Page 33 of 42 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Labor also happens to be people, so applying the same market forces you would to people as iron ingots is quite dehumanizing. Von mises and the Austrians are right when they say labor markets would clear if labor would accept any wage, any working conditions, move wherever they had to, and never unionize. As Thorstein Veblen points out this view is accurate in so far as one view labor as a commodity and only a commodity. This is of course very problematic
    Well, labor IS a commodity. But as with any other resource that's used within the manufacturing process, the labor needs to be well maintained and taken care of.

    I agree with you that when the people doing the labor aren't treated right and taken care it is a bad thing. The issue, IMO, isn't that they treat labor like a commodity it's that they don't see the labor as a disposable/ replaceable commodity rather than something that needs proper maintenance and care. ie they don't treat people like people.

  2. #642
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Well, labor IS a commodity. But as with any other resource that's used within the manufacturing process, the labor needs to be well maintained and taken care of.

    I agree with you that when the people doing the labor aren't treated right and taken care it is a bad thing. The issue, IMO, isn't that they treat labor like a commodity it's that they don't see the labor as a disposable/ replaceable commodity rather than something that needs proper maintenance and care. ie they don't treat people like people.
    See the problem with viewing labor as a commodity is that its a fairly huge step in commodifying literally everything to the point that nothing is sacred outside of market forces. If you do that then everything is subject to the logic of profit maximization and disposing people is much cheaper than care and maintenance. And like wtf they arent robots they don't need maintenance they need fucking dignity and esteem and a fucking standard of living. Yea no im sorry once you view labor as a commodity then your just on the road to viewing them as cogs in a wheel.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  3. #643
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    See the problem with viewing labor as a commodity is that its a fairly huge step in commodifying literally everything to the point that nothing is sacred outside of market forces. If you do that then everything is subject to the logic of profit maximization and disposing people is much cheaper than care and maintenance. And like wtf they arent robots they don't need maintenance they need fucking dignity and esteem and a fucking standard of living. Yea no im sorry once you view labor as a commodity then your just on the road to viewing them as cogs in a wheel.
    I'd argue the central issue is conflating "labor as a commodity" with "people as human beings".

    It's fine to commodify the former. Not the latter. But capitalists consistently push to blur those lines.

    This is a big reason I push for a UBI; that covers the "people as human beings", freeing up labor for actual, free market negotiation as a commodity. Right now, the duress of surviving as a person heavily biases such negotiations in favor of employers, and it shouldn't.

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    See the problem with viewing labor as a commodity is that its a fairly huge step in commodifying literally everything to the point that nothing is sacred outside of market forces.
    The problem here is that labor is a measurable piece of the manufacturing machine. It's necessary, measurable, buy able, usable and sadly "disposable" in the sense that when you don't need it anymore you can "get rid of it."

    Businesses care about and typically take care of their employees, but they only compensate them based on fair market value. The problem lies in what "fair" means. Because minimum wage is so abysmally low, the threshold for "fair" is so low that it's not enough to take care of people at the bottom of the pay scale. That is what needs fixing.

    If you do that then everything is subject to the logic of profit maximization and disposing people is much cheaper than care and maintenance.
    See above.

    And like wtf they arent robots they don't need maintenance they need fucking dignity and esteem and a fucking standard of living.
    I was using the terminology as a metaphor. Calm down. I agree with you on this.

    Yea no im sorry once you view labor as a commodity then your just on the road to viewing them as cogs in a wheel.
    They ARE cogs in the wheel, though. Let's not delude ourselves and believe that businesses that are almost entirely based on making money are going to grow a conscience and start treating their people as anything more than a means to their ends. I hope I get proven wrong here, but currently businesses have no reason to do anything different. Businesses are not the ones that we should be expecting to ensure our lives are good, it should be the government. Once the government steps up and starts taking THEIR job about taking care of it's citizens seriously, increasing minimum wage, implementing things like UBI, universal healthcare, etc... the businesses that live in that world will have to adjust and begin treating their employees accordingly or they'll lose them because at that point the citzens, and therefore employees and potential employees are not NEARLY as exploitable as they are now.

