PDA

View Full Version : Ordering from Amazon?



switters
07-12-2018, 04:37 PM
Seems there is a strike afoot. While I was raised a good Ayn fearing libertarian I do believe the amazon workers have a point.

https://www.inverse.com/article/46922-amazon-prime-day-boycott-prompted-by-union-walkout-in-spain

Thought some of you progs might be interested or maybe already knew. The pay discrepancy is astounding.

I for one will be trying to locally source some bulk bungie cord without hooks.

Cheers,

paulf
07-12-2018, 04:54 PM
Seems there is a strike afoot. While I was raised a good Ayn fearing libertarian I do believe the amazon workers have a point.

https://www.inverse.com/article/46922-amazon-prime-day-boycott-prompted-by-union-walkout-in-spain

Thought some of you progs might be interested or maybe already knew. The pay discrepancy is astounding.

I for one will be trying to locally source some bulk bungie cord without hooks.

Cheers,

Ayn fearing libertarian, progs in the same sentence with workers and pay discrepancy. What will the world come to?

oznabrag
07-12-2018, 05:18 PM
Ayn is/was a MORON.

Chip-skiff
07-12-2018, 05:32 PM
Since Amazon helped to destroy my livelihood as a writer, I buy as little as possible there.

Instead, I use Amazon for browsing, then find another supplier.

Hope the strikers prevail in getting a fair shake.

paulf
07-12-2018, 06:02 PM
Ayn is/was a MORON.

Yes, that is true.

Durnik
07-12-2018, 09:03 PM
^ & is being all to kind to Ayn..


glad you're going elsewhere switters.. and I like and use your method Chip-skiff.

Keith Wilson
07-12-2018, 10:36 PM
When I build my time machine, I'll go back to St Petersburg and buy young Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum and her family tickets to the US in early 1914, before both WWI and the revolution. Maybe Los Angeles; she'd maybe like it there, have a much happier life, wouldn't change her name, and wouldn't write those silly books.

gypsie
07-13-2018, 12:59 AM
Ayn is/was a MORON.

Ayn Smith was a Mormon, I think he's talking about Ayn Rand.

oznabrag
07-13-2018, 02:31 AM
Ayn Smith was a Mormon, I think he's talking about Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand was a MORON.

Clear enough?

switters
07-13-2018, 08:26 AM
Nice diversion oz, you got stock in Amazon?

Flying Orca
07-13-2018, 08:33 AM
The efficiencies of loosely regulated late-stage capitalism provide benefits to consumers and shareholders, but not to the workers who actually provide the service? Goodness gracious me, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

oznabrag
07-13-2018, 08:41 AM
Nice diversion oz, you got stock in Amazon?

No.

I don't need any financial incentive to say that Ayn Rand is a MORON, do you?

Norman Bernstein
07-13-2018, 08:44 AM
The efficiencies of loosely regulated late-stage capitalism provide benefits to consumers and shareholders, but not to the workers who actually provide the service? Goodness gracious me, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Late stage, early stage, it makes no difference.... the robber barons of the Gilded Age were no different.

My perspective: capitalism is the greatest economic system the world has ever seen.... but UNREGULATED capitalism is unquestionably the worst.

switters
07-13-2018, 09:38 AM
But who gets to do the regulating?

Keep in mind that John Galt was union organizer. He was organizing against corporations using the government to pass laws that made labor less valuable.

Obviously there is a lot of that going on now. I am certainly not advocating a read of Atlas Shrugged for anyone. But she had part of it right.

Regulated capitalism, who gets to regulate?

Too Little Time
07-13-2018, 09:46 AM
Seems there is a strike afoot. While I was raised a good Ayn fearing libertarian I do believe the amazon workers have a point.
The workers always have the option of going elsewhere.

I think work should be more pleasant so I would never work under those conditions. I would not ask them to work under those conditions.

(As I write this I am reminded that I will be spending several days working under much worse conditions this fall. For less compensation.)

switters
07-13-2018, 09:55 AM
Or they could collectively bargain.

They should be allowed to collectively bargain.

http://time.com/956/how-amazon-crushed-the-union-movement/

oznabrag
07-13-2018, 10:05 AM
But who gets to do the regulating?

Keep in mind that John Galt was union organizer. He was organizing against corporations using the government to pass laws that made labor less valuable.

Obviously there is a lot of that going on now. I am certainly not advocating a read of Atlas Shrugged for anyone. But she had part of it right.

Regulated capitalism, who gets to regulate?

The government gets to regulate, until the corporations buy the government, in which case, the corporations become the government, which is the Mussolini Fascists' Ideal.

I think one of the central problems in this country is that we were bamboozled into believing that Capitalism is a system of Government, just like Communism.


A self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.


Driven by our fear of the Russian Communists for 70 years, we are now teetering on the brink of becoming Mussolini Fascists dominated by Russian propaganda/election fraud.

Home of the brave?

Don't make me laugh.

Too Little Time
07-13-2018, 11:29 AM
Or they could collectively bargain.

They should be allowed to collectively bargain.
They are allowed to. But just not with their current employer.

I don't see where those who don't want to bargain collectively should be required to. On both sides - employees and the employer.

Flying Orca
07-13-2018, 11:34 AM
Allowing employers to opt out of collective bargaining rather defeats the purpose, thereby keeping power securely in the hands of the capitalists and out of the hands of labour. Allowing some employees to opt out undermines the purpose as well.

While some people have no problem with this, I do. Frankly, I think all labour should be organized... by law.

Too Little Time
07-13-2018, 02:07 PM
Allowing employers to opt out of collective bargaining rather defeats the purpose, thereby keeping power securely in the hands of the capitalists and out of the hands of labour. Allowing some employees to opt out undermines the purpose as well.

