6 ms·

> What about Asia? What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? > Because I'm replying to what you said "Not hav

> What about Asia? What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? > Because I'm replying to what you said "Not having enough revenue to pay the workers a sufficient rate is just a symptom of that." Oh? Are you sure? You have offered nothing to suggest Louis Vuitton is struggling to find workers. The closest we got was me mentioning that their workers were on strike last year, which was followed with more pay to compel the workers back. That shows that Louis Vuitton is, in fact, quite prepared to pay more when they can't find the workers they need. Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers don't show up when they are not paid enough. If you don't believe in that, you need to go back to the original comment in this thread – the one before my first – and reply to it instead. As you know, as you surely read all the words before replying (haha), my comment merely followed the premise established there. > Sorry but what the hell are you talking about? It was suggested that head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more than what they asked for. I then asked if you go around randomly paying people more than they ask of you. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare.

lossolo 3y ago
> What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? No they aren't because it's Asia? You don't work then you starve. There is so much poor people there that you can pay whatever and you will find workers, no labor laws, no unions. So he pays them pennies because as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE"? That's not the reason and everyone knows that. Just admit that they are not paid because of greed and we can finish this discussion instead of framing it like poor business owner would need to charge higher price or they would be starving. That's NOT the case. > Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers stop showing up when they are not paid enough Ye, all of these people without education can choose to do whatever they want.. so they can just quit and then they eat air and pay for rent and their children school etc with air, with almost zero savings (because cost of living eats everything) especially in Asia without labor laws and unions. But ye live in your alternative world where workers can choose whatever they want, but it's not only Asia where its really bad or Africa, lets look at the richest country in the world where 57% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency, I guess these people with kids can't wait to just quit their jobs and be homeless. > It was suggested that the guy at the head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more. I asked if you randomly pay people more as well. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare. Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? It's the fruit of their labor. That's why again, WTH are you talking about?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE" I would never say such a thing as "shortage of revenue" is completely nonsensical. A shortage occurs when an external mechanism, such as government regulation, prevents price from rising. Revenue may be impacted by a shortage, but revenue fundamentally cannot be in shortage itself. The original comment that set the stage for the thread stated that certain businesses are struggling to find workers because they don't pay enough to attract workers. That is true, but the reason they aren't able to pay enough to attract the workers they need to keep going is because the customers aren't interested enough in their product to want them to keep going. Not everything is worth doing. It is not clear how you think Louis Vuitton fits into that. They seemingly have no trouble hiring workers, and when the workers do leave over concern of not being paid enough they demonstrably offer more to win them back. They have sufficient customer interest. > Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?
  - lossolo 3y ago
    Are you even reading my responses? Or are you just picking and choosing what suits your narrative? You still don't get it, do you? I'm not saying labor costs are the only factor, but it's undeniable that many companies choose to underpay workers while raking in massive profits for themselves. It's called greed, plain and simple. Sure, business owners take risks, and they should be rewarded for it. But it's not an excuse to exploit workers and keep them in poverty. Finding a balance means not being a greedy Scrooge and sharing the success with those who help build it. You keep twisting my words. I never said anything about randomly paying people more. It's about recognizing the value of the workers and paying them fairly for their hard work. If they demand more, it's probably because they're being undervalued, which you conveniently ignore. Labor laws vary in different places. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to exploitation. Just because some workers have it better doesn't make it acceptable to mistreat others. It's about decency and fairness. You want to talk about poverty? Then address the issue at hand, the fact that many workers are struggling to make ends meet while business owners swim in pools of cash. It's not about giving away $100 bills on the street, it's about paying workers what they deserve. > No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you? You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand. Let's be clear: the topic of this discussion is not about me or whether I have people working for me as a customer. It's about addressing the widespread problem of companies underpaying their workers and prioritizing excessive profits over fair compensation. While it is true that in everyday transactions, as a customer, I interact with employees at various businesses, that is not the crux of this debate. The main concern is the mistreatment and underpayment of workers within companies, especially those that are highly profitable. As for the question of how often I pay workers more than they ask for, it is irrelevant to this conversation (but actually often I pay more, I tip people etc but I don't want it to be discussion about me). The focus should be on corporate practices and the need for businesses to recognize the value of their employees and provide fair wages. So, let's get back on track and concentrate on the real issue – advocating for fair treatment, fair wages, and better working conditions for workers within companies. Honestly, you're so focused on nitpicking and avoiding the real problem that it's frustrating to even continue this discussion. Stop defending the indefensible and open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Workers deserve better, and it's time for businesses to stop being so damn greedy.