  5. #645
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'd argue the central issue is conflating "labor as a commodity" with "people as human beings".

    It's fine to commodify the former. Not the latter. But capitalists consistently push to blur those lines.

    This is a big reason I push for a UBI; that covers the "people as human beings", freeing up labor for actual, free market negotiation as a commodity. Right now, the duress of surviving as a person heavily biases such negotiations in favor of employers, and it shouldn't.
    Well no see because trying to separate people from what people do for a living so you can justify depredation is a huge issue. The art advances while the artisan receedes. The issue is that we've precisely decided labor can be commodified and subject to profit maximization and hence divorced from being humanizing. Thats the market at work, its the great transformation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post

    Businesses care about and typically take care of their employees, but they only compensate them based on fair market value.
    Excuse me but this incredible naive. The goal of any business is profit maximization full stop. They don't want to pay a fair market wage,hell if they could pay no wage they would and the most successful businesses would do exactly that if they could.

    Again divorcing the concept of labor from the actual working man is exactly why we are in this boat. Because if you can simple reduce what a man does to a function of numbers then the moral weight of all the misery he is subject too vmeans very little because thats just the way it is. Somethings will never change. Don't embrace the commodification in one breath while attempting to decry it in another. We must reject the central premise that divorcing a man from what he does, alienating him from his labor is somehow just the way things are.
    Last edited by Glorious Leader; 2021-06-04 at 04:00 AM.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  6. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    You're saying that you get higher ROI for warehouse labor than you do the drivers?

    You're absolutely certain? You've seen or performed your own cost-benefit analysis? Because a company having their own delivery drivers is a HUGE investment, considering the existence of pick-up and delivery services. A company wouldn't do this unless it was to their benefit.

    Also, most people can do warehouse labor. Not everyone can be a delivery driver, specifically, depending on the size of the vehicles they're driving, they at least need a commercial driver's license. Which not everybody has.



    I honestly don't think this is true, not in most cases anyway. I'm not going to pretend there aren't some completely worthless managers out there, but successful companies don't get that way by making stupid decisions with their money and who they give it to.

    I know one thing that many people severely underestimate is the "decision making" responsibility. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it absolutely is. The decisions made by managers can make or break a company, and having the ability to make good decisions and the skills needed in order to know what a good or bad decision is given certain situations absolutely cannot be underestimated. It may not seem like "work," but a LOT goes into it.
    Absolutly. i've been here for almost 10 years and previosuly i worked as a financial analysist in the health insurance industry where i did nothing but analyize contracts and their terms. I would crunch numbers all day to see the ROI on the contract and its competitive financial position vs other insurance carriers so we were ready for re-negotiation when the contract term was up.

    Doing this for the warehouse is easy mode.

    Once you factor in the cost of salary, equipment, maintence, support, etc etc the warehouse labor is a better ROI.

    As far as managers i was more talking about the middle manager vs someone at the executive level. Its why they are always the first to be consolidated or laid off.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  7. #647
    Excuse me but this incredible naive. The goal of any business is profit maximization full stop. They don't want to pay a fair market wage,hell if they could pay no wage they would and the most successful businesses would do exactly that if they could.
    How is it naive?

    Granted, they'll pay as little as they can, but they still have to pay a wage the employee will accept, and legally allowed, otherwise they won't have any employees. They're greedy, they're not stupid.

    Again divorcing the concept of labor from the actual working man is exactly why we are in this boat. Because if you can simple reduce what a man does to a function of numbers then the moral weight of all the misery he is subject too vmeans very little because thats just the way it is.
    You literally just said the goal of any business is profit maximization. This falls exactly in line with that.

