4 ms·

You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negative

You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).

mpyne 13y ago
> You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world. That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.
- kbolino 13y ago
  There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help you up the pyramid, it's not my fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you down there!" I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health growing up weren't completely dependent on how much my parents had, or what strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.
    - kbolino 13y ago
      You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Even if we stipulate that elitism is a product of the human condition, that does not mean that we cannot (or should not) try to ameliorate that. There are lots of 'products of being human' that we choose to control instead of allowing to go unfettered. E.g. conflict is a product of the human (and natural) condition but we strive to avoid violence anyways. Additionally saying that elitism will happen anyways doesn't mean that structural factors play no role or should be ignored. You left out one of the biggest factors of elitism of all: dumb luck! Even if you forbid force and theft how can you claim that someone meritoriously became elite when they simply inherited what they had through no skill or effort of their own? Likewise you can gain elite status by being given it (such as in a cartel or trust), without stealing it from anyone or using force. Does that fact that the rest of the cartel feel you're pliable enough to warrant being used as their lackey really serve as 'merit' in this situation? So even playing in the logic you've laid out I've established ways to become elite without merit, and that's assuming your logic is right. I would say instead that the world of interpersonal relationships (politics and sociology) is in reality more complex than your logic allows for, which even further muddies what insights we might be able to draw and apply from that logic. For instance I don't think I'd agree at all that forbidding theft and force necessarily leaves only meritorious actions. Another large question is how do you account for indirect force or theft? If I burn something noxious and it comes down on a farmer's field as rain and kills his crops, it's not like I stole it from him or used force, right? But the effect is the same for him, whether he even knows there is some single person responsible or not.
- josh2600 13y ago
  Sidenote: Have you ever tried to hit a home run off of a tee? That's not an easy feat at all; the kinetic energy provided by the pitcher helps quite a bit.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You know I was afraid someone was going to call me out on that, but it was either leave it or stay longer at my work computer to lookup the actual quote before I went home. :) But you're exactly right.
lettergram 13y ago
You must have missed: >> Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. I simply disagree that the government should be involved. If it turns out a factory is dangerous then no one will want to work in it and if they do? Well if they do want to work in dangerous conditions, let them. The point is, most people wont work in awful conditions and its in the employers best interest not to hurt its employees anyways. In the 1920's when all this hoopla started because the workers rebelled and both the workers and employers were literally shooting at one another (this was also when communism was entering the scene). Relating it back to this article, its a citizens duty to enact (or attempt to enact) change into the government because the government is there for its populous. A company is there for its own bottom line. The company wasn't forced upon you and you shouldn't force yourself upon it, unless it does so. AKA the company store was bad and forced something unreasonable upon you, for that a union is great and should be formed. In either case unions supported by government intervention are something a tad more draconian in my mind, by denaturing a company and making it about its employees rather than about its product. Leading to issues such as car manufacturers.
- josh2600 13y ago
  This is your argument in a nutshell: Product>Employee. Your argument is fundamentally inhuman. The ultimate point of a product is not the product, it is the benefit to mankind. If you sacrifice people for the product, you are imbuing a product as god. That's completely the opposite of reality, in which products are the "product" of humans (and if we're continuing with deities as a part of this analogy, humans would therefore be divine, not products). A company does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within many larger societal themes. When a company chooses to pursue profit while negatively impacting the aggregate economy, it is the point of regulation to punish such behavior. Without regulation, the whole world gets torn asunder, as it nearly has been many times in recent history. TL;DR: The correct answer, IMHO, is People>Product. To think otherwise is to err morally.
  - lettergram 13y ago
    >> This is your argument in a nutshell: Product > