7 ms·

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rat

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.

anigbrowl 10y ago
I did respond to you in kind, but I was disinclined to do so because insisting on defining terms is both an aggressive debating tactic and shows a lack of manners by failing to even address existing widely accepted definitions that many others may prefer to rely on, preferences which are just as valid as yours. At the very least, it suggests that you haven't done your homework and are arguing pompously from a position of ignorance.
mikeryan 10y ago
The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. Perhaps most here find your points tired and emotionally fueled which is why they choose instead not to engage?
- randomdata 10y ago
  Maybe. In which case, can you point to other discussion about this so I can move other there? I'd like to actually have a discussion about it instead of getting a bunch of off-topic replies that can never go anywhere.
  - manicdee 10y ago
    http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald
    - randomdata 10y ago
      Something tells me you won't find much in the way of discussion about usage of the english language and the phrases in question there?
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made The funny part is that if you're genuinely curious about the topic, you can do some introductory research yourself. The information you seek is a single Google search away. To demonstrate: http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png
- randomdata 10y ago
  I tried your search. I did not find anything that relates to my comment.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    Your comment was, literally, "What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation?" And literally the first option in the search I linked ("walmart unfair wages") will lead you straight to the answer.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      Actually, my comment said that fair markets will see people try to undercut each other and that the best solution is to reduce or eliminate the fairness by having a union become the only negotiator. Quite the opposite of fair, as individual freedom to negotiate is lost, but it ends up most beneficial for those involved. Did you actually read my comment? Because it seems like you didn't read my comment.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        I read your comment to the same extent that you read the results of the search I provided.
pooper 10y ago
> Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from. I absolutely agree with you on this one but it just isn't practical. As we have seen time and again, this is not what happens in real life. Everyone wants to "add value" to the economy. Whether you own real estate in San Francisco or you own the only Internet cables to the home, history shows that you WILL use your position to demand a "fair price" for your "contribution" towards the society. In other words, everyone engages in rent-seeking even as we continue to say how it is horrible. We want perfect competition in the market for our suppliers and we want to be the sole provider with 100% discretion in pricing when it comes to our consumers. That is how the world works. Is the management of labor unions a little inefficient? Absolutely but so is management of corporations. If management was efficient, we'd see close to 100% of economic gains of a corporation go to its investors. However, we see time and again that the "entrepreneurs" and the "hard working" and "risk-taking" executives will demand a very high price for their "work". It may not formally be a union but it sure feels like it when it comes to executive pay!
wpietri 10y ago
Or it could be because they weren't very good points. At best, I read it as indulging in not-very-good word games, which is a distraction from a serious topic. Or if you're making a serious point, it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. If you're going to jump into a discussion that you know is emotional for people, then you should write with that in mind, rather than stirring people up and then blaming them for the response.
- randomdata 10y ago
  > it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I am not. I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      > I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it. You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been somewhat relevant to try and salvage the discussion. I do blame myself for not articulating my point to you, but since you even seem unsure of what I was trying to convey, you'd think you'd ask questions to try and understand instead of just starting to push your own off-topic agenda down my throat. But I understand how emotionally wrapped up people get in this which prompts them to throw all rational behaviour out the window. I'll forgive you.
jonathankoren 10y ago
Your comment hinges on the idea that exploitive labor practices do not exist. Allow me to make the prediction that you also don't believe that a market for lemons exists. I also, will go so far as to say that you actually no real connection to this, but rather are spouting off about abstract ideals and philosophy from your upper middle class existence, rather than actually being informed about the actual reality of the matter. We know that Walmart forces employees to work off the clock. They've settled multiple class-action lawsuits about this. This of course, goes by a name. It's called wage theft. Even before the theft, we know that Walmart pays their employee literally poverty wages. This is evident this time a year, when you go to a Walmart and see a barrel sitting out front marked for food donations for Walmart employees. On top of that, Walmart is essentially government subsidized, because they encourage their employees to sign up for welfare as part of their on-boarding process.[0] So now of course, why would anyone put up with this? Quite simply, there's no other choice. Yeah, these people are unskilled and left far behind in the economy, but that doesn't mean that someone with a full time job should live in poverty. This doesn't mean that a multibillion dollar multinational megacorp, should be getting 6 billion dollars a year in taxpayer payroll subsidies. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#13dc11647cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
- Dove 10y ago
  If Walmart engages in wage theft and is then sued for it, that sounds to me like the law works. Unless the penalties aren't enough to resolve the issue or something, that doesn't sound like an ongoing injustice - and at any rate, sounds like a problem for the courts, not the public. Sorting that sort of thing out fairly is their job, and they're surely going to be more thoughtful about it than angry internet mobs. If Walmart employees can't support themselves and wind up taking advantage of charity - either privately or through the state - isn't this also the system working as intended? Systems are in place to help low income individuals. These are low income individuals. It strikes me as strange moral reasoning to say the low market price of unskilled labor is Walmart's fault. It strikes me as particularly strange moral reasoning to charge the use of welfare in this case to Walmart's account and call it a subsidy. That would only make sense to me if the people earning that wage would do better if Walmart wasn't there. I don't think that's the case, though. Unskilled labor doesn't pay that well whether you're flipping burgers, delivering pizzas, stocking shelves, or waiting tables. It's not the fault of the companies offering those jobs - it's just what that sort of labor is worth. But Walmart should just pay them more, everyone deserves a living wage? I don't think I agree. I think there is room in the economy for second incomes, for student jobs, for seasonal work. Not everyone is a single head of household, and if you don't have the skills to be one, often you just - don't move out. We have no shortage of help - private charities that do vocational training, societal safety nets to keep things from getting too bad, most people get by with help from friends and family until they can make it on their own. I think there's nothing wrong with that. One of the things I would be concerned with is insisting that Walmart pay its employees more. That will surely come in the form of raising prices, and the very low prices at Walmart are a boon to low income folks - both those who work at Walmart and those who don't. I am skeptical that making Walmart less efficient will help the communities it's in, compared with the social safety nets and private charity - generally provided by the better off. Forcing Walmart to pay higher wages strikes me as taking from the poor to give to the poor. On the contrary - the folks I know who work at Walmart are content with the situation and doing ok. They know they could go get a vocational degree or something and make better money as a welder or something. They don't want to. It's an odd job between stages of life, not a career, and good enough for the moment. If there are enough people like this to run a whole business that hugely benefits the poor by offering goods at low prices, isn't that system on the whole a good thing?