    Somethings will never change. Don't embrace the commodification in one breath while attempting to decry it in another. We must reject the central premise that divorcing a man from what he does, alienating him from his labor is somehow just the way things are.
    I'm accepting what businesses are. That's not going to change unless the system they're built on fundamentally changes. To a business (most of them), they'll always be a commodity, that doesn't mean they can't be treated like people if the system the businesses function in requires that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Absolutly. i've been here for almost 10 years and previosuly i worked as a financial analysist in the health insurance industry where i did nothing but analyize contracts and their terms. I would crunch numbers all day to see the ROI on the contract and its competitive financial position vs other insurance carriers so we were ready for re-negotiation when the contract term was up.

    Doing this for the warehouse is easy mode.

    Once you factor in the cost of salary, equipment, maintence, support, etc etc the warehouse labor is a better ROI.
    Good to know.

    But better ROI doesn't mean there isn't an ROI at all. There has to be some benefit to the company that makes it worth keeping their own delivery services.

    As far as managers i was more talking about the middle manager vs someone at the executive level. Its why they are always the first to be consolidated or laid off.
    Oh yeah, no arguments here. In many, MANY, cases middle management is useless. Some companies or organizations are so large that they need them, though.

  8. #648
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Businesses care about and typically take care of their employees, but they only compensate them based on fair market value..
    Ummm bullshit.

    If that was the case over half of the adult working force wouldn't need government assistance. Businesses don't take care of shit, they only care about their bottom line and nothing more.

    Please do tell me how Activision-Blizzard firing 800 people in a year where they was making record profits was them taking care of employee's.

    But hey at least they gave the people this time around in the layoff's some bnet bucks...

    but they still have to pay a wage the employee will accept
    They have to accept it because the choice is food or death...

    Not much of a choice.
    Last edited by Jtbrig7390; 2021-06-04 at 03:44 PM.
    Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
    My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - GTX 1660 Super - 16GB DDR4 - 1TBHD/512GB M.2SSD

  9. #649
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    Ummm bullshit.

    If that was the case over half of the adult working force wouldn't need government assistance. Businesses don't take care of shit, they only care about their bottom line and nothing more.

    Please do tell me how Activision-Blizzard firing 800 people in a year where they was making record profits was them taking care of employee's.

    But hey at least they gave the people this time around in the layoff's some bnet bucks...
    Read the rest of the post. I did talk about how the current definition of "fair" is garbage, which is exactly the problem. I agree with you here.

    I'll amend by statement by saying "the employees they keep."

    They have to accept it because the choice is food or death...

    Not much of a choice.
    The concept I was talking about also extends to positions that aren't minimum wage jobs. A corporation wouldn't be able to offer an upper manager position, that would typically get paid 6 figures, minimum wage and expect anyone to even apply for it.

    And while it's not much of a choice, it is still unfortunately their choice. That's exactly why this is such a huge problem because people accept these positions and those wages willingly (no one is literally forcing them to take these jobs), so businesses continue to offer them at that wage. And the cycle continues. The only way to break the cycle is by someone other than the business to step in and shake it up because no business is going to, out of the goodness of their heart, take a MASSIVE loss in earnings to suddenly give all of their exploited workers a livable wage.

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post

    Good to know.

    But better ROI doesn't mean there isn't an ROI at all. There has to be some benefit to the company that makes it worth keeping their own delivery services.

    Oh yeah, no arguments here. In many, MANY, cases middle management is useless. Some companies or organizations are so large that they need them, though.
    Oh the attempts to try to outsource the driver/trucks has failed many times over.

    Sure there is a ROI but its very minor because of the growing cost of drivers and the equipment.

    The Warehouse labor is responsible for breaking down and processing so much of the delivered goods from bulk to smaller shipments that they are a huge return on the investment. We even refuse to hire drivers who will not also participate in warehouse work when they are waiting for a load.

    Even two of our supervisors/managers do more warehouse work then actual "management work" by design. it actually allowed us to pay them less and get more of a return out of them.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  11. #651
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Read the rest of the post. I did talk about how the current definition of "fair" is garbage, which is exactly the problem. I agree with you here.

    I'll amend by statement by saying "the employees they keep."



