Corporation vs Government: Who Do You Trust?

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Very good that Bern80 and ∑₭o Đ∆Żə know they have fail here and have moved on.

∑₭o Đ∆Żə must have done some reading about the socialist wing of "reformers" led by Rohm and others, and went, "ah, shit" and snuck away.

No, actually National Socialism remained in power under Hitler until 1945 when Germany surrendered. While most people refer to it as Socialistic Fascism or vise versa, probably a better descrption for it would be to just call it "Hitlerism", becuase it was really neither one nor the other.

 

[Bern80]

You are deceitful and have no integrity, bern80. Truly, you are a person of vile attitudes and positions. Enron? The meltdown of 2008? The banks and savings and loan scandals since Reagan came into office and the mortgage meltdown beginning two and a half years ago?

I would call you a retard, but associating you with people who have real challenges would be truly unfair to them, because you have made a moral choice that takes you to the dark side of human justification.

As laws are necessary to ensure humans conduct themselves at a minimal standard, so do laws hold corporations to minimal standards.

Any who fight against these truths are enemies of human morality and ethics. For shame on you, bern80, for shame on you.

And you STILL remain a hypocrite and a weasel. You can't answer direct questions. And even though you use it as yet another cop out in your endless stream of cop outs you will fail to explain exactly what position of mine is actually immoral.

 

[Bern80]

Then you are suggesting it, your question is not relevant other than in part government makes corporations more responsible to its workers and customers and society, and most of your responses will descend into babbletalk.

No. Your argument was that corportation will treat people as poorly as possible.

The FACT is as poorly as possible would be all businesses paying minumum wage and providing the minimum in benefits.

The FACT is plenty of businesses compensate employees well above and beyond what the law requires them to.

That is the EVIDENCE which renders your opinion invalid.

They will treat people as poorly as they can afford to as long as there is a net benefit. That they might pay more than minimum wage only means there's a net benefit to paying more.

Oh it's exciting watching the light bulb over someone's head so close to tuning on. Let's see if we can get there.........

And that net benefit(s) of paying a person more than what the law requires would be?

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Your argument was that corportation will treat people as poorly as possible.

The FACT is as poorly as possible would be all businesses paying minumum wage and providing the minimum in benefits.

The FACT is plenty of businesses compensate employees well above and beyond what the law requires them to.

That is the EVIDENCE which renders your opinion invalid.

They will treat people as poorly as they can afford to as long as there is a net benefit. That they might pay more than minimum wage only means there's a net benefit to paying more.

Oh it's exciting watching the light bulb over someone's head so close to tuning on. Let's see if we can get there.........

And that net benefit(s) of paying a person more than what the law requires would be?

He will go down the garden path with you only to look around, shut his eyes, and scream no no you can't make me.

You are obviously correct. Companies compete with other companies for workers. Workers gravitate towards the highest total compensation offered. If a company were to suddenly cut everyone's salary to min wage and double the hours no one would work there anymore. Unless that was teh best deal they could get.
But all of this goes against the cliche that companies just want to screw workers. That is a truth to these people and anything that shows otherwise must be discredited.

 

[Bern80]

They will treat people as poorly as they can afford to as long as there is a net benefit. That they might pay more than minimum wage only means there's a net benefit to paying more.

Oh it's exciting watching the light bulb over someone's head so close to tuning on. Let's see if we can get there.........

And that net benefit(s) of paying a person more than what the law requires would be?

He will go down the garden path with you only to look around, shut his eyes, and scream no no you can't make me.

You are obviously correct. Companies compete with other companies for workers. Workers gravitate towards the highest total compensation offered. If a company were to suddenly cut everyone's salary to min wage and double the hours no one would work there anymore. Unless that was teh best deal they could get.
But all of this goes against the cliche that companies just want to screw workers. That is a truth to these people and anything that shows otherwise must be discredited.

I think the overarching problem is some people believe the role of an employer is to provide for an employee's standard of living (yes people on this very board have argued that). Well the fact is, no it is not. Their goal is to make money. Some people seem to think the profit motive can't exist and treat employees and customers well at the same time. Reality shows that simply isn't true.

You don't need to look any further than basic economics to know the basis by which businesses will compensate employees. All of us learned in high school (though apparently some have forgotten) about supply and demand for goods and services and how it effects their price. What makes people think labor is so different? Businesses shop for labor just like people shop for cars. Generally we all want quality for as little money as possible. The issue for both is quality generally doesn't come cheap. Scarce, quality skill sets are more expensive than skill sets everyone has.

The labor market reflects this and WEASEL you will be happy to hear me say YOU ARE RIGHT (partially anyway). Business WILL compensate people with as little as they can get away with. The problem is businesses can't get away with treating those with scarce skill sets poorly because their skills are valuable. They add value to the businesses they work for which helps their bottom line and since it is hard to replace scarce skill sets they are compensated well. That compensations is generally well above government regulated mandates meaning said government regulations are meaningless for both the business and the employee. All they do is create red tape and unncessary expense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. Your argument was that corportation will treat people as poorly as possible.

