Slashdot Mirror
FWD.us To Laid-Off Southern California Edison Workers: Boo-Hoo
theodp writes: Speaking at a National Journal LIVE event that was sponsored by Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us and Laurene Powell Jobs' Emerson Collective, FWD.us "Major Contributor" Lars Dalgaard was asked about the fate of 500 laid-off Southern California Edison IT workers, whose forced training of their H-1B worker replacements from offshore outsourcing companies sparked a bipartisan Senate investigation. "If you want the job, make yourself able to get the job," quipped an unsympathetic Dalgaard (YouTube). "Nobody's going to hold you up and carry you around...If you're not going to work hard enough to be qualified to get the job...well then, you don't deserve the job." "That might be harsh," remarked interviewer Niharika Acharya. Turning to co-interviewee Pierre-Jean Cobut, FWD.us's poster child for increasing the H-1B visa cap, Acharya asked, "Do you agree with him?" "Actually, I do," replied PJ, drawing laughs from the crowd.
These guys are jerks. Obviously the Edison IT workers were qualified - they trained their replacements. Equally obvious they were available to do the job, so there was no reason to bring in H1Bs. Outright fraud by Edison, abetted by the government.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
10/10, top libertarian trolling, would read again!
Fair is fair, so let's make sure it cuts both ways, all the way up the management chain. Let anyone who can and is willing to do the CEO job for less $ take the position, and have to have the current CEO train his replacement.
I'm not religious, but this kind of shit only makes me think of that famous line: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Circumcision is child abuse.
Corporations are not, and have never been, the job creators. Customers are the job creators.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Hilarious how vicious, right wing libertarians with a FYGM mentality also end up on the chopping block. Obviously if they didn't want to be fired they should have bootstrapped themselves to a job that couldn't have been onshored by H1Bs.
Edison wanted cheaper workers, plain and simple. Dalgaard and Cobut should be ashamed of themselves, but slimeballs like that know no shame.
Well PJ, direct from your web-site http://letpjstay.com/
"PJ, the co-founder of Echo Labs, always dreamed of starting a company in the United States, but if he doesn't get an H1-B visa, he'll have to move Echo Labs to Canada."
And my response to you is,
If you want the H1B, make yourself able to get the H1B. Otherwise, enjoy Canadia...
This is why it's morally OK to fuck over corporations.
The beatings^Wlayoffs will continue until morale improves.
No. Those "leftists" want to ensure that workers have more control over their own lives. This is inherently difficult to do when employers, both individually and collectively, have much more power than the employee.
An employee who is fired loses their livelihood.
An employer who has an employee that quits loses some of their capacity to do business. Depending upon the size of their business, that loss in capacity ranges from negligible to critical-but-not-fatal.
There are various ways to balance that power. Regulation is one means. Unionization is another approach. Of course, controlling supply (e.g. limiting H1B's) is also a valuable tool for changing the balance. Note that I say balancing power. Even many staunch union supporters would agree that giving workers more power than employers is a bad idea.
There are plenty of good European CEOs who are used to much lower compensation that I'm sure could do the job. Perhaps it's time to onshore the CEO position and save a few million in one shot.
"If you want the job, make yourself able to get the job"
I wanted the job so hard I tried to get my DNA to change so that I was Indian but my damn lazy American genome would not cooperate.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Corporations in the United States are a legal invention of the citizens of the United States. They were created because the citizens believed that corporations would provide more good to the country than bad.
If it seems to the citizens that corporations are providing more bad than good, we can dissolve corporations. Now of course this will be difficult to do in the current political and social landscape. In the extremity, though, we can always return to the ways of the Founding Fathers, meet the armed goons of the government on the battlefield, and blow their brains out.
I do not expect that that happen in my lifetime, frankly. However, what is much more likely to happen, and far sooner, is that one of these workers who are told to train their H1B replacements will arrange on their first day to usher them all into a large meeting room, lock the doors, and shoot every last one of them. Sending the message to the world: "Come to America on H1B, and die."
But please note, I am not advocating any of this. I'm merely predicting it. Because throughout history, when the powerful repeatedly failed to listen to the "lower classes" complaints of injustice, eventually the lower classes kill the powerful -- And it won't matter if the powerful were "right" according to this political theory, or they were "wrong" according to that economic theory, when they're rotting in the gutter as the proles piss on their corpse.
So, if my corporation doesn't create something the customer wants, they will magically create the jobs for me to hire new employees?
Seems a bit idiotic... Hope you don't try to start your own business with that line of thinking
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." -- Frédéric Bastiat, 1848
If all corporations are ...
Except, we can stand up for ourselves. Or can we?
You have zero understanding of the word libertarian.
Just another day in Paradise
H1Bs aren't immigrants. They are foreign workers here to take jobs that no one wants. That's the "theory", anyway. In practice, they are used to import indentured servants at the cost of US citizens.
You forgot to mention that some immigrants are carriers of values that can be incompatible with values of your Founding Fathers. Yes, you understand the meaning of the word "values".
If you're going to bring history into the discussion, at least don't claim corporations were invented here. There's a long history of them prior to the United States.
Just another day in Paradise
The legal concept of a corporation has been around since at least the Roman Empire. Don't expect it to go away any time soon.
And the revolution you're predicting? There aren't any people starving.
Customers are still the job creators. Companies that lose customers shrink, and that involves lay-offs. Ask GM and Chrysler. Companies that gain customers hire. Ask Facebook and Google.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Simple solution is to change the rules of the H1B visa..... not by stopping the "skilled" immigrants but by having every visa come with residency - which would free a skilled worker to work anywhere and not just for the sponsoring company. I have personally seen the impact on wages for H1Bs because of the need to stay with the company while the company works through the process for residency (which can take the full 6 years). If they change jobs the residency process has to start again, which makes the company not having to compete in regards to wages for H1B visa holders. Competition is good, H1B to residency process depresses it and distorts the market.
Some of us have indeed freelanced and/or conslutted.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Every time I read one of these statements from the entitles poodles that run corporate America, I hear guillotines being sharpened.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...with the dismissive attitude of an authority figure who knows they can't be touched.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
This. When my grandfather came to the US, he became a CITIZEN. This isn't about making people Citizens. In fact, that's the last thing Zuck and pals want for the workers they ate shipping in from India.
I doubt it. I tried to unionize our shop (all I needed was 50%), and while the other coders agreed that it was a good idea in principle, less than half would sign up when the crunch came, even though the law prohibits firing for unionizing. Chicken is as chicken does. Heck, even WalMart workers here unionized.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm very sorry, but I have to agree with the poster you reply to. This isn't as simple as you think. Yes you can create customers out of the blue. Ask Facebook, Google and many others. However, yes, without customers no business is viable, except the government.
So, the business process is rather than, find out something you believe there is a market for and customers for and create it. That is where it starts, not the reverse.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Customers create the jobs. If another company can undercut the price of your company, you will lose sales and employees will lose their jobs, and the other company will gain sales and hire more employees.
In the end, the customer is always right, and the customer is the one funding the ongoing business of the company. Lose too many of your customers and you go broke - see GM and Chrysler as examples.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Without ongoing revenues from customers, the business is just a money sink (like a boat), and will go under, so those jobs were unsustainable. They end when investors decide to cut their loses and throw good money after bad. See many of the dot-com bombs who had no paying customers and no exit plan.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I've never been hired or paid by a customer, dipshit. And neither have you.
And if all the customers went away, because they were too poor to buy the company's product, how many jobs would the 'job creator' company be creating? Companies create jobs when there are actual *customers*, and ones that can afford their products, otherwise there's no reason to create more jobs to produce things that nobody needs/wants/can-afford, right?
That is correct that their are no jobs without a demand, but the customers do not actually create anything. The business is what creates. If you want to see how this works do the island test. You are stuck an island by yourself and you demand a big pile of food, a bottle of rum, and a boat (so you can leave the damn island). Do any of those things spring into existence? How about if their are 2 people on the island demanding those things? No not yet? Ok how about 1 million people on that island demanding those things? And again your statement fails. You can demand anything all day long and it doesn't magically appear. Ok let's try this again on the same island but with a guy who just happens to know how to grow food, make rum, and build boats. He now wants a big pile of food, a bottle of rum, and a boat. So he begins growing the food, builds a still to make the rum, and chops down trees to make the boat. Let's try again with 2 people on the island. Yep food, rum, and boats are being made. How about with 1 million people. Yep food, rum, and boats are being made. Now you could argue that the guy wouldn't have made anything without the demand, so the demand came first, but I would counter with that the business came first because the guy knew how to build those things first. People dream all the time about things they want, but until someone actually figures out how to do it no jobs will ever be created to deliver such things
You spent 100 years taking over US politics - yes, we're aware of that now. To bad "we the people" weren't aware of it twenty or more years ago. NAFTA should have been the real giveaway, but people had their heads in the sand.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
No, you can't. Go ahead, prove me wrong - but you won't.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Even many staunch union supporters would agree that giving workers more power than employers is a bad idea.
They may say that, but I've never heard of any that believe it.
And without corporations there are no jobs. You're still failing to see that it's not just about customers. You can have plenty of customers and demand, and still have no jobs.
Just another day in Paradise
Historically, small businesses create more jobs than any corporation does. Mom and pop businesses. Family businesses. Local cooperatives. Some individual who sticks his neck out - and entrepreneur. Young companies create jobs - older, more established businesses do not.
http://www.sbecouncil.org/abou...
http://smallbusiness.house.gov...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/ar...
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb...
Of at least equal importance, is the question of WHEN do businesses create jobs?
Small businesses, new businesses, and startups create jobs all the time. Large corporations instead only "create" jobs in times of plenty. That is - they stand back, and watch the small players take the risks. When they see little guys making a go of it, then they either buy out the little guy, or go directly into competition with that little guy.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Even many staunch union supporters would agree that giving workers more power than employers is a bad idea.
Why? If the workers are supposed to just smile and take it when they get laid off, and get another job, why shouldn't the same be true of businesses? If the workers had more power and used it unwisely the company would just go bust, and the owner would have to get another job, which is how free market capitalism is supposed to work... How is that different?
In fact, with powerful unions comes a more responsible work force, not less. If everyone's job is at stake, then you have to tread carefully. Otherwise, how could we in northern Europe have large multinational companies when we have some of the strongest unions in the world? Our current PM was a former top union boss, and lo and behold, there wasn't any mass flight of Sandvikens and SAABs...
Stefan Axelsson
You are either seriously uneducated, indoctrinated, or maliciously motivated. Contract power between two groups is the most serious issue that exists in politics, economics and even socialization. It's why we don't let people fuck kids, fire unionizers, discriminate against minorities, or violate human rights. Just look at the struggle between Netflix and Comcast. Comcast was certainly happy to abuse it's power and they are rightfully hated for it.
The fact is, employers and companies have a lot of power over people and we NEED regulations to defend ourselves either at the top or the bottom. We need to have balanced power between all stakeholders or someone will be abused as soon as the group in power can justify it (to themselves, not to others).
Yes, I have paid them, in access to my personal information.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Basic supply and demand. Who creates the job the person who creates a better mouse trap, or the demand for the better mouse trap? Quite easy to answer. Without the demand for a better mouse trap the person who invented it would never have spent time to invent it.
Facebook did not create new customers, the customers were there, demanding better ways to communicate.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You realize, of course, that FWD.us is a decidedly "leftist" organization?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's obvious that you ARE indoctrinated.
The simplest most powerful contract between two groups is saying "NO".
Comcast, AT&T and Edison don't have power because of lack of regulations. They have ALL the power BECAUSE of regulations established by corporations AND union groups (you're aware that all these shops have unions in them, right?) that conspired together to protect their personal monopolies to increase that power you oh-so despise.
I worked at AT&T and the union there couldn't give one iota about employee abuses at the IT levels as we were sold out to H1Bs and cheaper levels... unless, of course, we wanted to join the union, pay the dues and submit to their power controls for our personal AND political lives. Meanwhile they happily organized government call in days to push for legislation that gave more money to AT&T - BTW, such call ins were mandatory and required signing a sheet verifying you had called.
So you'll excuse me if I call your opinion bullshit.
A buisness does not create, people do.
If you are on an island and demand things then you do it, because you want to survive. No business is there, but demand, and the job to create those things, exist. If someone who already knows how to do those things is on the island he will just do it more efficiently, and can make more money at it, but he did not create the job..
Lets do your same test. You are on an island full of nothing but farmers, and only need to grow one crop that only takes one person to create and everyone is equally good at making that crop. Is there anymore jobs for farmers? No, because demand=jobs. Add one non farmer to the mix, now there is demand for farmers, and he will pay the farmer who can best serve his needs the cheapest. He created the job.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
A buisness does not create, people do.
If you are on an island and demand things then you do it, because you want to survive. No business is there, but demand, and the job to create those things, exist. If someone who already knows how to do those things is on the island he will just do it more efficiently, and can make more money at it, but he did not create the job..
Lets do your same test. You are on an island full of nothing but farmers, and only need to grow one crop that only takes one person to create and everyone is equally good at making that crop. Is there anymore jobs for farmers? No, because demand=jobs. Add one non farmer to the mix, now there is demand for farmers, and he will pay the farmer who can best serve his needs the cheapest. He created the job
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You did read that they had to train their replacements right? So their resume was good, the offshore peoples was not.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Here's an easy solution to this problem. Make H1-B a path to citizenship (and really we want as much intelligent and highly-skilled labors as possible to stick around) so that eventually companies can't hold the H1-B over an employee's head to keep wages down. Next, keep track of former H1-B workers who are currently unemployed and do not allow for any addition applications until there there are fewer than say 10% who have been unemployed for more than a year. Additionally, count any citizens who were displaced by an H1-B worker (would need to follow companies using H1-B workers more closely, but that's part of the trade-off) as part of this pool as well.
If a company can't find enough skilled workers, they need to raise wages to attract better candidates and let the companies who aren't willing to pay as much draw from the pool of applicants who are less qualified. Otherwise they can pick from what's available and spend some time training their hires.
> See many of the dot-com bombs who had no paying customers and no exit plan.
And still created jobs.
es you can create customers out of the blue. Ask Facebook, Google and many others.
The people who use facebook and google are NOT the customers, they are the PRODUCT.
Require all employers who hire an H1-B to pay TOP MARKET RATE for their region for the position they hire that person for.Additionally, require the employer initiate and cover all costs of Naturalization of the H1-B employee after 1 year or rescind H1-B status and send them home. A per worker fee that is large enough to cover teh cost of oversight should be required for each H1-B worker hired. This could be handled through ICE -- the same as they handle Green Card Applicants -- just perform random interviews and checks on the H1-B workers to ensure they are indeed working in the job capacity they were documented as and are indeed receiving the appropriate level of pay. Deviation should result in hefty fines the first time ($100,000 or more per incident) with severe penalties after repeated incidents ($1,000,000+ fines and revocation of all H1-B permits and inability to obtain future permits)
This way, we can be sure H1-Bs will indeed be a highly skilled and specialized worker hired because there is no local equivalent and that the H1-B worker is not exploited as a cheap labor source and given all employee accommodations as required under law.
Markets by nature work themselves into states of stability. Stability is where a single player or a small group of players provides a product at a price the buyer can afford. The problem is that this stability is also stagnant, and does not create innovation.
So true competitive markets do not exist for very long unless there is an entity I place that keeps the market from reaching stability. In most cases, that entity is government regulation that either controls the big players or allows room for small players to enter the market.
people can make things and sell them to each other without corporations, they are strictly a mental construct humans use to organize their thinking, in the physical realm corporations do not actually exist.
the customers do not actually create anything.
let's try this exercise: you are a farmer and you have extra food. there are hungry people with money. no corpoation is necessary for a business transaction to take place here.
You are stuck an island by yourself
yeah sure that argument clearly is deeply rooted in real life experience, NOT
never underestimate the power of the straw man
the straw man can have infinite power or wisdom or he may be the stupidest person on earth
such is the power and glory of the straw man
the founding fathers said that their beliefs are compatible with all people so maybe you can explain some more about how your theory works
One thing you need to learn about leftists is that they accuse others of what they are secretly guilty of, or would be guilty of if only they had the chance.
straw man alert!
Here they quickly accuse others ("evil corporations") of being greedy, but its their own greed thats on the table.
yes, when the corporation doles out enormous golden parachutes to its executives, it is doing the exact same thing as when a father scrapes together food to feed his family
they were not "jobs" because they did not last. "jobs" are what people use to raise families and children. getting paid for six weeks and then getting laid off is not a "job"
It isn't a fear of firing but the realization that unions are simply trading one management bureaucracy with another.And although they can't legally fire you for joining a union they certainly can eliminate your position and off-shore it with the net effect being the same.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
It's not about being handed shit on a silver platter, asshole. It's about a level playing field. Fuckers like Zuck lobby the government to tilt the playing field in their favour, and then call everyone else "whiners" when they start realizing they're getting screwed and speak out against it.
The people of the USA, Canada, and any other country that is pulling this shit need to stand up to their government and let it be known that the government only exists with the consent of the governed. That the government exists for the benefit of the people, not a handful of rich fucks who think they are entitled to more justice and political representation than another citizen of the country.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm
Germany has historically had extremely strong unions, and their economy is doing just fine. It isn't unionization that screws up economies, it's having overly-generous government pension programs (with people retiring in their 40s or whatever it was in Greece), too much business going on under-the-table and no taxes being paid on it (a huge problem in Greece), and people not doing much productive work in general (another big problem in Greece, where it seems most people work for the government, and the rest working in tourism, and no real industry to speak of; when was the last time you bought something that said "Made in Greece"? I think they make some cheese, and that's all I can think of.).
Knowing how to do something, in the absence of customers willing to pay for it, doesn't create jobs. Do your island test this way - he's alone on the island, he knows how to make boats and canoes and airplanes. Who's he going to sell to once he's made enough to satisfy his own demand?
Knowing how to do something, even with customers, is not by itself sufficient to create a job. I might know how to make a nuclear weapon - that doesn't mean I'm going to have any customers absent a supply of yellow cake; not only that, but the people who would want to buy one are the people who will make sure they're your last customer, so your "business" is closed due to a "death in the family."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Margaret Thatcher's government broke the power of the unions that made running a company efficiently impossible.
Margeret Thatcher is the only first world country former leader I'm aware of whose death prompted widespread street parties. She is one of the most despised women in history, for the poverty she brought to many of her own people.
Where did you get that idea?
FWD.us is a corporatist organization; its whole raison d'etre is to promote open borders so that corporations can get access to the cheapest workers possible.
True leftists, historically, have usually been in favor of worker protections, unionization, things like that.
It is interesting, however, that today's Democrat Party, which claims to be on "the left", has actually been working against such things in recent years.
Worse, the H1Bs require their employer to sponsor them to remain in the United States, which they will only do if the individual is working for them.
As a result, the employer not only holds and H1B's livelihood under a Damocles Sword, but even their residence in this country. You want to quit? Well, I hope you're prepared to move yourself back to where you came from on your own dime, which is also what happens if we fire you.
So, the employer has even more power over H1B workers, to the point where the worker is unlikely to report anything but the worst abuse...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
If you have customers and demand, you now have a job. You may even be able to hire others to work with you. No corporation is needed.
There are plenty of people who take work on as contractors to mow lawns, dig wells and ditches, and do other work, without the need of a corporation. In fact, being incorporated can be detrimental to attempts to obtain bank loans for start-ups - the banks want personal skin in the game, not some limited liability company.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They were a necessary evil to help production ramp up during a civil war, and to help extend the railroads. They had a legally limited charter to be dismantled immediately after their scope was completed. After the civil war, in the first year of the 16th Amendment had about 289 court cases around it. More than 90% were by corporations altering their charters and extending their powers.
A "job" is any activity in which you're paid for work.
But I'll be sure to pass that on to my buddies in the housing industry that only work for several months at a time or my other friends who work as musicians "Hey, do you know you don't have a job because you're only employed for several weeks at a stretch?"
The non-profits and charities still have customers - the donors. The recipients of charity are not customers - even if today we are polite enough to call them "clients". Same as the customers of google are advertisers, whereas users are not - they're product.
Those startups that grow by injections of cash have customers - the people who supply the cash in return for an equity stake.
Communists have the concept of "customer."
You need to get out more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Facebook has customers - their advertisers.
An author who can't sell their book to a single person is not in business, doesn't matter if it's the virtual world or the real world. So that author better have a job doing something else, or be retired.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The clients of those dot-bombs had were the investors, who exchanged their money for equity. Once they ran out of investor clients, if they couldn't attract any other customers, the jobs went bye-bye.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Facebook's customers are the corporations and people that advertise on Facebook.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
So how is it that we allow foreigners to come in and work jobs with this kind of access? You want a few hundred ISIS operatives to cross the border? No problem arranging the border sensor grid outage.
Have gnu, will travel.
If a single commenter mentioned this, I didn't see it. The entity employing H1B workers is required by law to file a Labor Condition Application to ensure that they meet or exceed the prevailing wage, and an attestation designed to ensure that they are not used to break a strike nor to replace citizen workers - i.e., that the H1Bs are really needed because citizens cannot be found to do the jobs.
Obviously this does not work, or there would be little to no motivation to gratuitously replace citizens with H1B workers. What no one has satisfactorily explained to me (beyond waving the hands and mumbling "corruption") is, how is the law being flouted?
These guys are jerks
Say what you want, boy
Not any more, thanks to modern medicine. Don't be such a trans-phobe :-)
We all know that the congress critters who will be more than glad to sell out the nation as long as the price is right
Oh, don't call those fucking congress critters 'jerks', though ... if it is not because you, and yes, I mean YOU, the Americans, those fuckers won't get elected in the first place
Lemme put it another way ... the buck should stop with you, the American Voters. It is because REAL jerks like you voted to put fuckers in the congress, fuckers who will sell out the nation as long as the price is right
YOU GUYS ARE THE ONE WHO HAVE STARTED ALL THESE!
Not my fault at all - I'm not an American.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, they are the free labor which creates the content which attracts the eyeballs.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
into the ideals that were pounded into his skull since childhood. That's the problem. The free market has failed us middle class techs. We can't possibly compete with people who lack food security. Yes, the H1-B program increases the GDP, but that's useless to the middle class since we're getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. The solution is protectionism and socialism, but the 1% have spent our whole lives demonizing these things.
/.ers is fighting the same uphill battle. It's the same reason the right wing just won the UK. You take control of the basic discussion and thought processes. Hell, look what we're doing. We're not talking about our standard of living, we're talking about "Job Creators". They've framed the debate in such a way that we can't even start to talk about the real issues.
Ask yourself what your high school economics class was like. Were you ever taught there was any way but free market laissez faire economics? Heck, in my class they didn't even bother demonizing it, it just wasn't taught. Libertarianism was a fait accompli. The grandparent, like a lot of
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It doesn't change the fact that they created jobs on a long term gamble that demand could be created. You can tap dance around that all you want but I worked for several of those companies and made a good chunk of income from them for several years at a time as well as contributing that in increased tax dollars to the government.
as for jobs going "bye-bye" - I don't see the difference between them and Edison here (a successful and established company, with customers) making jobs go "bye-bye" for cost cutting measures.
You're missing the fact that the company did have customers - the people who put up the money for equity. You know, shareholders (literally, owners of a share of the company)?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A bunch of CEOs and their deep-pocketed investors want to increase their profits by driving down the cost of labor and want to do that by bringing in (basically) lower-wage indentured servants.
Call me when there's some real news on this front.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It is because REAL jerks like you voted to put fuckers in the congress, fuckers who will sell out the nation as long as the price is right
So which sell out congress critter did you vote for?
by Anonymous Coward
Mr not even a real person
While there is a proper definition of the term "libertarian", most slashdotters who identify as such do not understand it. Indeed, the same can be said for most anyone who self-identifies as "libertarian". Most would seem to fall into the "I should be able to get rich at others expense and smoke weed" camp. Then there are the Rand fanboys who still believe that labor is a "free market". I don't know which group is more self-deluded but they are both out of touch with reality.
Nope. The unions in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and, to a lesser extent, Norway, for example, are much stronger than the unions in the countries you mentioned. As far as Europe is concerned the countries you mention are on the lower half when it comes to union strength. (Which is clear if you notice the antics they get up to. A strong union wouldn't have to behave like that.)
So, no cigarr. Try again.
Stefan Axelsson
Customers create demand but only at certain prices does that demand turn into a transaction. Ignoring the capital required to turn theoretical demand into actual demand is dumb. People who say customers create jobs have an an agenda and don't really believe that follows logically, because how could they be that dumb?
Wow. You flunked Econ 101, didn't you? You've left out a couple of critical factors in your sophomoric analysis here.
Which communist countries haven't had the idea of a customer?
The investors were not "customers" - they were INVESTORS.
A customer is one who uses the product or services produced.
An investor is one who puts up support for a company to help produce goods or services with the intention that they'll be paid back or sometimes NOT AT ALL (for tax purposes or just to help a fella out).
Germany has even stronger unions and is doing very well. Margaret Thatcher handed the UK economy over to bankers and we saw how well that turned out in 2008.
Capitalists have been bringing in low paid coolies for centuries. Nothing new here.
Don't make the mistake of thinking these coolies are somehow superior - other than their willingness to work for pennies on the dollar.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Given current business practices in the US, the rational thing to do is train your replacements incorrectly, but in such a way as their lack of training is only noticeable after you are fired, or long enough after the training has taken place that it can't be tracked down to your specific instruction.
When the geek turns to thoughts felonies he contrives schemes so finely calibrated that they cannot possibly work.
Facebook is continually trying to increase the number of advertisers - their customers. And an author of a book is no different than an author of software - the cost of producing the first copy is high in terms of time and labor, each additional copy is almost nothing. But, in both cases, if nobody is a customer, they haven't created a job for themselves, just a hobby. Same as all those devs who work for free on open source don't have a job developing open source.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Investors are most definitely customers - that's why companies do "dog and pony shows" for potential investors - they want to sell those investors on the value of the company so that the investor will buy a share of the company.
That they buy a share in the hope of it increasing in value is no different than someone buying a hammer so they can increase their value as a carpenter. Or someone buying a house as part of their long-term investment plan because they expect to sell it at a profit instead of renting.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The governments of capitalist countries also determine both the demand and who is going to be allowed to bid on supplying it - see arms procurement as just one example. Does that make them communist?
Tender bids for construction contracts also lay out both the demand and the businesses that are qualified to bid for it, even if it ends up with only one bidder being qualified. Does that make them communist?
Businesses enter into single-source contracts, and single-buyer contracts. Are they communist?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Facebook definitely does have customers. They are called 'advertisers'. And they do pay. Lots.
So if I start my own company with my own money then, by your own loose definitions, I'm a customer because I've sold myself on the idea.
Let's just generalize it to where you want this argument to go then -
Money makes jobs and without money there are no jobs.
Ergo - What Zuckerburg and Edison are doing here is correct because this will make MORE jobs because they will have more money with which to be customers with to create new jobs with.
A Libertarian thinks it sounds cooler to say they are that than Republican. Especially since Bush.
I've noticed that soclopaths can't seem to tell the difference between jealousy and anger. For some reason they also seem to need black-letter law for guidance, instead of morals.
Bernie Sanders 2016
Bernie Sanders 2016
Bernie Sanders 2016
Bernie Sanders 2016
Bernie Sanders 2016
C|N>K
Historically, small businesses create more jobs than any corporation does. Mom and pop businesses. Family businesses. Local cooperatives. Some individual who sticks his neck out - and entrepreneur. Young companies create jobs - older, more established businesses do not.
A lot of it can be attributed to statistical effects. Lets say, we make the cut-off between a small or medium business and a big corporation at 500 employees. Companies will cross this line all the time. Some grow larger than 500 employees, others shrink until they are below 500 employees, or they go bust and fire more than 500 employees. In all those cases of crossing the 500-employees-line, it will always be a small or medium company adding jobs and a large corporation slashing jobs. That's built into the definition! So in your statistics, you will see small companies adding jobs and large companies slashing jobs - but that's because you define small and large companies in a way that this result is inevitable. It has nothing to do with the potential of an individual company to add or to slash jobs.
Having worked as a contractor, the health insurance benefits are a big deal, although I'd say that it is likely his LTE work is by choice at this point. You'd usually take the LTE work to have a soft landing while you work on a full-time job. In that sense, it was a good deal.
However, for some people, insurance is not really a huge concern. Perhaps single and/or young. They should be careful that they don't go too long that way, or they might find health issues creeping up on them.
If I were that person, I'd start setting a date where I was working to get on a better health care plan via employment or something, but it can be a rational choice for them at this point.
So your complaint about AT&T's union is you wanted the collective benefits of the union but did not want to pay into them. Ah, the libertarian creed, wanting benefits of institutions without contributing.
The hypocrisy of slashdotters on this one is quite funny. "First they came for the non-IT workers, and we couldn't care less."
Quite true. I expect the RIAA & MPAA to officially open an account on /. and post "Evolve or die, like the buggy-whip makers did when the automobile was invented." The irony would be so delicious.
Or redefine it such that you don't meet the requirements and they bring in an H1B. Stay on topic! :-)
I gave something in exchange for something else, that is pretty much the definition of paid.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Facebook is a middleman for a product. The product is user information, offered by users for sale. Facebook pays their users by providing a service that many of them find useful. There's a trade; if it's a one-sided donation on the user's part, then they got screwed (like in a blood drive, where it's a donation, instead of a trade). If Facebook doesn't provide useful services for trade, then the users will take their product elsewhere.
Of course Facebook translates information into money by analyzing it and selling information to advertisers, so advertisers are the first Facebook customers that actually trade money for a product. So, the users and the ad guys are both customers, just in different senses.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Really? Then what's going on if someone pays me money to mow their lawn? In that case, they're the customer. They hired me, and they're going to pay me for my work. Ditto if I'm doing maintenance on their computer, or something. I've done both. So, in what way does that mean that I haven't been hired+paid by a customer?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
That's because the U.S. Democratic party is not a left-wing party, it's merely to the left of its only viable opposition at this point. In practice it is much more of a Centrist or Center-Right party, from a European standpoint.
I'm not exactly sure how the centre-right Democratic Party is considered 'leftist', but I guess that's America for you...
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
by the neck until dead (after arrest for economic treason and conviction in a court of law).
posting at http://leftistconservative.blogspot.com
Exactly.
Here in America, most people consider Democrats to be "leftists".
The hypocrisy of slashdotters on this one is quite funny. "First they came for the non-IT workers, and we couldn't care less."
Quite true. I expect the RIAA & MPAA to officially open an account on /. and post "Evolve or die, like the buggy-whip makers did when the automobile was invented." The irony would be so delicious.
Now that is funny.
I'm not a proponent of perpetual unions, but rather a system where we can activate/deactivate unions as necessary. However, in tech now is a time when a union is needed to level the playing field, and use the power of the collective to lobby against big corporation lobbying agenda (H-1B increases).
An employee loses a job, finds another one. Sure, he may have some difficult time in between. However he can just walk away and there is nothing the employer can do about it. I want to be able to sue employees for just walking away as they do sometimes. If I lose money as a company I want the employee to share in the pain of the financial loss. If a client doesn't pay for the work I want not to pay the employee who I hired to do the work. I can be sued as a business, I want to split the damages so that the employees also bear some reponsibility.
Oh, I can't really do any of that. The fucked up society cares to protect the employees much more than employers. In fact laws, lawsuits, regulations take away my individual rights as an employer but employees still have those and they get entitlements to demand things from me that go beyond what I am willing to offer.
Employees do not have the headache of obligations imposed by the oppressive violent government structures that employers have.
I am firmly on the side of individual rights, and this means I am firmly on the side that if a person becomes an employer they must not lose those rights.
Why oh why does it happen so that a group representing the majority of people in a so called democracy get more rights than a minority, employers. Can it be that democracy is really a system of the mob ganging up against a minority? Hmmm.
You can't handle the truth.
This is in fact the way open capitalism is supposed to work. Businesses are supposed to fail every day and there are new ones to take their place. They are not supposed to be so protected that they become mammoths that will cause a disaster if they fail, as they are today.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"A Libertarian thinks it sounds cooler to say they are that than Fascist".
Fixed that for you.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Yes, every time I buy a product I have to pay for the marketing. You don't understand accounting or proper pricing.
By the way. I don't live in a virtual world. Sooner or later I will have to buy a tangible item. That is the fallacy of the 'Information Society".
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
No you *do* pay. Every time you buy something you pay for the marketing.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Money is only a medium of exchange - it does not in and of itself create jobs. Otherwise all that money sitting in banks doing nothing would create jobs "magically." When the corporations cut back on payroll, there's less consumer activity since there's less ability for people to exchange goods and services - much of which takes place based on credit, which is not money, btw.
Generalizations ignore reality.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Seriously, the H1-B is about companies being able to control the price. IOW, it is a local communist approach. All competition disappears.
With green cards, the employee is free to move around, and as such, they can find the best companies to work for.
That is how we get REAL competition.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Customers are the job creators.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I've never been hired or paid by a customer, dipshit. And neither have you.
You remind me of a protester I saw once that had a sign that read: "Who needs oil, I take the bus!"
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
With out the government propping him up and holding his hand. Any company that needs government help is a poorly run company. He's just a welfare bum.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Socialism and Protectionism are _not_ easy answers. That's what makes them real answers. Real answers are _hard_. We're facing a lot of complex problems with a large and incredibly powerful group of individuals trying to sabotage any attempt to solve them.
This is always been a problem of socialists. Our rhetoric sucks because we don't have a grand ideal to lean on. It's so much _easier_ to say if we leave things alone their sort themselves out. It _sounds_ better and it _feels_ better. Sure, it's wrong. But it's a tough sell.
It's like when you were a teenager and didn't want to listen to your parents. I mean that exactly. Your parents weren't right about everything, but if you're middle class enough to be reading this they were probably right about 90%. But nobody remembers that 90%, just the 10% of the time they were wrong. Socialism has the same problem.
And no, Russia and China aren't socialists. Next question please. It takes more than words to be socialist, just like it takes more than sex to be a parent.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're not Facebook's customer, you're a Facebook user. The customers are the ad and marketing guys.
So basically the reason you don't know what you're talking about in this thread is your recursion depth is set to 1.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The first thing they should do is to abolish the random lottery for H1B visas and grant the visas within the cap to the applicants with the highest salaries. That would help to stop companies that are abusing H1Bs for driving wages down and at the same time would make sure that if a company really really needs the skills of a specific foreigner, they could get a visa for him or her by paying a very high wage.
Jan
When's the last time you opened a product labeled "Made in one of those four countries"?
Probably not too long ago. Check out Volvo cars (built in Sweden) or Volvo trucks (built in Sweden, and Swedish owned). To just name two. There are many others.
Now of course, we've been non white for the last 30 years or so. Still going strong. If you lot would just stop starting wars all over, or at least take care of the refugees we wouldn't have to. The town of Sodertalje (home to Scania) took in more Iraq refugees than all of the US of A. Combined.
Then again, if you weren't so hot on wars, the Norwegians couldn't export their "Raufoss" rounds to you, so there's that...
Fact of the matter is that we have a very positive trade balance with you, even considering how small Sweden is. So a lot more shit gets done here, than over there... A lot more...
Stefan Axelsson
Even the Government requires customers (citizens) to govern. If nobody follows you, you're not viable.
It goes back to feudal city-states, or lordships, and beyond. True, the Lord has nearly absolute power over his serfs; but also, the serfs came willingly, the Lord became a Lord by attracting people to his protection. Just like a Clan Chief.
Demand almost always precedes supply, because for one thing almost no need is actually new. So even a new product is targeting an existing demand. If you have demand and no supply, it is like a vacuum, there is pressure to create supply. If there is supply and no demand, there is no pressure to create demand.
It is like the chicken and the egg. Until you have knowledge of how the details work (DNA) it seems impossible to tell which comes first. But once you have some understanding of the details, it becomes obvious that the chicken egg was laid by the proto-chicken. The chicken egg came before the chicken, just as the proto-chicken egg came before the proto-chicken.
It is very rare for a business owner to create a job. Almost all the jobs "created" are going to displace others doing the same work. Which is all good. Only in the rare case where the is pent-up demand and a lack of supply, where by creating a new supply nobody else can create, you satisfy demand that would otherwise not be satisfied. Not only is that rare, but it is also short-term; in the future everybody knows how to satisfy that demand, there will be balanced supply and demand, and creating additional supply will not create additional demand just change who supplies it.
if they see the need to have unskilled or low skilled US workers replaced by better trained and superior H1B's then so be it
Reminds me of a bar where I used to go regularly. I went in one day and they had replaced all the craft brewery taps with Anheuser-Busch and Miller selections. When I complained about it, the manager told me "We saw the need to have unquality or low quality US beer replaced by better quality and superior mass-market versions. What the fuck do YOU know about beer anyway?" I guess he didn't realize that I pioneered many new hop varieties and types of beer as a brewmaster for a local brewery.
I don't go there anymore, but I have to assume that eventually customers will realize they are being served shit and decide to go elsewhere.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Facebook satisfied latent demand to be able to contact people from past schools who were otherwise out of contact. Like a never-ending school reunion.
It doesn't matter if a person spends the time on a "better" mousetrap where there is no demand for one. That is not the limitation. The problem is, if there is not demand for it, how is it even "better?" You can build it, and even if it is better, if there is no demand then nobody will notice it is "better," or agree. I see lots of products offered that are "better," and then the next year they're no longer for sale. Why? Because there wasn't demand for a "better" what-the-what. The only way to sell the better what-the-what is to convince customers it is also a better thingamajig. But if you do that, you haven't changed the demand for thingamajigs or what-the-whats, you've only shifted the demand from one to the other. No new trade value is created, because no new demand was created.
Even people who agree that live traps are morally superior still usually buy traditional mouse traps, for example.
While there is a proper definition of the term "libertarian", most slashdotters who identify as such do not understand it. Indeed, the same can be said for most anyone who self-identifies as "libertarian".
So, most people who self-identify as "libertarian" have less understanding of their own principles and beliefs than ... you. Right. Got it.
I assume you self-identify as a Psychologist, because they are one of the few groups I know of that define words to describe people and then go around telling people they need a professional to tell them which words to use to describe themselves.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I've never been hired or paid by a customer, dipshit. And neither have you.
... or anyone else that wanted you to deal with customers, apparently.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Right, before corporations there was no supply and demand, everybody just meditated when they were hungry and were nourished by falling manna.
You're not Facebook's customer, you're a Facebook user. The customers are the ad and marketing guys.
Almost right. The customers are the ad buyers, true. Using Facebook makes you the product being sold.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
In a speculative activity, those willing to speculate are providing the demand, and whoever they give the money to then creates the supply.
If after the supply is created there is additional demand for that supply, then the speculators might get a return. If not, not.
Supply and demand are not titles that the people have, they are the forces involved in the formulas.
So yourself a favor and read The Wealth of Nations cover-to-cover.
Sorry if I upset yourworldview, here... but we've got fascism masquerading as both capitalism *and* socialism (albeit being a bit more discreet about it on the left, implying that conservatives are easier to fool than liberals... but anyone who's compared NPR to Fox "News" knows that). Perhaps you've gotten actual Libertarianism confused with the Koch Bro's astroturfed synthetic version? *Nothing* is as idealogically anti-Fascist as true Libertarianism.
Jobs predate "money."
A neolithic hunter already has a job. And he can trade for other goods, because there is existing latent demand for what he can supply.
And if there is no demand, because he already sold enough buffalo steaks for everybody to eat, and nobody has freezers, he can go out and get additional supply and it does him no good. His supply can't create any demand; all it can do is satisfy existing demand in a way that benefits him.
People get all crazy thinking that money is some sort of magical force, but it just a medium of exchange that doesn't spoil and has predetermined value. The benefits of a system that encourages capital to move exist, but they're not the benefits you're claiming. The jobs are created by the demand existing, and then being serviced with supply. Encouraging capital movement would only create jobs where otherwise there was an impediment to capital movement. If a natural balance already existed, then injecting capital on the supply side just shifts around who gets the business, it doesn't change how much trade is happening. Whereas injecting capital on the demand side will increase the amount of trade that happens, because people will consume more. But people don't consume MORE because the store they're shopping at has extra money in the bank. That is insanity.
Indeed. In Europe it's a scandal that some CEOs make 2 million a year, and I'm talking banks. In the US that number is laughed at. Hell, our CEO got tens of millions in stocks a year and nothing to show for it (US based software company).
I submit true Communism, which imagines no central government (hence why, even in their Stalinist bullshit, the regime that grew from the Bolsheviks only claimed to be Socialist; they were ostensibly working towards Communism, although we all know better than to believe that for a second).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
You're assuming that to have the effect, you have to shift companies up or down in the middle of the analysis.
What if I told you that when you get into the weeds, even if you leave the companies in the same category they start in for the whole analysis, the small companies are still creating more jobs?
There are actually deep reasons for it, and it is a huge difference, not the sort of marginal difference that would be created by the effect you imagine. Small businesses that add up to the same amount of production as a larger business will create many more jobs, and will create more trade in the community per job. There are real and well known reasons for that. It is a really basic part of this topic, actually.
Small companies have lower average pay, when everything else is equal. They also require more workers. Ever hear the term "economies of scale?" Ever hear about a merger leading to "increased efficiency" or "reduced redundancy"? Notice that layoffs are mentioned at the same time. There is a reason for that. ;)
Like my dad said a few years back, "inefficiency is another word for jobs." (the context was robots and automation)
People were trading with each other long before companies ever existed, and still do today. It's called barter. No money and no company required.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Or maybe create a second Anonymous and take down any offshore company supplying H1Bs - cut the supply chain, problem ends.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Give it up, you better get used to saying "President Hillary" as I've talked to dozens of women in the shop and its gonna be the same as blacks in 08 where 97% voted Obama without knowing a damned thing about his policies or positions just because he was black. When I asked these women "Why do you think she would make a good president, what policies does she advocate that you support?"....blank stares and crickets.
Hillary will chat with Oprah and wave a few times and get 95%+ of the female vote because she has a vag, you will see women come out in record numbers which is why even the Vegas bookmakers are giving her "its in the bag" odds, because they have already seen what I've seen,women are gonna shove her into the big chair no matter what she supports, she is a famous woman which is all they care about.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Everyone's ability to negotiate is improved by knowing what everyone else is getting paid.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
BTW There are many open source coders that don't get paid for their work that consider it their actual job and would be insulted that you don't consider that work worthwhile.
The truth hurts? Let them be insulted. It's not a job and they are not in an employer-employee relationship.
And your argument about facebook is equally flawed - they will do both.
And if that lone coder or author can't sell a single copy, it's still a hobby, not a job.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The government of a communist economy doesn't control the market as a whole either. Just look at what happened when there were massive crop failures in the former CCCP as just one example. True "command economies" have never existed.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I can't speak about Facebook, but I can tell you that myself and all other H1Bs that I know - hired by companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon - were all universally sponsored for green cards by their employers as soon as they were eligible (in fact, they would ask this very question - whether one wants to immigrate permanently - as part of the hiring process, and answering "no" may well make them turn you down, because they're not interested in employees that will have to leave in 3-4 years).
H1B is a "dual intent" visa. Meaning that it's not necessarily an immigrant visa, but people who are on it in the country can apply for green card without immediately being kicked out (unlike, say, visitor visa).
We missed the headcount by ONE person. That doesn't sound like "good idea in principle." That was "too chicken". And you're wrong - we have anti-scab provisions in our labor law that don't allow the hiring of replacement workers (scabs) - only management themselves are allowed to do the replacement work, and if they can't do it all (either because there aren't enough managers to replace the workers, or they just don't know how), sucks to be them.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Fine, now you're twisting the discussion. Have a nice day.
Just another day in Paradise
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the point of this was a rebuttal against :
"Corporations are not, and have never been, the job creators. Customers are the job creators."
Just another day in Paradise
So, how do we deal with the unions who squeeze their members?
Unions certainly have a place, but I grew up around the corrupt UAW, and saw what the union did for my mom (a grocery clerk)...nothing but take a portion of her very small check, and you had to be a member.
Just another day in Paradise
Okay, I should have included small business, and individuals selling their wares. Or, are you agreeing with Barbara's position that only customers create jobs?
Just another day in Paradise
Without a customer, even barter doesn't work. Customers create jobs.
No customers, no jobs.
That's why businesses look at consumer and manufacturer confidence indexes when trying to project their labor needs.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And without corporations there are no jobs.
That's so wrong it even fails the wrongness test.
You can have plenty of customers and demand, and still have no jobs.
You would have to come up with some very specific qualifiers for this statement to come even close to being true. Jobs existed before corporations. The middle class existed before corporations. They created their own jobs based on what they found customers wanted. You don't need an artificial regulatory construct in order to provide a service - that's just government trying to control the markets. If you grow more food on your land than your family can eat, then guess what? There are customers for your "product" you created with your "job".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This is a really long and convoluted discussion, and many people seem to have gotten very confused by some ludicrous rhetoric designed to demonize the free market. The arguments get really insane. So I'm going to make it really simple.
In a free market, the consumers (a.k.a. customers) are in control. Producers live and die by their ability to serve consumers. Governments support free markets by enforcing a competitive environment where consumers are in control.
In a command economy (i.e. Communism, dictatorships, Fascism, the US agriculture and health care industries, etc.), the focus is on Producers. Producers are in control, and call the shots, and governments support command economies by ensuring policies that ensure producers are in control. Strictly controlled command economies can only work for industries where the demand is fairly inelastic, since consumers only purchase goods through coercion (people need food, health care, and sometimes transportation for simple basic survival).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Parent is informative and informed.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Even many staunch union supporters would agree that giving workers more power than employers is a bad idea.
Why? If the workers are supposed to just smile and take it when they get laid off, and get another job, why shouldn't the same be true of businesses? If the workers had more power and used it unwisely the company would just go bust, and the owner would have to get another job, which is how free market capitalism is supposed to work... How is that different?
In fact, with powerful unions comes a more responsible work force, not less. If everyone's job is at stake, then you have to tread carefully. Otherwise, how could we in northern Europe have large multinational companies when we have some of the strongest unions in the world? Our current PM was a former top union boss, and lo and behold, there wasn't any mass flight of Sandvikens and SAABs...
You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I think slavery is a part of the market and this reality is why one can't afford to frame issues in the amoral terms of the marketplace. Looking out for one's own interests necessarily includes building a society that provides for all and defends against exploitations many forms. It's high time we seriously build rules that place a barrier underneath us all the theme of which says 'society won't let you become more destitute than this' and then specifies in detail what that level is.
Digital Citizen
That is quite possible but no, I'm not giving up a thing. FWIW my political stance nowdays is that the question is no longer about left vs right. Instead its about 1% vs 99%... hence support for Bernie. He's already breaking some funding records, over 4 mil from small donors so far as we speak
C|N>K
Anyone in IT needs to pay attention to this, it's a rare insight into how management and executes see the labor force.
They would execute the labor force if they could, but for now, they just want them cheaper.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"And this is true even with ObamaCare, which is a vast improvement on what we had (or rather, didn't have) before."
If the outcome is the same ("this is true even with ObamaCare"), how is it a vast improvement?
No wonder people vote for Democrats. Illogical.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Which ignores the fact that the only reason those investors are actually willing to buy the stock and listen to the 'dog and pony shows' is if the company actually has a product and customers.
First, plenty of start-ups have no customers and no completed product. Second, you your admission, also reiterated further on:
CowPattie Computer that is trying to market "pGadgets" to compete, but has zero sales and no customers, guess which I'm going to invest in
If you have no customers, you have zero sales. So, customers create the jobs. Not ideas. Not companies.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Wrong, demand is a consequence of production.
That is SO wrong. No matter how many buggy whips or PC-XT clones or CRT monitors you produce, you won't increase demand. Even if you sold the CRT monitors for 1 cent plus shipping, nobody would buy them because they would still be more expensive electricity-wise than a flat screen. Even more so for a 60" CRT TV.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
All demand is consequence (and a trivial one) of production. iPads didn't exist and demand for them didn't exist until thousands of people were paid millions of dollars over a number of years (jobs) to create them.
You can't handle the truth.
Well, dcw3, I've not quite decided what I think about that statement. It doesn't quite fit into my view of things - but it sort of rings true. The customer has to have some want or need that I can provide for, or I'm out of business. Sure, there are lots of OTHER reasons for me to go out of business, but there has to be a customer. I'm still thinking about "Customers are the job creators". to be perfectly honest. They are, and they aren't.
I do know that today's common wisdom in the financial world bucks all the common wisdom learned WW1 and WW2. When I was learning about business, I was taught that "People are your most valuable asset." Today, people are as expendable as the supplies on the cleaning lady's cart.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
and you had to be a member.
And there you go. If you no longer have to be a member of a particular labor union (particularly, if other labor unions can hone in on their turf), then the labor union has strong incentive to do something for its members.
Now you're just being willfully obtuse. You can produce as many XT clones as you want, demand will not increase with supply. Also, there were plenty of Windows tablets before the iPad,They didn't sell well because they were too expensive at the time, not because they weren't being produced.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Plutocrat mentality: "I've got mine now, the rest of you can grovel for scraps."
Table-ized A.I.
I believe it is a combination of what you wrote, and the fact that on the other side of the coin, most competent IT folks have no shortage at all of new jobs to go to, be it FTE or contract.
TBH, I still get legit (read: local and well-known) recruiter solicitations at least once a week or so (and I see the bullshit "some-far-off-city-for-6-to-12-month-contract" ones at least 4-5x a day.) And yes, the legit ones almost always offer very decent pay.
As for TFA, a bit of devil's advocate is in order: the trick is to always keep ones' skills relevant and updated, and then improve upon them. A 'doze sysadmin whose skillset stopped at 2003 Server and is unable to spell "powershell" (let alone use it) should not expect to keep his job. A *nix sysadmin whose skillset stopped with AIX 5.3 (or Solaris 8, HPUX 10, Linux 2.2 kernel distros, or etc), deserves to be tossed out on his ear.
I have lost count of the number of times I've interviewed candidates who talk a good game and had 15+ years experience at big-name companies like Intel (yes, Intel is a real example), but choke-up completely on the simplest of tech questions concerning anything recent (as in > 3 years ago), and could not write a simple script to save their lives. They spent years honing their political skills and building fiefdoms, but don't know shit about, say, modifying a daemon to use a custom environment (e.g. rig /etc/init.d/postgresql-9.3 to use another binary instead of the default).
I *partially* agree with TFA, but then again, I partially do not. An H1-B more often than not doesn't know shit either, but he's cheaper. It's a regular fucking Scylla and Charybdis when it comes to hiring, retaining, and developing talent sometimes, no matter which way you turn, which is why I call bullshit on the pro-H1B crowd.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And you're wrong - we have anti-scab provisions in our labor law that don't allow the hiring of replacement workers (scabs)
"We just completely outsourced *all* of your jobs to Infosys. Strike all you want, suckers."
Mind you, they could do exactly that while you slowly wind your way through the court systems, running out of money while they throw legal delays into the works and continue along with their business all tickety-boo.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Wrong, you are being obtuse. No customer or client is paying a company before the product exists. Whether creating a new product type or just entering an existing field as a competition, the company has to hire people out of its own savings and that means taking the risk of doing something that may as well (in many cases) lose money instead of making any money. The job is created by the person a who is putting the money on the line. If the clients prepaid for the product upfront you could have half an argument, even then it is not true, somebody had to work to find those clients. But there are no clients prepaying anything in most cases, I know it is true in my case.
When you, yourself use your own savings to hire somebody to build something you intend to sell before having any clients paying you anything, then come back and talk here. Some asshole will be waiting to tell you that those jobs were 'created by consumers' ask him what consumer put his money on the line to create the product in the first place.
You are being obtuse because you cannot admit you are talking out of your ass.
You can't handle the truth.
...eventually the lower classes kill the powerful...
Not without lots of help, meaning guns and money, the lawyers come afterward. And then the cycle starts over with the 'new' powerful... la la la life goes on.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"The point was that one author who has millions of customers from sales of a book doesn't have to increase the number of employees." - i wouldn't class one author as an employer so its not a good comparison
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
I don't know about american unions, but as I said in other posts, that's most definitely not true about northern European unions (let's call them "Germanic" for short). Not by a long shot. We have the highest standard of living indices known to man, lowest inequality, and well running economies (much better than the US), and some of the strongest unions on the planet. In fact, many big business leaders admit in private that it's the unions that make it easy to do business here. It levels the playing field when it comes to employees, everybody knows the rules, and you don't have to suffer strikes all the time, but can negotiate instead.
Stefan Axelsson
The fellow asks about workers being forced to train their UNQUALIFIED replacements and the fool responds that the workers shouldn't expect to get jobs they aren't qualified for...
Is this guy a robot? Because his response sounds like what a PR robot would say if I jammed my arm up his muppet ass and twittled my fingers.
Obviously the laid off workers were qualified for the work because they were doing it and they trained their replacements.
So... Would kermit the PR guy like to respond? Anyone want to jam their arm up his ass and see if they can provoke another robotic fucking response?
What was most odd about that exchange was that the fellows were presuming to joke as if their commentary were witty or contextually relevant.
The entire thing is baffling.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Nobody's going to hold you up and carry you around..
I dunno. Wasn't what they did to the French nobles back arount 1789?
Heck, even WalMart workers here unionized.
I see rampant plumbing problems in the near future for your area.
You would think unions would have learned the lesson by now, with all the jobs they have lost by destroying companies with non-union competition and putting ALL of the workers on the street. But it seems the union bosses are doing just as well as the corporate CEOs with their golden parachutes, so fuck all those prols, I guess. It's almost like the elites are cooperating to screw everyone else and only put on a show of "protecting the workers."
I don't know about american unions, but as I said in other posts, that's most definitely not true about northern European unions (let's call them "Germanic" for short). Not by a long shot. We have the highest standard of living indices known to man, lowest inequality, and well running economies (much better than the US), and some of the strongest unions on the planet. In fact, many big business leaders admit in private that it's the unions that make it easy to do business here. It levels the playing field when it comes to employees, everybody knows the rules, and you don't have to suffer strikes all the time, but can negotiate instead.
Oh, sure, Germany is doing great, thanks to investments in industry and education for many decades. Not sure about unions - Germany has extensive labor regulations and employment laws. It's nothing like the "at-will employment" used in the US and other countries. Maybe the unions helped put those in place. There are actually better employment protection in the laws there than most unions can get through negotiations in the US.
And, of course, none of that extends to other members of the EU - it's just Germany. Much of the rest of the country is borrowing Euros to buy German goods. And Germany's answer is austerity.
So good on Germany for their ability to compete. Too bad about Spain. And Italy. And Portugal. And Greece. And Ireland.
'Schaffe, schaffe, Häusle baue!'
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I don't get it. If they're so incompetent that they can't be kept as workers, how can they be competent enough to be training their replacements?
Why don't all the workers collectively agree to not impart their obviously flawed work skills and knowledge to their replacements?
If my boss came to me and said that he was replacing me, I'd say fine. Documentation is on the wiki, the source for everything is written up as literate programs, the only things out-of-date are and --- if you want me to up-date those, call me tomorrow and we'll work up rates.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
But you still need the customers - if nobody wants your product (say men's platform shoes, women's peasant dresses, and ultra-wide bell bottoms for both from the '60s), it won't matter how low you get the cost of production, because not enough people are going to want to buy it to make it worth getting out of bed in the morning.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2...
Walmart employees in Quebec, Canada tried to unionize. Walmart just closed up shop and went someplace else laying off everyone. Year later (10 actually), they lose in supreme court and are forced to pay damages. However no word on what those damages are, and I bet they are fighting that. Not to mention the fact they the folks don't get jobs back, or retroactively for the last decade. On top on that, the people who work at Walmart, aren't exactly going to be rolling in it either, many would have lost big in the meantime trying to make ends meet while waiting a decade for maybe some kind of court settlement. It is no wonder that employees are afraid to unionize. Unions have been getting busted or weaker for a long time now. Which if you think about it is crazy, when we start talking about the 1% and how the we have never had such wealth inequality before...
Henry Ford understood this, pay your workers enough to afford the product they make and you will build a society that is better for everyone.
He went one better. He and his marketing department understood the propaganda value of publicly pretending to have the above opinion. The bottom line is that retention of employees (workforce turnover being a major problem for his attempts to make a high quality mass production vehicle for the time) was far more valuable to him than the increased purchasing power of his workforce.
It's also because if you roll over, they screw you on the benefits. "Let go" becomes "quit" or "fired", which can impact unemployment payments, and they often also threaten your severance or even pension (if there is one).
Yeah, it's just comparably better than the other place, where the thermostat is set to 200f.
Actually, it sounds like a lot of the choices we're given these days, be it employment or political party...
Well, it's not just Germany. There's Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria etc. doing great, for example.
Now of course, economy is a complex beast, but compare the deficits in this table with the US 2014 deficit of 2.8% of GDP (which was a record low). You'll see that most EU countries are doing better or much better than the US even though the EU as a whole is doing slightly worse as some of the large southern economies are pulling the rest of us down.
So, as is always the case these days, news reporting skews the general picture to be (much) worse than it already is. That the southernes aren't doing to good is furthermore not exactly news... They've always done poorly, one way or another... (So why someone thought it would be a good idea to include them in the Euro I don't know.)
Note also today's news that even if Greece didn't pay back their loans, it wouldn't be a disaster, and could be handled quite nicely. Not that we don't care, it's a precedent we don't want set, but still. The worst is over. And if you're looking for economic stability, go to Northern Europe. South of the Alps is and has always been a crap shot. And stay out of the east if you don't know what you're doing... :-)
Stefan Axelsson
And with that, discussion of the important issues in the original post was hijacked. Unscrupulous employers blaming their workers is nothing new. The real problem here is debt. If the people who work for these asses had cash in the back instead of debt milestones around their necks they could flick these guys the finger and tell them train the cheap foreign Labour themselves. Good luck with that. Calling your people lazy when you're just a greedy prick is bad karma.
Only boring people are ever bored.
GM and Chrysler aren't good examples. They deliberately crashed their companies so it could become politically acceptable to build their cars in China. This was Ovid to me from 2003. They we're being told what they needed to do.... and ignored all the advice. There had to be a reason that. New factories in China was the reason.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Jesus didn't describe a political system either way. Thus, saying a given political system is pro-Christian or anti-Christian is claiming a lot with very little evidence otherwise. Scriptures can be cherry-picked to support either direction.
I personally don't like a winner-take-all system. We need a healthy middle class, even if taxation etc. is needed to keep one up. A society where 1% live in gated communities and bribe what they want out of politicians, and where the other 99% live in a Mad Max grovelling mode is not a good society in my opinion.
How does that work out when 10 people are chasing 5 jobs? It didn't say. Surprise surprise.
Table-ized A.I.
The former totally describes my former boss, who swore that he wasn't an elitist, yet he'd describe Hispanics as the "underclass".
You call them 'jerks' not because they are real jerks. You call them 'jerks' because you are jealous of what they have and who they know
Some cunt acts like a cunt, it's not jealousy to point out they're a cunt.
I have my own home, a nice car, a great work-life balance, financial security - and integrity. Like I give a shit if they're playing power games.
They're still cunts.
Henry Ford created the modern debt-driven consumer. He didn't pay well enough to buy a car, he offered FINANCING to buy the car.
+++OK ATH
No, I disagree. If Ford could have built his cars to the level of quality he desired with a cheaper workforce, he would have done so.
Sure, Ford had a strange concern for the morality of his workforce to the extent that he created a sort of "secret police" who monitored off the job employee behavior. But he also obsessed with reducing the costs of his cars and wages are an obvious cost. For example, it took decades for the labor unions to get into Ford plants.
As to the "five dollar day", it was definitely used as propaganda by Ford both for marketing and hiring. Propaganda doesn't mean falsehood. It means distributing information and stories with a particular bias in order to promote a particular viewpoint.
Then why are the workers being forced (extorted) to train their replacements? Seems to me if the previous employees were so incompetent, their employer wouldn't require them to train their replacements.
Ken
Right, because when enough consumers wanted an automobile, that caused the industry to burst forth out of the ground, turning out automobiles and creating jobs.
The guy that sat in the garage, working on plans and building prototypes? He was only doing that because the best available market research indicated that people wanted a mode of transportation that didn't produce feces as a by-product.
You've never actually met an entrepreneur have you.
Ken
How is it the Chinese economy hasn't figured this out yet? I doubt many workers at Foxconn plants can afford to buy one of the iPhone 6s they make...
When Henry Ford doubled pay so his workers could all buy cars, did he also build parking garages so they could drive them to work?
Ken
Whatever. Your argument is no different than builders who build homes on speculation. They create jobs through investment (including in themselves) in the hope of making a profit. If they didn't think there would be a buyer, they wouldn't build. Take the buyer out of the equation and there's no more jobs, and no way to keep producing homes. So customers create jobs.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Not in my area - the Supreme Court here ruled that WallyWorld's actions were illegal.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
GM and Chrysler both went under due to poor leadership. For GM, the CEO (Ron Wagoneer) continued to depend on sales of gas guzzlers such as Hummers long after it was obvious that people wanted something more economical. In Chrysler's case, it was because of internal problems that had existed from the time that Daimler had acquired them - it was a bad corporate fit - and they should have appointed Bob Lutz instead of Bob Eaton, and they wouldn't have been acquired by Daimler.
Ford, on the other hand, saw the gathering storm clouds, and put in place over $20 billion of loans that they could tap to help weather the storm. They even mortgaged their logo. They also trimmed the number of models, and focused more on fuel economy, which is why they didn't need a bail-out. They had smart management and the right product.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Classifications assist people in understanding the dynamics that make things like the processes behind CEO pay understandable. It's easy to say that they're "greedy" or "corrupt" or some other useless moralizing explanation of what is going on, but it really doesn't explain it. Poor people can be greedy and corrupt too, and that doesn't make them squat.
It's easy to poke fun of buzzwords as well. The difference between the gibberish you wrote and the buzzwords that those people use is that their gibberish makes them shitloads of money.
I'm less concerned about getting angry about the situation and more concerned about understanding how you can have what appears to be non-performing executives make metric fucktons of money. The answer is very simply that they get their money the same way that a popular artist or a popular singer does it. That is to say, some degree of skill or talent, followed up constant, and merciless promotion of themselves and their story as a product. And, like rock stars or other people who sign their contracts before they have to produce anything new, CEOs don't get fired for shit work, they just don't get re-signed.
You're probably confusing my "rock star" comparison with me thinking CEOs or people like that are talented artists or something. While some certainly have real skills, I'm more concerned about the comparison of how they make deals for employment and obtain bulletproof compensation (ie. they sign actual contracts with provisions on a more equal footing to corporations than most individuals can).
Look up "RNC rigged Ron Paul" to see why a so called "dark horse" has zero chance under the current system. In that video you'll see election officials come out point blank and say "The votes we counted was NOT what was recorded, the votes for Paul were given to Romney" and even the RNC calling for a floor vote while the teleprompter shows the outcome before the vote was cast and this combined with the MSM not even hiding the fact they were burying any momentum Paul had (one reporter even asks the anchor "Why am I here looking for Palin and Christie, who aren't even running, when polls shows that Paul could win the district?" and is told flat footed "If you get any Christie or Palin footage send it in, you can dump the Paul stuff") shows that you have better odds of winning 3 card monty with a street hustler. Or have you forgotten how the public in the primaries did several rounds of "anybody but Romney" only for the MSM to crucify anybody that wasn't Romney?
The fix is in friend, they'll pick some fool in the Rs and Hillary will get nothing but praise and softballs thrown at her right up until her inauguration.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Person A created the job for person B by paying for it.
And person A is the customer of person B. Same as in any other job. Piss off the customer - your boss - and no job for you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
he's saying obamacare is a vast improvement over what we had prior. you have to separate that interjection from the rest of his point.
No wonder people vote for republicans and love fox news, they can't even understand basic communication, just flashing lights and talking points.
Please re-read my comment. You did not understand it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Cause: person A wants to do something, finds the money and as a result hires person B. Effect: person B has the job, the job was created by person A.
A customer is someone who buys goods or services. Person A is a customer of person B. If person B does not supply the goods or services, they will cease to be a customer of person A, even if it's an employer-employee relationship.
Nobody hires someone they know can't do the job, except in cases of nepotism or fraud. They won't satisfy the customer, who may be their employer.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Changing the labels to "employer" and "employee" is no different from bogus patents that throw in "on the Internet."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Now of course, economy is a complex beast, but compare the deficits in this table [wikipedia.org] with the US 2014 deficit of 2.8% of GDP (which was a record low). You'll see that most EU countries are doing better or much better than the US even though the EU as a whole is doing slightly worse as some of the large southern economies are pulling the rest of us down.
I think you are a bit confused. The EU (United States of Europe) is ONE economy with ONE currency - the Euro. It's sort of like the US before the civil war, with Germany looking and acting like New England and the southern European states looking like the US southern states. Except, of course, that Germany wants economic slaves while New England wanted to eliminate slave ownership.
That the southernes aren't doing to good is furthermore not exactly news... They've always done poorly, one way or another...
That's quite a load of bullocks. The Greek people, for instance, have always been one of the hardest working cultures on the continent. For you to simply claim it's because they are in trouble because they are lazy is really stunning.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The employer is the customer. It is the customer who creates jobs. That is what I said originally. That the customer is the employer doesn't matter one whit, so don't be a twit.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's because you lack the ability to understand that in every transaction there's a buyer and a seller. The employer is the buyer of people's labour, hence they are the customer.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
When the corporation is buying labour, they are the customer. The corporation, aka the customer, is the one creating the job. Customers always create the jobs, even in the case of buying labour (they're certainly not SELLING labour to their employees).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
your argument goes PUFFFFFF. Disappears. Nothing is left. +1 to -1, 0.
You suck at math. You left out the fact that both the buyer and the seller are getting something they want. The seller (worker) is getting money, and the buyer (business) is getting work done. Each is better off than they would have been before. It's called a win-win situation. Each one comes out ahead. If they didn't, there would be no deal (unless we go back to slave labour).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You still don't get it - Corporations are no different from individuals when it comes to buying labor. Both are customers (or consumers - there is no difference) for those who are willing to sell their labor, and it's only when they actually BUY the labor that a job is created. If you have no buyers, you're not going to create jobs.
Even when someone gambles capital to start up a business, the investor is the customer (because they hope to get a return on their investment). It will create jobs as long as funds are available - either from the original customer (the investor - who may also be the business owner, investing in themselves to create their job) or other customers. Once that's gone ... no jobs.
You need to adjust your understanding. You seem to think that adding the word "corporation" makes them NOT customers (or consumers) when they buy labor. Kind of like the people who add "on the internet" as magic pixie dust. And your math still sucks because you failed to realize that it's almost never a zero-sum game.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I think you are a bit confused. The EU (United States of Europe) is ONE economy with ONE currency - the Euro.
Nope. Not even close. The Eurozone excludes important economies, such as the UK. So their poor state doesn't have anything to do with the Euro per se.
Now it's not surprising that an american would see the EU as a US style federation, but it's anything but. Far from it. All the member states retain their full freedom, the limits of which are only voluntarily agreed to by convention. Hence the Euro was as doomed as all previous European currency collaborations, when push came to shove, there wasn't sufficient power to actually punish the countries not holding up their end of the bargain.
Now traditionally, that was "fixed" by leaving the cooperation, hence it was thought that by actually agreeing on one currency, that would take that option away and make everybody keep in line. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the opposite. Instead we got all the old problems without the old solution available. Hence they're in worse shape than they were before...
That couldn't happen in a federation such as the US as the central bank has actual teeth. In the Eurozone, it doesn't. Hence the two economies are not comparable.
That's quite a load of bullocks. The Greek people, for instance, have always been one of the hardest working cultures on the continent. For you to simply claim it's because they are in trouble because they are lazy is really stunning.
Nice way of putting words in my mouth... But at least we now know that you consider yourself Greek, and hence the big mouth, and bad manners have been explained... ;-)
No, I didn't ascribe the Greek/Italian/Spanish/Portuguese economic situation to laziness. As a matter of fact, I pointedly, didn't ascribe it to any one, multitude of, or particular cause. I just observed that these economies have never done well in modern times, for more than a short period of time at a stretch. And that's even when pumping in billions to try and get them on the right track. (Hell, this is even true within Italy, and hence the Lega Nord party's rhetoric to get rid of the "south," meaning southern Italy).
Of course, it goes without saying that however hard the Greeks work (or not), has no bearing whatsoever on the Spanish economy... You might as well blame their lack of economic success on too much sun. At least they have that in common.
Stefan Axelsson
Math or no math, it's simple in this case. You specified: corporations never create jobs.
Then you specified: corporations create jobs.
Too bad I guess that you are missing the most important part of this conversation, your complete inability to admit and learn from your own mistakes.
You can't handle the truth.
Or let's put it this way - if corporations did NOT buy the work of workers, would there be any jobs? Nope.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What part of that don't you get?
- the part where you are incapable of admitting of simply being wrong.
Corporations hire people, it doesn't matter in what 'role'. They purchase labour and thus they create jobs.
Corporations are customers of labour, but that's not what I am arguing about, I am very specifically pointing at your inability to follow your own logic.
When you said: corporations are not creating jobs and have never created jobs, you did not put any caveats there, saying that corporations actually always create jobs when they hire people because they are customers to labour.
I KNOW corporations create jobs, I run a corporation and I know what it means to buy labour thus creating jobs. You, on the other hand, talk out of both sides of your mouth.
You can't handle the truth.
When a corporation (or anyone else) purchases labor, they are the customers of the people selling the labor. Only customers create jobs.
If the corporation didn't purchase the labor, where would the jobs be (and this is a serious question as we move to automate more jobs). The answer is - there would be no jobs, because there would be no need to purchase labor - the corp would no longer be creating jobs because it would no longer be buying labor, either directly, or through other entities that in turn buy labor.
So, when you say "I know what it means to buy labour thus creating jobs," would those jobs have been created if you had not bought the labor? No. And when you buy it, you are the customer of the person selling their labor. You being the buyer makes you the customer. No getting around that. So, corporations don't create jobs because they're corporations, but because they're customers to those selling their labor.
You, on the other hand, made the claim (debunked above) that demand is a consequence of production. To the contrary, the fewer people selling their labor because their services are no longer needed because companies are buying less labor, the less consumer demand, because people just don't have the money to be customers in their turn.
I didn't have to add any caveats, because my original statement is true on its own - only customers create jobs, and you cannot prove otherwise.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.