lossolo 3y ago

> What about it? Are the workers there currently off the job while they wait for more money? No they aren't because it's Asia? You don't work then you starve. There is so much poor people there that you can pay whatever and you will find workers, no labor laws, no unions. So he pays them pennies because as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE"? That's not the reason and everyone knows that. Just admit that they are not paid because of greed and we can finish this discussion instead of framing it like poor business owner would need to charge higher price or they would be starving. That's NOT the case. > Here I was convinced you were just going on some mindless "workers are victims" rant, not realizing that workers stop showing up when they are not paid enough Ye, all of these people without education can choose to do whatever they want.. so they can just quit and then they eat air and pay for rent and their children school etc with air, with almost zero savings (because cost of living eats everything) especially in Asia without labor laws and unions. But ye live in your alternative world where workers can choose whatever they want, but it's not only Asia where its really bad or Africa, lets look at the richest country in the world where 57% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency, I guess these people with kids can't wait to just quit their jobs and be homeless. > It was suggested that the guy at the head of Louis Vuitton is too greedy to randomly pay people more. I asked if you randomly pay people more as well. If not, it would be strange for you to expect others to do so. Everyone here has money to spare. Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? It's the fruit of their labor. That's why again, WTH are you talking about?

randomdata 3y ago
> as you said "THERE IS SHORTAGE OF REVENUE" I would never say such a thing as "shortage of revenue" is completely nonsensical. A shortage occurs when an external mechanism, such as government regulation, prevents price from rising. Revenue may be impacted by a shortage, but revenue fundamentally cannot be in shortage itself. The original comment that set the stage for the thread stated that certain businesses are struggling to find workers because they don't pay enough to attract workers. That is true, but the reason they aren't able to pay enough to attract the workers they need to keep going is because the customers aren't interested enough in their product to want them to keep going. Not everything is worth doing. It is not clear how you think Louis Vuitton fits into that. They seemingly have no trouble hiring workers, and when the workers do leave over concern of not being paid enough they demonstrably offer more to win them back. They have sufficient customer interest. > Difference is that these are not random people but people that do work for him, see the difference? No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you?
- lossolo 3y ago
  Are you even reading my responses? Or are you just picking and choosing what suits your narrative? You still don't get it, do you? I'm not saying labor costs are the only factor, but it's undeniable that many companies choose to underpay workers while raking in massive profits for themselves. It's called greed, plain and simple. Sure, business owners take risks, and they should be rewarded for it. But it's not an excuse to exploit workers and keep them in poverty. Finding a balance means not being a greedy Scrooge and sharing the success with those who help build it. You keep twisting my words. I never said anything about randomly paying people more. It's about recognizing the value of the workers and paying them fairly for their hard work. If they demand more, it's probably because they're being undervalued, which you conveniently ignore. Labor laws vary in different places. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to exploitation. Just because some workers have it better doesn't make it acceptable to mistreat others. It's about decency and fairness. You want to talk about poverty? Then address the issue at hand, the fact that many workers are struggling to make ends meet while business owners swim in pools of cash. It's not about giving away $100 bills on the street, it's about paying workers what they deserve. > No. You also have people working for you. Everyone, save those who have gone completely off grid (which you clearly have not), does. That is how an economy functions. The question stands: How often do you pay your workers more than they have asked of you? You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand. Let's be clear: the topic of this discussion is not about me or whether I have people working for me as a customer. It's about addressing the widespread problem of companies underpaying their workers and prioritizing excessive profits over fair compensation. While it is true that in everyday transactions, as a customer, I interact with employees at various businesses, that is not the crux of this debate. The main concern is the mistreatment and underpayment of workers within companies, especially those that are highly profitable. As for the question of how often I pay workers more than they ask for, it is irrelevant to this conversation (but actually often I pay more, I tip people etc but I don't want it to be discussion about me). The focus should be on corporate practices and the need for businesses to recognize the value of their employees and provide fair wages. So, let's get back on track and concentrate on the real issue – advocating for fair treatment, fair wages, and better working conditions for workers within companies. Honestly, you're so focused on nitpicking and avoiding the real problem that it's frustrating to even continue this discussion. Stop defending the indefensible and open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Workers deserve better, and it's time for businesses to stop being so damn greedy.