The FACT is as poorly as possible would be all businesses paying minumum wage and providing the minimum in benefits.

The FACT is plenty of businesses compensate employees well above and beyond what the law requires them to.

That is the EVIDENCE which renders your opinion invalid.

They will treat people as poorly as they can afford to as long as there is a net benefit. That they might pay more than minimum wage only means there's a net benefit to paying more.

Oh it's exciting watching the light bulb over someone's head so close to tuning on. Let's see if we can get there.........

And that net benefit(s) of paying a person more than what the law requires would be?

The same as a net benefit of hiring a child for half of what you might have to pay an adult.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ Business WILL compensate people with as little as they can get away with.

Which is exactly why you can't trust corporations to do what is moral and decent, if what is what is immoral and indecent is a net benefit to the business. Child labor being the example at hand.

 

[Bern80]

[ Business WILL compensate people with as little as they can get away with.

Which is exactly why you can't trust corporations to do what is moral and decent, if what is what is immoral and indecent is a net benefit to the business. Child labor being the example at hand.

Because of course children are just as skilled as adults? The fact that you cherry pick what I say and ignore the rest is rather telling.

 

[The Rabbi]

[ Business WILL compensate people with as little as they can get away with.

Which is exactly why you can't trust corporations to do what is moral and decent, if what is what is immoral and indecent is a net benefit to the business. Child labor being the example at hand.

Whom do you trust to do what is "moral and decent"?? The government? The Catholic Church?
Business is in the business of making money. They have a natural incentive to do what is commonly known as moral and decent. Government does not.
What did Adam Smith write? It is not from the generosity of the baker, butcher or brewer that we expect our dinner but from their own enlightened self interest.

 

[Charles_Main]

Here is a simple little fact. The Government would be unable to do anything, or fund a single program. With out a private sector, including Cooperation's, to Tax.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, unlike Charles Main who understand reality, is cherry picking.

Bernie knows his ass is on fire now but still wants the beating.

 

[Bern80]

[ Business WILL compensate people with as little as they can get away with.

Which is exactly why you can't trust corporations to do what is moral and decent, if what is what is immoral and indecent is a net benefit to the business. Child labor being the example at hand.

It's an example that makes no sense. I guess when I think child labor I essentially think forced slavery. What is the realistic possiblity of that happening even without regulations against. Slavery is illegal. So what is the law seeking to prevent? Children are the responsibility of their parents. So the only reality based scenario that I can come up with would be if a child's parents were making them work instead of go to school. But children are already legally required to attend school I believe. Maybe if outside of school they made them work it woud considered some sort of child abuse or something. My point I guess is look at all the laws that would have to broken first before we ever even get into the realm of a corporatin victimizing a child. It's just not a realistic argument.

 

[amrchaos]

Which one do I trust?

The one I can control the eaiest!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government is the easiest to control if we vote intelligently, but Big Business fights against any intelligencing of the electorate.

I mean you have the vile arguments offered by Bern80. Bern, if you truly believe this, then you are evil as a human being, evil as those who defended slavery, evil as those who defended child labor, evil as those who said the government should not regulate the garment industry after the Shirtwaist Factory Fire: The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.

I am so glad that you exercise your first amendment right to expose the evilness of unregulated capitalism. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Unregulated capitalism is as every bit evil as communism. And you show us why, Bern80.

 

[Bern80]

Government is the easiest to control if we vote intelligently, but Big Business fights against any intelligencing of the electorate.

I mean you have the vile arguments offered by Bern80. Bern, if you truly believe this, then you are evil as a human being, evil as those who defended slavery, evil as those who defended child labor, evil as those who said the government should not regulate the garment industry after the Shirtwaist Factory Fire: The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.

I am so glad that you exercise your first amendment right to expose the evilness of unregulated capitalism. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Unregulated capitalism is as every bit evil as communism. And you show us why, Bern80.

And what view do you believe I have that is evil and immoral, SPECIFICALLY?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, you have been given many examples here.

Do not deflect or dissemble.

That time is over. Thou art the tool of capital.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, you have been given many examples here.

Do not deflect or dissemble.

That time is over. Thou art the tool of capital.

Actually not answering direct questions would be the definition of deflecting (see above for an example). You have this habit of countering arguments that no one has actually made and dubbing yourself winner. So I would just like to be crystal clear on what it is you think I believe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been answered directly time and again with examples, etc., Bern80. You accuse others of doing what you just did.

You are unable to defend unregulated capitalism: we all understand that.

 

[Bern80]

You have been answered directly time and again with examples, etc., Bern80. You accuse others of doing what you just did.

You are unable to defend unregulated capitalism: we all understand that.

So it is your position that my position is markets should be completely unregulated by governments, yes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been answered directly time and again with examples, etc., Bern80. You accuse others of doing what you just did.

You are unable to defend unregulated capitalism: we all understand that.

So it is your position that my position is markets should be completely unregulated by governments, yes?

Don't put words in my mouth, little Bern. But if you want to play: what regulations of business would you think is acceptable?