anigbrowl 10y ago

I did respond to you in kind, but I was disinclined to do so because insisting on defining terms is both an aggressive debating tactic and shows a lack of manners by failing to even address existing widely accepted definitions that many others may prefer to rely on, preferences which are just as valid as yours. At the very least, it suggests that you haven't done your homework and are arguing pompously from a position of ignorance.

mikeryan 10y ago

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. Perhaps most here find your points tired and emotionally fueled which is why they choose instead not to engage?

randomdata 10y ago
Maybe. In which case, can you point to other discussion about this so I can move other there? I'd like to actually have a discussion about it instead of getting a bunch of off-topic replies that can never go anywhere.
- manicdee 10y ago
  http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald http://reddit.com/r/The_Donald
  - randomdata 10y ago
    Something tells me you won't find much in the way of discussion about usage of the english language and the phrases in question there?

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made The funny part is that if you're genuinely curious about the topic, you can do some introductory research yourself. The information you seek is a single Google search away. To demonstrate: http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png

randomdata 10y ago
I tried your search. I did not find anything that relates to my comment.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Your comment was, literally, "What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation?" And literally the first option in the search I linked ("walmart unfair wages") will lead you straight to the answer.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    Actually, my comment said that fair markets will see people try to undercut each other and that the best solution is to reduce or eliminate the fairness by having a union become the only negotiator. Quite the opposite of fair, as individual freedom to negotiate is lost, but it ends up most beneficial for those involved. Did you actually read my comment? Because it seems like you didn't read my comment.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      I read your comment to the same extent that you read the results of the search I provided.

pooper 10y ago

> Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from. I absolutely agree with you on this one but it just isn't practical. As we have seen time and again, this is not what happens in real life. Everyone wants to "add value" to the economy. Whether you own real estate in San Francisco or you own the only Internet cables to the home, history shows that you WILL use your position to demand a "fair price" for your "contribution" towards the society. In other words, everyone engages in rent-seeking even as we continue to say how it is horrible. We want perfect competition in the market for our suppliers and we want to be the sole provider with 100% discretion in pricing when it comes to our consumers. That is how the world works. Is the management of labor unions a little inefficient? Absolutely but so is management of corporations. If management was efficient, we'd see close to 100% of economic gains of a corporation go to its investors. However, we see time and again that the "entrepreneurs" and the "hard working" and "risk-taking" executives will demand a very high price for their "work". It may not formally be a union but it sure feels like it when it comes to executive pay!

