Why is it communist/leftist to try and fight for better wages? Wanting more capital is leftist??

Fighting for better wages is considered leftist, because it usually implies being part of a union; and trade unions are generally seen as being as close as it gets, to the actual existence of anarchist syndicates. Employers have traditionally disliked trade unions, because the entire point of a union is to prevent workers from being treated like slaves. On the flip side, however, you virtually won't find a trade union that doesn't have its' own Comrade Stalin running the show. It's evidence of the fact that it does not matter what system you implement; Capitalism, Communism, or whatever else. The psychopaths always end up in charge.

Ironically, the living wage was originally one of the main justifications given for Capitalism, where lower level workers were concerned; the idea was that Capitalism would ensure that the harder someone worked, the more money they would earn. Communism in Russia was typically cited as a counter-example of this.

Fighting for better wages is a misnomer.

If you are of a specific skill set, you should be able to name your own salary.

By placing yourself in a position where others determine you salary, you cede any control over your own life. If your career choice places you in a position where you can''t name your own salary, then the fault lies with the individual.
To place blame in society for ones own shortcomings is a constant irritant to those of us that choose to grow in strength, knowledge, and ability.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Cassius666
If the company can give you the option to take minimum wage or go live under a bridge...

Maybe, that's the most significant problem. What could workers earn, if there was more competition in wages? Now, the government permits employers to keep wages down, rather than have to compete for quality employees, with competitive wages.

Another problem, obvious to customers, is that minimum wage produces minimum work.

This premise is based upon the idea that the entire wage floor wouldn't drop if employers could
pay their employees much less than the current minimum wage. I think it is not very reasonable to
assert that business wouldn't cull overhead costs and convert that same capital into higher
dividends, profit or expansion. If you look at the industrial revolution and the history and behavior
of business owner prior to the dawning of the minimum wage, large business' rarely passed on a
surplus to the line workers. What is going to change this well established pattern in modernity?

If companies wanted to attract better employees, with higher wages they could do it today.

Frankly it seems asinine to think that the only way to raise standards is to create the appearance
that standards are higher by lowering the bar.

Some industries like fast food and manufacturing must be able to function with lousy employees, and their employees are nothing but biological machines. Ironically I think the social disintegration in America creates opportunities for motivated employees if they can find the right industries. The trick is to find an employer that needs more than a machine.

I think small businesses have better opportunities because each employee is more important.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I don't know I apply to these jobs and ask for 10.50 an hour...they have the right to not call me, or they have a right to negotiate, I have the right to tell them to stick their jon too, if they want to pay me too low.
Oh yeah but that's another "leftist" thing, refusing to take crappy pay and waiting until someone actually will pay you what you are worth...

I'd rather have not two pennies to rub together than lower myself to working at Burger King or Taco Bell...I guess I just have an "entitlement" issue.

The funny thing is, when you look at the entire fast food model... Not only does the industry keep wages
extremely low, it also serves to poison the population on a massive scale. That is a bi product at least,
then if you consider the cost of the industry as it relates to healthcare costs. Of course fast food
translates the low wages that are paid to their actual employees, to the insurance industry where
the auxiliary business is amplified many food. I wouldn't surprised to find out that the elite holders
in the fast food conglomerates aren't also positioned in the medical "remedies" of their fast food
holdings. High Cholesterol meds, diabetes and cancer treatments... The amount of cost that is passed
off to the consumer in this world is staggering, it is just that we have been programmed to think
in a very shallow way.

I particularly like they way we have been programmed that when sick the 'manly' or 'responsible' thing to do is purchase a remedy (not a cure, a remedy to mask the symptoms) then go to work and infect your colleagues with your coughing and sneezing. Then they in turn will have to go and buy more remedies, and so on.

If we weren't brainwashed less of us would get sick every winter. Of course from the pharma industry viewpoint the ideal is for everybody to be suffering and medicated.

reply to post by Cassius666


It's just one of those arguments by extreme right wingers, they scream about socialism, and they would love to end all taxation. But, at the same time, they have a very weak grasp of social structure and economics. They just want to pay less and think they shouldn't have to contribute to society.

Try and get a response from those who want less taxation and no social welfare systems about what they would do in response to the massive homelessness, poverty, crime and disease that would inevitably come from a collapse of the social welfare system and you'll find a dumbfounded idiot who hasn't actually thought beyond their own selfishness.

Yeah, lets do away with the social welfare system altogether, then those right-wing Republicans can deal with the skyrocketing crime rates in their city, they can be stepping over the corpses in the street on their way to work, they can watch the news reports of the kids starving to death in their own country or the scenes of disabled and mentally disturbed kids in charitable institutions being tied to the furniture and being doped up, just as we saw before the welfare state existed. And then maybe they can feel really proud of themselves!

It's very easy to call all those who believe in some form of economic equality "commies" and "leftists", in reality, most know that there needs to be strong reform of the welfare system, employment law, corporate taxation and banking regulation.
Those who think otherwise with their knee-jerk responses of name-calling have very little argument when you confront them with the facts.

I'm no fan of bullying unions and their influence on government, but some of the BS I hear being spouted by the right-wing who have CLEARLY not thought about what their ideas would do to the country makes me sick. Yes, smaller government would be great, and less taxation would be nice. But not at the cost or social stability and the welfare of millions of people.

Funny thing is, if their precious military wasn't so massive, and if their corporations were actually taxed fairly and properly, the people wouldn't be paying so much in taxes themselves and covering the costs of the tax cuts for the wealthy and banking bailouts that BUSH implemented.

Ultimately, I support anyone who stands up for themselves and demands a fair chunk of the profits. Corporations are soulless machines designed to create profit for a few off the backs of the many. That's the way it has always been.
It is just a shame that the masses seem to have no education and continue to support these massively dangerous and destructive businesses over smaller and more ethical business structures. The people have the power here, and as long as people are giving their cash to the global corps nothing will change.

reply to post by Cassius666


Communism is the biggest scam ever. They put their hands in your pockets and tell you it's the best thing for you for them to be in charge. They create the BS problems and then say, '"We're doing it for you!" Communists/Socialists don't help people achieve more, they simply destroy the hard working people that DO create jobs. Vlad Lennin once said, "90% of communizing a country is for the banks."

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cassius666

 

If the communists and leftists were truly for the worker, then they'd fight for less taxes taken from the worker.

But they aren't. They could give a damn. They want power. They want larger government.

Excellent point Beezer. Income redistribution is the first order of biz for communists and socialists, and as such they will demand higher taxex progressively higher as you go up the income tax brackets. They argue that lower and middle income people are taxed at a lower rate(otherwise how could the Democrat Party garner so much support from others besides the obvious radical types?) but then they expect to keep raising taxes on only the wealthy. That means that they not only expect the wealthy to pay disproportionately, they are penalizing success. I would love for any one of them to walk up to a stranger and demand 60 percent of that person's dime on the grounds they have more!

reply to post by detachedindividual


The very wealthy 1% you talk about already contribute to charities well over and above what others can afford and they do it voluntarily. Graduated income tax is neither voluntary nor fair. You have no grounds for your premise. Graduated income tax penalizes people for making money and working hard.
I dare you to walk up to any stranger and demand they give you 60 % of what they have because they have it and you don't.


What kind of fairness or equality is that anyway? Oh you think it applies only to the very wealthy? What makes you think an unemployed person has any claim on "a chunk of the profits" of anybody's paycheck or any corporate proceeds? i'm sure you have never really thought through this or you would see the irrationality of it.

editby]edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)