    The concept I was talking about also extends to positions that aren't minimum wage jobs. A corporation wouldn't be able to offer an upper manager position, that would typically get paid 6 figures, minimum wage and expect anyone to even apply for it.

    And while it's not much of a choice, it is still unfortunately their choice. That's exactly why this is such a huge problem because people accept these positions and those wages willingly (no one is literally forcing them to take these jobs), so businesses continue to offer them at that wage. And the cycle continues. The only way to break the cycle is by someone other than the business to step in and shake it up because no business is going to, out of the goodness of their heart, take a MASSIVE loss in earnings to suddenly give all of their exploited workers a livable wage.
    Its the notion that "want " to pay a fair wage thats under dispute not the fact that whatever is considered "fair" is out of whack. Beyond that the reduction of human labor to simple wage labor is also quite problematic itself

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Read the rest of the post. I did talk about how the current definition of "fair" is garbage, which is exactly the problem. I agree with you here.

    I'll amend by statement by saying "the employees they keep."



    The concept I was talking about also extends to positions that aren't minimum wage jobs. A corporation wouldn't be able to offer an upper manager position, that would typically get paid 6 figures, minimum wage and expect anyone to even apply for it.

    And while it's not much of a choice, it is still unfortunately their choice. That's exactly why this is such a huge problem because people accept these positions and those wages willingly (no one is literally forcing them to take these jobs), so businesses continue to offer them at that wage. And the cycle continues. The only way to break the cycle is by someone other than the business to step in and shake it up because no business is going to, out of the goodness of their heart, take a MASSIVE loss in earnings to suddenly give all of their exploited workers a livable wage.
    The particular notion that its also a choice is laughable. If you were held at gun point and offered the choice your life or your wallet well you would still have a choice. The quality of choice thats offered is the crucial analysis.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  12. #652
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Its the notion that "want " to pay a fair wage thats under dispute not the fact that whatever is considered "fair" is out of whack. Beyond that the reduction of human labor to simple wage labor is also quite problematic itself
    We're in agreement on this concept, for the most part.

    I don't disagree with your points. I'm just saying I don't think businesses will ever change how they do things. It's the rules and regulations they will be required to follow that will change how employees are treated and compensated, not their mindset.

    Accepting that businesses won't change themselves is actually helpful in ensuring change happens at all, let alone lasting change. Expecting the good will of a business to improve the lives of it's employees is naive. Not saying it doesn't happen, but expecting EVERY business to do the same thing is the naive part.

    The particular notion that its also a choice is laughable. If you were held at gun point and offered the choice your life or your wallet well you would still have a choice. The quality of choice thats offered is the crucial analysis.
    Dislike it all you want, it's still a choice. I have never argued it's a good or fair one (because it absolutely is not), similar to your robbing analogy. But it IS a choice. This is partly why businesses can still offer such shitty pay, because people will take those positions of their own free will because their circumstances need them to. But that business didn't make them take it, the circumstances they live in did and THOSE circumstances can be changed and improved by the government.

    You're right, it is about the quality of choice. But if we leave it up to businesses to decide what those choices are, we'll be exactly where we are right now. The current rules and regulations allow businesses to see and treat labor as a commodity, and not people. That's what needs to change. Not that anything will ever be implemented to force businesses to see labor as people, but the rules and regulations CAN be changed to have requirements that ensure employees get compensated fairly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Oh the attempts to try to outsource the driver/trucks has failed many times over.

    Sure there is a ROI but its very minor because of the growing cost of drivers and the equipment.
    Sometimes ROI is just incredibly difficult to calculate because it's hard to put a number to the benefit. You might be able to come close, though.

    The Warehouse labor is responsible for breaking down and processing so much of the delivered goods from bulk to smaller shipments that they are a huge return on the investment. We even refuse to hire drivers who will not also participate in warehouse work when they are waiting for a load.

    Even two of our supervisors/managers do more warehouse work then actual "management work" by design. it actually allowed us to pay them less and get more of a return out of them.
    Going back to my previous point, sometimes ROI is just hard to calculate. Obviously businesses need to understand the numbers as best as they can, but sometimes it's just not about the numbers.

