Another way to put it is that there is indeed a role for "the king" to play, even in a "free" economy, and as it turns out, his role is an essential one.

Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of the corporate idea at all. Concentrating wealth, allowing very few people (who we seldom get to know) unheard of power, and then simultaneously allowing them to hide behind an "artificial" entity, well, no wonder the whole world is on the brink o'Doom.

There's another insidious side to the way this is playing out. If you buy my notion that even today there is an essential role for the king to play, in regards to keeping these huge bullies in check, then as we have gone "global", a need seemingly emerges for a "king", who can effectively prevent the kind of insanity that has engulfed the world these past few years.

By the time it's all played out, I'm guessing the whole world will cry out for that king, or at least a powerful new global system. Things seem to be going according to plan.

Just as corporations were the trail-blazers of a new international world, erasing boundaries as they expanded, so will it be in the near future, when we look back one day at our history, and see that corporations were the tool wielded in forging our chains, and ushering in the NWO.

JR

reply to post by gncnew


Not being an Obama supporter this may sound odd, but he is right. I'm a huge believer in incentive based pay. Did Obama really say this? More to him than meets the eye.

Even though I suspect it's just lip service for votes, I can't find fault with what he said in that video. Still would never vote for him though. He has proven himself to be the opposite of what he is pretending to be in the speech too many times. Does no good for him to talk like that if the legislation he backs screams he believes the opposite.

Lets see how quickly he goes about reducing over regulation and spending before anyone listens to his words. So far he has struck out on that front.

reply to post by gncnew


What you fail to realize is that while GDP, corporate profits, worker productivity and other industry-benefits have INCREASED over the past few decades (with the exception, perhaps of the recent uber-recession)... worker compensation has STAGNATED... FOR DECADES.

People need money to eat, maintain shelter, transport/clothe themselves, for medical care and a myriad of other costs of living. SURVIVAL IS NOT A GAME. You cannot sit there and pretend that a strictly free-market/for-profit system will take care of its flock, that's COMPLETELY OXYMORONIC, the purpose of Capitalism is not necessarily the greatest benefit to the most people... not even as an unintended byproduct... the purpose of Capitalism is ceaseless competition, profit, expansion, and consumption... and these are VERY DANGEROUS and inhumane games to play with both humans and ecosystems. A corporation is NOT a person... it exists to serve its workers and the populace, if it refuses to use its wealth to do so then it should be MADE to do so... the ONLY losers in this situation are top execs and CEOs... and who really gives a flying f*** about them anyway?? NOBODY SHOULD. These are people who live like kings off the backs of others... they do not need or deserve the amount of wealth they've typically gained, it doesn't matter how hard they've worked, they do not live in a vacuum of 100% self-improvement, they gained wealth from the spending and labors of others, they affect society in a number of ways, therefore they are AUTOMATICALLY a part of the system and should not be separated from it. This is what we have in our plutocracy/corporatocracy: A privatization of gains and a socialization of losses. This means that when big business gains... they fight tooth and nail to keep it all to themselves (talk about a sense of entitlement?) and when they LOSE they attempt to spread their losses amongst workers, consumers, and as a tax/subsidy/inflationary/bailout burden... this is a terrible way to run things.

i dont think that everyone should have the exact same things and be completley equal. i do think that people that work and get the job done for a profitable company should share in those profits! not just a market wage either.if you work for a crappy company that does not make profit than you should not expect to keep that job or to make more money at that job. on the other hand if you work for a good company that makes good profits...you get the idea.


i just want to point something out and admit something. i get on my soapbox from time to time and rally the cause of the every man. the thing that scares me is my materialistic instinct. lets say i got my way and the playing field was leveled. what if instead of me having more oppurtunities and a chance to make more money, what if it meant i get a smaller apartment, a crappier car and a lower salary?? would i still be all gung ho about the level playing field? i dont think the billionaires would want to give up there yachts and summer homes either...
the point i'm making is damned if you do, damned if you dont....

I don't know OP. I'm not an Obama fan, but I think you're reading into this too much. In the excerpt of the speech that you posted; I didn't take the whole Marxist message like some others did. I only see it as him using his status as Prez to promote better conditions for workers. He wasn't talking about making it a policy. He was only making recommendations to business owners. There's nothing wrong with promoting your ideas and concerns, it's when you get behind the pen and begin mandating these policies that Constitutionality becomes an issue. Maybe I missed something, or I'm reading it wrong, but that should be the only thing a President is good for; preaching from the bully pulpit.

I apologize for saying this, but while you people bitch and moan about Obama being socialist, more and more jobs are outsourced to India and other far east places.

The real problem is globalism. American businesses have taken their factories to the far east, and therefore Americans don't have jobs any more.

Originally posted by vardlokkur
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

I don't see where I cherry-picked. Haha if anything you interpreted my statement how you saw fit. Capitalism is solely an idea; an idea that currently shapes the world view. To destroy capitalism is not synonymous with destroying civilization or replacing all members of every capitalist regime. One thing I disagree with when it comes to Marx, is that he believed socialism would replace capitalism through organized revolution. That has already happened, and failed numerous times in my opinion. It will come through sheer chaotic upheaval when the modern man has no other choice but to avoid becoming a complete soulless automaton.

You could no more destroy capitalism than you could destroy the human spirt. People do things based upon the foundation of supply and demand. Where you live, what you eat, what you wear... all of it is supply and demand.

Always will be... sorry to break the facade.