4 ms·

Corporate "slaves" are some of the best paid in history. I'm sure the "model" figured out that if their labor is generally wealthier, it is far more productive

Corporate "slaves" are some of the best paid in history. I'm sure the "model" figured out that if their labor is generally wealthier, it is far more productive and profitable.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I wonder what the average Walmart slave earns.
- g00s3_caLL_x2 7y ago
  Last I checked they don't have slaves. They have employees who are working by their own volition.
- vladsanchez 7y ago
  What's up with the bullying my friend!? They're hard-working people and they're well compensated. No need to make a "slave" reference!
SirLotsaLocks 7y ago
>"it" refering to people as "it" is kind of wrong also the only reason its better (if thats even true) is because things used to be so shitty that anything is better than that
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > refering to people as "it" is kind of wrong. I don't agree. labor is functioning as a collective noun here. it's common to use "it" to refer to a collective noun (even if the collective is people), especially when there is a sense of the collective acting as a single unit (eg, the jury delivered its verdict).
  - ksec 7y ago
    And a gentle reminder not everyone is native in English.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  It refers to the "model".
gharding 7y ago
I unfortunately did not see your comment until now and it seems this forum does not lend itself to actual in depth discussions of any substance, with a clear intent of attracting and harvesting technical skills and knowledge from gullible tech people; but I think you misunderstood something. I am not referring to "corporate slaves" as being the well paid equivalent of the nobility or and even lower aristocracy of the past, or their equivalent in different times. I am referring to the fact that the "kings and emperors" of today developed a new model for "slavery", or, to generalize, exploitation of some by others to support their excessive and parasitic life. You are misunderstanding the relational nature of the system. What it comes down to is that the ruling psychopaths realized they could become extremely wealthy by simply shifting the "slavery" aspect to a kind of nickel and diming of everyone under a threshold that breaks their willingness to freely engage, rather than forcing unproductive and unwilling slaves that you also have to take care of. It is actually what is referred to when "economists" stalk about taxation stifling production or willingness to be productive … what they really mean or should be saying is that it is the rate at which you deprive the slave of their willingness to work, relative to coercive force required to overcome that innate will. There are dependencies; profit, free will, force … largely two will go up as one goes down, but not at the same rate, even though the ruling psychopaths keep trying to manipulate things, thinking they can have all of it … until things invariably break and snap.

Corporate "slaves" are some of the best paid in history. I'm sure the "model" figured out that if their labor is generally wealthier, it is far more productive and profitable.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

I wonder what the average Walmart slave earns.

g00s3_caLL_x2 7y ago
Last I checked they don't have slaves. They have employees who are working by their own volition.
vladsanchez 7y ago
What's up with the bullying my friend!? They're hard-working people and they're well compensated. No need to make a "slave" reference!

SirLotsaLocks 7y ago

>"it" refering to people as "it" is kind of wrong also the only reason its better (if thats even true) is because things used to be so shitty that anything is better than that

leetcrew 7y ago
> refering to people as "it" is kind of wrong. I don't agree. labor is functioning as a collective noun here. it's common to use "it" to refer to a collective noun (even if the collective is people), especially when there is a sense of the collective acting as a single unit (eg, the jury delivered its verdict).
- ksec 7y ago
  And a gentle reminder not everyone is native in English.
Fjolsvith 7y ago
It refers to the "model".

gharding 7y ago

I unfortunately did not see your comment until now and it seems this forum does not lend itself to actual in depth discussions of any substance, with a clear intent of attracting and harvesting technical skills and knowledge from gullible tech people; but I think you misunderstood something. I am not referring to "corporate slaves" as being the well paid equivalent of the nobility or and even lower aristocracy of the past, or their equivalent in different times. I am referring to the fact that the "kings and emperors" of today developed a new model for "slavery", or, to generalize, exploitation of some by others to support their excessive and parasitic life. You are misunderstanding the relational nature of the system. What it comes down to is that the ruling psychopaths realized they could become extremely wealthy by simply shifting the "slavery" aspect to a kind of nickel and diming of everyone under a threshold that breaks their willingness to freely engage, rather than forcing unproductive and unwilling slaves that you also have to take care of. It is actually what is referred to when "economists" stalk about taxation stifling production or willingness to be productive … what they really mean or should be saying is that it is the rate at which you deprive the slave of their willingness to work, relative to coercive force required to overcome that innate will. There are dependencies; profit, free will, force … largely two will go up as one goes down, but not at the same rate, even though the ruling psychopaths keep trying to manipulate things, thinking they can have all of it … until things invariably break and snap.