Author
|
Topic: Why I am going to work tommorow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389
|
posted 10 April 2006 11:26 AM
First of all I think there is some truth in what Gir Draxon has stated. Now let me say that I do NOT necessarily agree with him on all points,but there is a grain of truth in what he says. Before I continue, let me say that I am a very staunch union supporter and feel the main reason for the existence of unions today is because the employer took advantage of the worker in every way imaginable. I agree if the employer had been reasonably fair and equitable with his employees, there probably would not be any unions today, because the worker would be much happier in their jobs and would have not seen a reason to unionize. But greed being what it is, caused the employer to take advantage of his or her employees. That being said, greed is NOT solely a vice of the rich employers. Just like employers who after a while they tend to feel they have some special entitlement because they provide jobs in a community, so to do many working people fall prey to the same vices. So to assume people will always be self motivated if they are guaranteed an annual income is naive. The former Soviet Union took away all incentive to work and as a result it collapsed mainly because no person cared. I recall a famous line from a Russian worker who said " We pretend to work and the state pretends to pay us".
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 10 April 2006 11:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by Gir Draxon: Suppose my need for an income was guaranteed by the government and that I am also guaranteed a job. Then I am no longer at the mercy of my employer- simply put, I would not have to show up for work tommorow simply because I don't feel like it. I could remain secure in the knowledge that I have nothing to lose because whatever I would no longer get from the corporation would be covered by the government.
First of all, this is a false dichotomy. A guaranteed annual income only provides a minimum income necessary to meet all human beings' basic necessities. People would continue to work because it gives them the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour, both intrinsic (i.e. many people like their jobs and draw satisfaction from what they accomplish there) and extrinsic (i.e. the opportunity to make more money than the minimum and buy the luxuries they would like to enjoy). Second of all, I don't know about you, but I do not do my best work when I am threatened with death or deprivation. I find that unduly stressful. As several other posters have pointed out above, it all depends on what you believe about yourself and other people. If you believe that you are inherently bad or lazy, you would probably think that without the threat of imminent poverty, you would no longer work. But if you believe you have inherent worth as a person and you are ambitious, then without the "discipline" of unemployment to hold you down, you would also have a chance to soar. quote: Originally posted by virge47: The former Soviet Union took away all incentive to work and as a result it collapsed mainly because no person cared.
I don't think that's really why the Soviet Union collapsed but I think I will let someone else take a run at this canard. Is Fidel around? [ 10 April 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389
|
posted 10 April 2006 12:05 PM
I think many people are attacking the problem of unemployment and most especially low wages and in some cases sub-standard wages from the wrong end. Our problems lie in the fact that large corporations who control the government and as a result make policy in favor of big corporations, is the root of the problem. Free trade is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the public. It was sold to people as the answer to prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle, when the fact is free trade is ONLY free for the corporations. Free Trade with countries of similar standards of living will work but NOT with countries such as China and India as they are being conducted today is the root cause of many of our problems today. It is ludicrous to think that a country such as the U.S. or Canada for example with a higher standard of living then say China, which pays their workforce slave wages, with NO benefits to name a few differences will compete on a level playing field. So in hindsight we must fight against any type of trade with such countries and force these corporations to keep the jobs in the U.S. or Canada.
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 10 April 2006 12:22 PM
Magoo, was that for an individual or a family? I thought that figure was for a family, in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver where housing costs are sky-high. It has become a serious problem for low-wage workers (for example, in restaurants and shops) in such cities. I make considerably more than $15hr and a LOT less than 30k a year. The same applies to many other freelancers. At my age, I also have a slight handicap (arthritis in an ankle) that would prevent me from doing the kind of low-wage jobs that I'd managed to survive on as a young person (such as working in a bookshop) as while I can walk all day, I can't stand for hours without moving. That is the case for many people. Welfare, beyond the humiliation, wouldn't even pay my relatively low rent and my utilities, not to mention food.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 10 April 2006 12:33 PM
I'm not sure... I just saw it go by. And I'm calculating the $30k before taxes, assuming most people work 40 hours x 50 weeks (2000 hours) a year, which means that if you know the hourly wage, you just multiply it by 2 and add the "K".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 10 April 2006 12:40 PM
I think Gir has shown us once again that "conservatism" is a political philosophy for people who know that they're really lazy, shiftless degenerates, and that the horrible social-political system they want to impose on everybody is really something that is only needed for themselves. (The gold-bricking closet-cases!)So, some people bandy-about $30k as a GAI? Well then, by all means, let's dismiss it as a point of discussion altogether! btw: I hear that some socialists are actually Stalinists! forget "socialism"! And some liberal-capitalists think that Pinochet was a good guy! Forget "liberal-capitalism"! I hear that some environmentalists are crazy! Forget environmentalists! I hear that .... i gave up thinking ... blah, blah, blah,
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 10 April 2006 02:28 PM
Obviously there are those who enjoy toiling for others in a 'work' environment. But why should their agenda be imposed upon the rest of the population? Not everyone believes in the protestant work ethic. Not everyone is a protestant either. Like so many other belief systems that have been imposed upon populations over the ages, the whole capitalist wage slave relationship relationship is but the latest. Capitalism and all that it stands for is just something that a bunch of people that were able to grab control of the political decision making process have been able to impose upon the rest of us. There is nothing about it that is real or necessary. Its just another ideology that only serves those at the top of its hierarchy while needlessly exploiting everyone else. It exists primarily in our minds. And, because it exists primarily in our minds the only thing stopping us from seeking other economic systems where there is far more equitable distribution of wealth and goods is our own intransigence.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|