While some people have no problem with this, I do. Frankly, I think all labour should be organized... by law.
Behind your view is the assumption that people should work for others. Also an assumption that a group of employees have the similar skills and needs needs. I don't accept those assumptions.

I am for people being self employed. I don't see any reason to be an employee of another unless it provides an advantage. I also don't see any value in being considered interchangeable with others (as an employee).

Flying Orca
07-13-2018, 02:23 PM
Behind your view is the assumption that people should work for others.

Nope. Behind my view is the recognition that people DO work for others.

When that changes, so will my view. There's no "should" about it.

John of Phoenix
07-13-2018, 02:30 PM
Maybe that's when America was Great for reds - pre AMZN, GOOG, MSFT, INTL, AAPL, BitCoin, etc.

Too Little Time
07-14-2018, 11:28 AM
Nope. Behind my view is the recognition that people DO work for others.

When that changes, so will my view. There's no "should" about it.
People are taught that they should work for others. Until that teaching is changed, your views need not change. But the assumption that people should work for others is behind the reality that they do.

oznabrag
07-14-2018, 11:31 AM
People are taught that they should work for others. Until that teaching is changed, your views need not change. But the assumption that people should work for others is behind the reality that they do.

Hogwash and gobbledegook (ęGL).

callsign222
07-14-2018, 11:42 AM
The workers always have the option of going elsewhere.


Unsure about Amazon, but this is not necessarily true. Do some research on non-compete clauses and how they are being used on millions of low wage/low skill workers across America, effectively hobbling their ability to improve their economic situation. It's crazy.

Too Little Time
07-14-2018, 11:55 AM
Unsure about Amazon, but this is not necessarily true. Do some research on non-compete clauses and how they are being used on millions of low wage/low skill workers across America, effectively hobbling their ability to improve their economic situation. It's crazy.
I am told such clauses exist. They don't seem to be enforceable.

Too Little Time
07-14-2018, 11:57 AM
Hogwash and gobbledegook (ęGL).
Well argued.

Bobcat
07-14-2018, 11:58 AM
I am told such clauses exist. They don't seem to be enforceable.

The courts disagree with you.

oznabrag
07-14-2018, 12:01 PM
Well argued.

Doesn't take much to reduce your position to rubble, so why waste the time?

Flying Orca
07-14-2018, 12:38 PM
People are taught that they should work for others. Until that teaching is changed, your views need not change. But the assumption that people should work for others is behind the reality that they do.

Riiiiiiight. And behind every harmful fall is the assumption that gravity works.

Someday we might get around that. And someday the vast majority of people might get around the need to work for others in order to live in our society. But that day ain't today, and your holier-than-thou asininity ain't putting food on anyone else's table.

oznabrag
07-14-2018, 12:56 PM
Riiiiiiight. And behind every harmful fall is the assumption that gravity works.

Someday we might get around that. And someday the vast majority of people might get around the need to work for others in order to live in our society. But that day ain't today, and your holier-than-thou asininity ain't putting food on anyone else's table.

The need to work for others is central to the very idea of a 'society'.

ANY society.

The idea that one can 'work for oneself' is patently absurd, unless one lives alone in a vast wilderness.

One may be 'self-employed', but one will die of starvation if one doesn't work for others.

That is the human condition.

Humans are social animals, utterly dependent upon society.

People who believe that they are somehow unconstrained by this are leeches, either witting or unwitting. The unwitting variety are more common, because they need to protect their little snowflake psyches from the brutal truth that they are a burden on society. The unwitting rarely rise above upper-middle-class economic status, but the witting leeches are able to take things a step further and amass enormous fortunes upon the labor and pain and deprivation of others.

This is not to say that all wealthy people are monsters.

Too Little Time
07-14-2018, 02:49 PM
The courts disagree with you.
And the internet agrees with me.

Because non-compete agreements are so restrictive, they are often restricted or not enforceable. In California, non-competes are effectively illegal unless you are selling a business. Other states will enforce some provisions, usually the trade secret protection, but not the work restrictions.

Too Little Time
07-14-2018, 03:04 PM
The idea that one can 'work for oneself' is patently absurd, unless one lives alone in a vast wilderness.

One may be 'self-employed', but one will die of starvation if one doesn't work for others.
That is clever of you. To distort the obvious employee v. self-employed issue into one where self-employed means self-sufficient.

Like many people here I own a small part of several publicly traded businesses. In that part of our lives we don't work for others. We "amass enormous fortunes upon the labor and pain and deprivation of others." I think the "others" - employees, should start their own businesses - be self-employed, rather than work for others.

Distortion is fun.

pcford
07-14-2018, 03:15 PM
About eight years ago I purchased my sole item from Amazon. I could not get it anywhere else. Amazon is within walking distance; it is destroying this town.

oznabrag
07-14-2018, 03:35 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oznabrag http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5622542#post5622542)

The idea that one can 'work for oneself' is patently absurd, unless one lives alone in a vast wilderness.

One may be 'self-employed', but one will die of starvation if one doesn't work for others.

That is clever of you. To distort the obvious employee v. self-employed issue into one where self-employed means self-sufficient.

Like many people here I own a small part of several publicly traded businesses. In that part of our lives we don't work for others. We "amass enormous fortunes upon the labor and pain and deprivation of others." I think the "others" - employees, should start their own businesses - be self-employed, rather than work for others.

Distortion is fun.


Clearly, you have fun distorting.

Your interminable pretzel sophistry is tedious.

Back onto the Ignore List with you.