    Seeing people and their jobs ONLY in terms of ROI is damaging in its own way too, because you end up in situations where you have someone who thinks that way changing or getting rid of something based ONLY on the potential ROI, and they make things worse and don't understand why. I've had several issues like this where I work.

  13. #653
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    How is it naive?

    Granted, they'll pay as little as they can, but they still have to pay a wage the employee will accept, and legally allowed, otherwise they won't have any employees. They're greedy, they're not stupid.
    Meeting the bare minimums required by law is not "taking care of their employees"...that's taking care of themselves.

    When Amazon workers have to wear diapers in order to keep up with their quotas...they aren't being taken care of... they are being exploited.

  14. #654
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Meeting the bare minimums required by law is not "taking care of their employees"...that's taking care of themselves.

    When Amazon workers have to wear diapers in order to keep up with their quotas...they aren't being taken care of... they are being exploited.
    Remember when Amazon added the new and improved benefit of "Cry closets" for employees?

    https://news.yahoo.com/cry-closet-am...204739706.html

    That was fun. I'm sure employees are thrilled to have a "private" place where it's totally not conspicuous for them to go and have a cry in the office, instead of like, trying to find ways to make sure their employees don't need to cry due to stress at work. At least they pay pretty good, but from the folks I know that have worked there (in non-warehouse capacities, like writers or engineers) that's about the only thing positive any of had to say about the company.

  15. #655
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Remember when Amazon added the new and improved benefit of "Cry closets" for employees?

    https://news.yahoo.com/cry-closet-am...204739706.html

    That was fun. I'm sure employees are thrilled to have a "private" place where it's totally not conspicuous for them to go and have a cry in the office, instead of like, trying to find ways to make sure their employees don't need to cry due to stress at work. At least they pay pretty good, but from the folks I know that have worked there (in non-warehouse capacities, like writers or engineers) that's about the only thing positive any of had to say about the company.
    Also, when are you supposed to use these "cry closets"? I mean, if these people don't even have time to use the bathroom...how are they supposed to find time to even utilize the damn things?

  16. #656
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Also, when are you supposed to use these "cry closets"? I mean, if these people don't even have time to use the bathroom...how are they supposed to find time to even utilize the damn things?
    They don't need to use them, just knowing that they're there is probably all the comfort and emotional/mental health support they need!

  17. #657
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Meeting the bare minimums required by law is not "taking care of their employees"...that's taking care of themselves.

    When Amazon workers have to wear diapers in order to keep up with their quotas...they aren't being taken care of... they are being exploited.
    Fair point. My statement was more aimed at workers who weren't at the very bottom of the pay scale, where in most industries the compensation is based on what other people in the same position are also getting paid/ compensated.

    You're absolutely correct that the low end/ minimum wage workers are exploited.

  18. #658
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Fair point. My statement was more aimed at workers who weren't at the very bottom of the pay scale, where in most industries the compensation is based on what other people in the same position are also getting paid/ compensated.

    You're absolutely correct that the low end/ minimum wage workers are exploited.
    Your point is all over the place. First you say that companies take care of their employees...then you say that the only way businesses will treat their employees fairly is if the government makes rules and regulations that require them to do so.

    Once again, meeting the bare minimum of your legal obligations to your employees is not taking care of them.

  19. #659
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Your point is all over the place. First you say that companies take care of their employees...then you say that the only way businesses will treat their employees fairly is if the government makes rules and regulations that require them to do so.

    Once again, meeting the bare minimum of your legal obligations to your employees is not taking care of them.
    You're right, I chose my words poorly. "Taking care of" is not the right term. I just meant that they'll pay them based on the industry average for those positions, in many cases that's minimum, or below livable wages.

  20. #660
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    You're right, I chose my words poorly. "Taking care of" is not the right term. I just meant that they'll pay them based on the industry average for those positions, in many cases that's minimum, or below livable wages.
    So, when you said "Care about and take care of"... what you meant to say was the complete opposite of that...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •