• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Wall Street's bad deal — drug addiction

bingalpaws said:
Yes, rich people tend to own businesses, and profit from their business. Their profit is correlated to their company's success. They offer employment at their company, to be compensated by whatever they feel is a fair wage, and people who agree to the wage and the job will work there.

The way you state it is so misleading it's not funny. You make it seem like it's this slavery thing. You try to give the impression that the boss' of companies just sit around in their office, never did anything, never do anything, just watch cash come in. That's not how it goes. They had to work hard to get where they were, and they had to take on great risk to build great companies. But they chose to take the risk, and build a great company, and succeeded.
Click to expand...
why isn't the employees wages correlated with the companies success then? They do the bulk of the work, so why do only the owners get to benifit when the company does well? Its not like if the company isn't doing well the employees are protected, layoffs, benifits cuts etc, all effect the average working man, sometimes even in times where corprate execs get bonuses and salary increases.
Most companies do not do what is fair. They do what they can to be profitable. Wages, are set as low as possible. Why pay people more than you need to, and lose some profit eh?

People are forced to agree to the wages. They need money. They need to be wage slaves. Otherwise they starve. It is a slavery thing.

Sure, people in power work hard. But so does the little working man.
 
9mmCensor said:
why isn't the employees wages correlated with the companies success then?
Click to expand...
Some companies have profit sharing programs in place, others don't. That is the owner's decision to make.


9mmCensor said:
They do the bulk of the work, so why do only the owners get to benifit when the company does well?
Click to expand...
Because it's their company... You believe that we should not have the ability to create a company to make money? When someone starts a business, the majority of the time the business fails. Other times the business operates successfully. When an entrepreneur is determining whether to take on a particular venture or not, it's going to come down to a simple assessment of potential profits to be had, versus potential losses to be endured if the company fails. If you remove the profits to be had, why the hell would anyone want to create companies (and thus, jobs) in the first place?

You believe that if a company does well, it's employees should be given bonuses to reflect that. Do you believe that when the tables are turned? Do you believe that if the company goes south, the employees should start working for less? Or do you think that the owner should bear the hardship when the company fails by himself? If you believe he should have to experience the failure by himself, I don't see why you think he should have to share his success.







9mmCensor said:
Most companies do not do what is fair.
Click to expand...
Fair is such a tough word for me to respond to here. I would say that they do what is fair - they offer a wage, and if people think it's worth working for, then they take that wage and work there.
I believe that when you say 'fair' here, you mean it in more of a socialist kind of way, that the owners 'owe' their workers. They don't owe their workers A PENNY more than what is agreed upon by the two parties. It's a very simple agreement, a wage is offered, and it's up to the employee whether to accept that wage or not. If the employee is worth more than that wage, then they would look elsewhere. They have that option, if they believe they're worth $15 an hour, then they'll find a job that'll pay $15/hr. If not, then they clearly are not worth $15/hr in the market they are searching.

Either way, I don't see how there's any unfairness going on. You choose to do what you do in a free(ish) market, that sounds fair to me :\




9mmCensor said:
They do what they can to be profitable. Wages, are set as low as possible. Why pay people more than you need to, and lose some profit eh?
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is the point of businesses, to make as much money as possible. Without that profit incentive, less people would take the risks associated with starting a business. That would lead to less businesses. That would lead to less jobs.

9mmCensor said:
People are forced to agree to the wages.
Click to expand...
No, they are not.

9mmCensor said:
They need money. They need to be wage slaves. Otherwise they starve. It is a slavery thing.
Click to expand...
I just believe your views here are misguided. What do you mean 'otherwise they starve'? People have the choices to work wherever they want to (as long as they are qualified and are hired). They are not forced to. Please elaborate more on this, I just don't see how you're getting from choosing a job, to forced slavery. There's a piece of reasoning in between there that I'm just not getting, if you could clarify it'd be cul. brb in 20 lol.
 
bingalpaws said:
There's a piece of reasoning in between there that I'm just not getting, if you could clarify it'd be cul. brb in 20 lol.
Click to expand...

nah, there's nothing missing. that's about the extent of his argument.
 
People have the choices to work wherever they want to (as long as they are qualified and are hired). They are not forced to. Please elaborate more on this, I just don't see how you're getting from choosing a job, to forced slavery. There's a piece of reasoning in between there that I'm just not getting, if you could clarify it'd be cul. brb in 20 lol.
Click to expand...


The part you are missing is the one where it costs money to buy food.
 
Of course it does! Okay, you need money to buy food, or you can grow it yourself. You create money by providing goods or services. I'm still not getting where this connects to forced slavery? Is it the notion that we should all just be given food, or what? Is it that we're forced to work if we want to get money, so that we can eat, erego we're slaves? If that's what you guys mean, I'm completely unable to understand your viewpoint. I understand a socialist's viewpoint, even though I don't agree with socialism. But I just can't even see through your eyes if you think we're slaves because we have to work for our food. That's life, and even before businesses and corporations were on the radar, that was life. Work to eat.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
"Okay, you need money to buy food, or you can grow it yourself."
Grow food on what land? You need money to buy land.

"Exactly. That is the point of businesses, to make as much money as possible. Without that profit incentive, less people would take the risks associated with starting a business. That would lead to less businesses. That would lead to less jobs."

The total focus on profit, is shortsighted, narrow, and dangerous. Look at how humans have destroyed the environment for profit. Look at how humans have killed humans for profit.

"
You believe that if a company does well, it's employees should be given bonuses to reflect that. Do you believe that when the tables are turned? Do you believe that if the company goes south, the employees should start working for less? Or do you think that the owner should bear the hardship when the company fails by himself? If you believe he should have to experience the failure by himself, I don't see why you think he should have to share his success."
When corps dont do well the workers take a hit. They dont get raises (even though Cost of Living goes up which basically means less money), benifits packages get downsized, and have you ever heard of LAY OFFS? Think of all the cases where workers have taken a hit, been laid off or whatever, and the corporate execs get raises and bonuses.
 
That's just an idea I don't agree with (that wiki article).

"Instances of wage slavery that show the most similarity to chattel slavery occur in societies where educational opportunities are limited, unionization is violently suppressed, and property may be arbitrarily confiscated."

I just don't see that here in America. (Let's not come back to argue this with 'but education IS limited', and 'property is arbitrarily confiscated all the time!'. Those situations are just not the norm. Unions are all over the place, educational opportunities are available, and property generally confiscated arbitrarily, though we know we can all come up with some examples).

You don't have to work for anyone if you don't want to. It's your choice. You can just start your own business today if you want to, it's called a sole proprietorship. If you have trouble working for someone else, then just go and work for yourself, and make money by offering your services, whatever they may be, to the people in your area. Nobody's hands are being forced, opportunities abound, whether you'll admit it or not.


I'd say it's safe, at this point, to just assume that you're for a socialist economy and not a capitalist market. You disagree that focusing on profit is good. In capitalism, focusing on cash (greed) drives people to excel, and this benefits the society as a whole by increasing total utility. If you want a socialist market, then we won't be able to agree, and that's just bringing this topic so far off point it's meaningless.


I won't convince you over to the capitalism side and you won't convince me over to socialism (well, I doubt it anyways, but I'm all ears), so I guess there's not much more that I can say.
 
"Instances of wage slavery that show the most similarity to chattel slavery occur in societies where educational opportunities are limited, unionization is violently suppressed, and property may be arbitrarily confiscated."
education is limited by the ability to pay for education.
walmart shuts down stores when unions try to form. http://killercoke.org/crimes.htm
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

I was an intense believer in Capitalism in my youth. I thought making money was the most important thing in the world. I dreamed to becoming rich. Then I grew up.

I am not particularly for either a capitalist or socialist economic system, as I think both of them suck. Thats not to say that there are not redeeming properties of both. Free enterprise is a great motivator, but competition is inefficient, and social programs are great because they provide educated and healthy workers to get shit done.

I do think that short term profit is overvalued.
 
walmart shuts down stores when unions try to form

=


"...unionization is violently suppressed"


... huh?
 
bingalpaws said:
walmart shuts down stores when unions try to form

=


"...unionization is violently suppressed"


... huh?
Click to expand...
violence is an act of aggression with the intention of causing damage.

Walmart closes a store, an act, that is aggressive by initiating a course of action, that causes financial damages to the (ex)employees when they lose their job, these damages are done to make an example for others.

If that is toeing the line of the definitions too much, I cede to the point of how Coke has Unionized Employees KILLED.
 
9mmCensor said:
If that is toeing the line of the definitions too much, I cede to the point of how Coke has Unionized Employees KILLED.
Click to expand...
Wow, I've never heard of that, and that is unsettling.

Nonetheless, that's hardly proof that 'violent oppression of unionization' is by any means the norm here. It's a semantic game to insinuate such.
 
I apologize dude, I never read the links you posted (at quick glances I thought they were both anti-walmart sites, and I've already read soooo much on walmart (econ major in uni) that there wouldn't be anything new to me there).

That coke link you provided says people are killed in coca cola plants in columbia. You used that as an example to back the "Instances of wage slavery that show the most similarity to chattel slavery occur in societies where educational opportunities are limited, unionization is violently suppressed, and property may be arbitrarily confiscated" statement. But columbia is not the society that we're discussing, it's America. I'm not going to pretend that there isn't slavery in teh world, or violent oppression of workers, but it doesn't mean that it's happening in america. American companies who engage in those practices in other countries, as appalling as it is, doesn't mean that OUR society here in america sees that kind of activity.

I feel like you're stretching words and playing semantics to prove your point. You argue that walmart shutting down stores that are trying to unionize is violent. You show violent oppression, yet it's in another country. You say slavery as if people are forced. It's like you're using semantics to prove your point instead of logical reasoning.
 
9mmCensor said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Bottling_Plant_Deaths

Sad isn't it. People die for profit.

It's not the norm no. Not yet at least.
Click to expand...


You posted while I was posted, but I just looked that over, and it seems messed up, although I can't help but feeling that there's waaaay more to the story than what we are seeing (or will ever be shown) regarding that situation (but my guess is that it is evil as you are suggesting, I'm just pointing out that it's not a clear cut case like you're presenting it).
 
coke is an american company, which subjects its will worldwide, to profit (not only or completely) american ownership, in a global ecconomy.

"A key difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery recognized by Karl Marx was that the individual laborers can in some cases refuse to work for a specific employer and cannot (legally) be subjected to corporal punishment by that employer. To Marx, wage slavery was a class condition, not an individual situation. This class situation rested on

1. the concentration of ownership in few hands,
2. the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods; and
3. the existence of the reserve army of unemployed workers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

1) http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%
Click to expand...
2) means of production are still controled by wealth assets, mainly capital and real estate, this however is diminitished with digital production which is realitively inexpensive.
3)Unemployment Rate:
4.5% in May 2007
http://www.bls.gov/
4.5 percent of 301 139 947 = 13 551 297.6
 
Well, as I'm sure you've known all along, I disagree with marxist theory. Which is fine, to each his own.

I must say to you that you seem to have a good grasp on what you believe, but I'm curious how much you've explored alternatives. If you don't find this too personal a request, would you mind divulging your experiences as far as economic studies and employment information (not specific employers lol, just what your role in our system is). I'm just curious, I'm not asking with the intention of twisting whatever you say against you. You could pm me it if you like, i'm just interested though. In case you give a shit (clueless as to whether ya would or not), I've studied economics at college for 5 years, have worked the entire gamut of jobs (mcdonalds, supermarket, telemarketing, landscaping, independent contracting (basically 'day work' type stuff), multiple small startup businesses of my own, at least 5 retail jobs, 1 retail job in a management position (which was my longest stint in a retail job), and am currently working for myself, I'd guess you'd call it investing or buying/selling homes for profit, essentially I look for properties that I can buy at a good price, especially if they can be fixed up in a cost effective manner, and then resell. I've only begun this part of my life (real estate) recently, as of this year, and am still working on the renovations for my first property, which should be finished in the next month or so.)
 
bingalpaws said:
Very common misconception - people always have this idea that rich people are rich because it's all family connections, and all inherited cash. The truth of the matter is that the majority of american millionaire households are first generation rich.
Click to expand...

ROFL, really ? Last time I checked , approx 60% was thru inheritance, there are very few "first time" billionaires, and of those they are usually some brilliant minds that came up with a great idea and ran with it (ie Google founders) but those are very RARE AND FEW IN BETWEEN.

Do you honestly think making a lot of money is thru HARD WORK ? I've got a formula for you: the less you actually work = the more money you will make.

I've got nothing against rich people, but this article is portraying them as some "victims" of drug addiction. Well, they can fucking afford the drugs and they can surely afford the posh rehab , so shut the fuck up you whiners and take it on the chin like all people do.

You are victims of your own greed, if anything. And greed is human nature.
 
bingalpaws said:
Very common misconception - people always have this idea that rich people are rich because it's all family connections, and all inherited cash. The truth of the matter is that the majority of american millionaire households are first generation rich.
Click to expand...

Crazeee said:
ROFL, really ? Last time I checked , approx 60% was thru inheritance, there are very few "first time" billionaires, and of those they are usually some brilliant minds that came up with a great idea and ran with it (ie Google founders) but those are very RARE AND FEW IN BETWEEN.
Click to expand...
"Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?
......Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80% of us are first-generation affluent."- pages 8-9, "The Millionaire Next Door", by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D., and William D. Danko, Ph.D.

They've been studying affluent households for over 20 years so I put some faith in their study/survey they wrote that book about. It's my only source for that information, if you provide a reputable source contradicting it then I'll change my stance on that.





Crazeee said:
Do you honestly think making a lot of money is thru HARD WORK ? I've got a formula for you: the less you actually work = the more money you will make.
Click to expand...
... What? I imagine you're referring to people who have worked long and hard enough to make a sizeable chunk of money, and then sit back and invest/work with their money, instead of earning it. If that's what you mean, then it's misleading to write that as simply 'the less you actually work = the more money you will make'. That's misleading, because for the overwhelming majority of the country, the more you work, the more you make. There's no free lunch.

Crazeee said:
I've got nothing against rich people, but this article is portraying them as some "victims" of drug addiction. Well, they can fucking afford the drugs and they can surely afford the posh rehab , so shut the fuck up you whiners and take it on the chin like all people do.

You are victims of your own greed, if anything. And greed is human nature.
Click to expand...
I'd say that I don't see rich people whine about being hooked to coke any more than I see poor people whine about being hooked to dope. But everyone's experiences may vary. I do agree with you here though, about it being unfair to portray them as 'victims'. But on the other hand, I think it is unfair across the board to consider yourself a victim to a substance. Taking a substance is an expression of choice, it is not a disease, and you are not a victim of it.
 
how can you people talk about Wall Street bankers and then winge about inherited money?

Can't you see the gaping hole in your argument?

WALL STREET BANKERS WORK FOR THEIR MONEY. Thats the whole point of this article, they are working hard and relieving stress through drugs. How the fuck did you end up at inherited wealth?
 
use inherited wealth to make more.

you cant invest if you dont have anything to start with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top