wpietri 10y ago

Or it could be because they weren't very good points. At best, I read it as indulging in not-very-good word games, which is a distraction from a serious topic. Or if you're making a serious point, it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. If you're going to jump into a discussion that you know is emotional for people, then you should write with that in mind, rather than stirring people up and then blaming them for the response.

randomdata 10y ago
> it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?
- wpietri 10y ago
  I am not. I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it. You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been somewhat relevant to try and salvage the discussion. I do blame myself for not articulating my point to you, but since you even seem unsure of what I was trying to convey, you'd think you'd ask questions to try and understand instead of just starting to push your own off-topic agenda down my throat. But I understand how emotionally wrapped up people get in this which prompts them to throw all rational behaviour out the window. I'll forgive you.

jonathankoren 10y ago

Your comment hinges on the idea that exploitive labor practices do not exist. Allow me to make the prediction that you also don't believe that a market for lemons exists. I also, will go so far as to say that you actually no real connection to this, but rather are spouting off about abstract ideals and philosophy from your upper middle class existence, rather than actually being informed about the actual reality of the matter. We know that Walmart forces employees to work off the clock. They've settled multiple class-action lawsuits about this. This of course, goes by a name. It's called wage theft. Even before the theft, we know that Walmart pays their employee literally poverty wages. This is evident this time a year, when you go to a Walmart and see a barrel sitting out front marked for food donations for Walmart employees. On top of that, Walmart is essentially government subsidized, because they encourage their employees to sign up for welfare as part of their on-boarding process.[0] So now of course, why would anyone put up with this? Quite simply, there's no other choice. Yeah, these people are unskilled and left far behind in the economy, but that doesn't mean that someone with a full time job should live in poverty. This doesn't mean that a multibillion dollar multinational megacorp, should be getting 6 billion dollars a year in taxpayer payroll subsidies. [0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#13dc11647cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

Dove 10y ago
If Walmart engages in wage theft and is then sued for it, that sounds to me like the law works. Unless the penalties aren't enough to resolve the issue or something, that doesn't sound like an ongoing injustice - and at any rate, sounds like a problem for the courts, not the public. Sorting that sort of thing out fairly is their job, and they're surely going to be more thoughtful about it than angry internet mobs. If Walmart employees can't support themselves and wind up taking advantage of charity - either privately or through the state - isn't this also the system working as intended? Systems are in place to help low income individuals. These are low income individuals. It strikes me as strange moral reasoning to say the low market price of unskilled labor is Walmart's fault. It strikes me as particularly strange moral reasoning to charge the use of welfare in this case to Walmart's account and call it a subsidy. That would only make sense to me if the people earning that wage would do better if Walmart wasn't there. I don't think that's the case, though. Unskilled labor doesn't pay that well whether you're flipping burgers, delivering pizzas, stocking shelves, or waiting tables. It's not the fault of the companies offering those jobs - it's just what that sort of labor is worth. But Walmart should just pay them more, everyone deserves a living wage? I don't think I agree. I think there is room in the economy for second incomes, for student jobs, for seasonal work. Not everyone is a single head of household, and if you don't have the skills to be one, often you just - don't move out. We have no shortage of help - private charities that do vocational training, societal safety nets to keep things from getting too bad, most people get by with help from friends and family until they can make it on their own. I think there's nothing wrong with that. One of the things I would be concerned with is insisting that Walmart pay its employees more. That will surely come in the form of raising prices, and the very low prices at Walmart are a boon to low income folks - both those who work at Walmart and those who don't. I am skeptical that making Walmart less efficient will help the communities it's in, compared with the social safety nets and private charity - generally provided by the better off. Forcing Walmart to pay higher wages strikes me as taking from the poor to give to the poor. On the contrary - the folks I know who work at Walmart are content with the situation and doing ok. They know they could go get a vocational degree or something and make better money as a welder or something. They don't want to. It's an odd job between stages of life, not a career, and good enough for the moment. If there are enough people like this to run a whole business that hugely benefits the poor by offering goods at low prices, isn't that system on the whole a good thing?