It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
Originally posted by nixie_nox
In a lot of cases they are, and their dealings were very shady. Just look at Kim Dotcom.
So your logical conclusion is to vilify the many based on the actions of a few?
Ok then, I have a relative that is a self made millionaire, a holy roller, born again Christians. They would assist younger family members but on conditions that that person would have to become born again too, and use their money to force them to do what they want, which is usually spending all the their free time at church. They would even dictate who that person could date. State legislation caused them to lose some money, they would lay off family and friends, but would get a new 5,000 chandilier in their 8,000 sq. ft. mansion. So no, my personal experience has been good.
Do you do that in regards to black people too?
Then you don't know me very well, since I tend to be the civil rights maniac on these boards.
Originally posted by jar11
reply to post by pheonix358
It's gratuity. Basically it's a tip for the wait staff (and with that large of a tip, I would be surprised if the restaurant didn't take a piece of that as well).
Originally posted by SerratedSoul
In regards to the photo with the Segway guy, it kinda looks Photoshopped, like most likely the photo was pieced together for teh lulz. The dude looks a little low resolution-ish compared to the rest of the photo. He doesn't seem to "mesh" well with the mansion in the background. Also, I would think there would be evidence of some tracks from the wheels in the grass, at least some obvious patches of flattened blades leaning in the direction of his path. Given, the entirety of the lawn looks pretty shabby and not well kept to me, so even if I were to think it were a legit photo, tracks would still probably not show well. I guess their help must be on strike or something...
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Jeremiah65
Carnegie blew h is money because he held the religious belief that if you died rich, you went to hell. Which is why he didn't start blowing it till his late 60s. Had nothing to do with goodness. If he really cared, he would of stopped paying workers a penny a day and paid them more and had them working for shorter hours.
Originally posted by kingofmd
All that keeps resounding in my brain as I read some of the posts is the 10th commandment: thou shalt not covet. As many of your heads begins to smoke and prepare for an explosion brought on by someone "forcing their morals" on you; stop and think. Are you not forcing your morals on them? Who are any of us to say what their money should buy? I am by no means considered rich, but i have everything that I need, and I do not envy their lifestyles at all. Something about it being easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven kind of ruins the whole "being rich is awesome" belief
Workers and Poverty
For many Americans, a job is not enough to ensure economic well-being. About three million workers live in poverty despite working year-round in full-time jobs. A third of poor families with children include a full-time worker and nearly 60 percent of families below 200 percent of poverty have a family member who works full-time, year-round.While low-income workers struggle to make ends meet because of low-paying jobs, many also are impoverished when laws designed to protect workers’ income and benefits are violated. These laws include overtime compensation, minimum wage, misclassifying employees as independent contractors and statutes against child labor.In addition, many low-income workers face low quality jobs with few benefits.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Stop your whinning and go make your own money. This 99% "talking point" is getting old. Stop concerning yourself with the lives of other people.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ANOK
Exploited labor is a very widely used term. And forgive my use of the term, But most American workers are not exploited. Now there are companies that exploit labor. And they probably wont' face anything in their lives to stop them.
For the time being, there really is only one way to fix that. Buy something else. And if you don't care enough, you as a consumer are equally guilty.
Originally posted by Gorman91
Cool story bro, but communism died 20 years ago.
It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.
As you can see right from the very images and bills on the OP, that surplus value goes back to the worker.
Difference between a worker's wages (exchange value) and the value of goods and services he or she produces (use value). Since use value is (or should be) always higher than the exchange value, workers produce a positive surplus value through their labor. German philosopher-economist Karl Mark (1818-83) used surplus value as a measure of worker exploitation by capitalism.
The reality is that money, indeed wealth, doesn't exist. Just people who spend and people who store up. And all that is stored up eventually gets spent, either by government repossession or an inheritor who enjoys spending more than his ancestor.
People like me don't have to worry about that. We do our civil service jobs and get paid. Because someone always needs us. Power to the prosumer.
Wow so naive. The only way we can save our economy is through worker ownership. It's more relevant now than it's ever been.
No it doesn't. Surplus value is what the owner takes in profit.
Hmmm lol it's that simple huh? Money is a tool of power and control. It's what keep those at the top at the top, and those of us at the bottom on the bottom. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production, but without money it could not work. People didn't use money like we do now before capitalism become the dominant economic system.
With worker ownership money would become unnecessary, because we would be free to produce what we need with no social restrictions. Life shouldn't be about profiting from others, struggling to make money to purchase what we need in a market of artificial scarcity, and control of resources for profit not need.