5 ms·

> 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 exter

> 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.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > but it's undeniable that many companies choose to underpay workers while raking in massive profits for themselves. Are you replying to my original statement or not? This has nothing to do with the original discussion. But let's run with it: To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!" I can believe in the short term workers will really hold that view. Indeed, unlike robots which stop working the minute you hold back on pay, humans are a lot more forgiving. But, at the same time, only for so long. If the debts aren't eventually settled they will give up hope. Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such. > You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand. Well, I tried going down your weird rabbit hole. Then you told me that you were actually talking about what I said originally. With us back to the original discussion, now you're telling me that you were still in the rabbit hole...? Pick a lane. > 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. Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well considered opinion.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    > Are you replying to my original statement or not? This has nothing to do with the original discussion. Yes, I am addressing your original statement, which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits. My point was that this is an issue we should consider in our discussion about fair wages and workers' treatment. > To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!" No, I am not implying that Louis Vuitton or any other company has outstanding debt to its workers. The point is that if a company is making substantial profits but not adequately compensating its workers, it raises concerns about fair treatment and the distribution of wealth within the company. > Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such. I agree that businesses must pay their workers adequately to retain a skilled workforce. However, the issue is not whether workers are currently owed back payments, it's about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their contributions and that companies prioritize fair wages alongside their profits. > Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well-considered opinion. I disagree. Good faith participation involves discussing issues with the goal of seeking positive change and improvement. While we explore the way things are, we can also advocate for fair treatment and better conditions for workers based on ethical and moral considerations. The real issue here is about recognizing that some companies may not prioritize fair wages for their workers, even if they have the means to do so. By discussing this, we can raise awareness and foster a better understanding of the challenges faced by workers in various industries. It's evident that your approach to the discussion has been selective and avoiding certain aspects that do not fit your viewpoint. It's disappointing to see you ignore crucial points about the challenges faced by workers in various regions, especially those with low wages and inadequate labor protections. Addressing only parts of the conversation that align with one's narrative while disregarding significant aspects of the discussion limits the potential for a constructive and well-rounded exchange of ideas. This behavior not only hampers progress in finding solutions but also fails to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of issues related to fair wages.

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.

randomdata 3y ago
> but it's undeniable that many companies choose to underpay workers while raking in massive profits for themselves. Are you replying to my original statement or not? This has nothing to do with the original discussion. But let's run with it: To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!" I can believe in the short term workers will really hold that view. Indeed, unlike robots which stop working the minute you hold back on pay, humans are a lot more forgiving. But, at the same time, only for so long. If the debts aren't eventually settled they will give up hope. Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such. > You seem to be fixated on deflecting the conversation away from the real issue at hand. Well, I tried going down your weird rabbit hole. Then you told me that you were actually talking about what I said originally. With us back to the original discussion, now you're telling me that you were still in the rabbit hole...? Pick a lane. > 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. Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well considered opinion.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > Are you replying to my original statement or not? This has nothing to do with the original discussion. Yes, I am addressing your original statement, which implies that some companies underpay workers despite making massive profits. My point was that this is an issue we should consider in our discussion about fair wages and workers' treatment. > To underpay a worker ultimately means that you have an outstanding debt to that worker. Are you suggesting that Louis Vuitton has outstanding debt to its workers and that the workers continue to stick around only because they think "If I keep working hard enough I am sure that good guy Louis will eventually settle up!" No, I am not implying that Louis Vuitton or any other company has outstanding debt to its workers. The point is that if a company is making substantial profits but not adequately compensating its workers, it raises concerns about fair treatment and the distribution of wealth within the company. > Louis Vuitton has been in business since 1854, so unless this is something that has only started happening in the past few months, I expect that isn't really the case. I expect the workers are actually paid up in full. Workers don't like to be banks. You won't last long if you treat them as such. I agree that businesses must pay their workers adequately to retain a skilled workforce. However, the issue is not whether workers are currently owed back payments, it's about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their contributions and that companies prioritize fair wages alongside their profits. > Let's not. Advocacy requires presenting opinion, and presenting opinion is bad faith participation. Good faith participation limits itself to exploring the way things are. One can always use that information to form an opinion, if they so choose. And, frankly, if you are not familiar enough with the way things are in order to be able to contribute in good faith, you most certainly are not in a position to have a well-considered opinion. I disagree. Good faith participation involves discussing issues with the goal of seeking positive change and improvement. While we explore the way things are, we can also advocate for fair treatment and better conditions for workers based on ethical and moral considerations. The real issue here is about recognizing that some companies may not prioritize fair wages for their workers, even if they have the means to do so. By discussing this, we can raise awareness and foster a better understanding of the challenges faced by workers in various industries. It's evident that your approach to the discussion has been selective and avoiding certain aspects that do not fit your viewpoint. It's disappointing to see you ignore crucial points about the challenges faced by workers in various regions, especially those with low wages and inadequate labor protections. Addressing only parts of the conversation that align with one's narrative while disregarding significant aspects of the discussion limits the potential for a constructive and well-rounded exchange of ideas. This behavior not only hampers progress in finding solutions but also fails to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of issues related to fair wages.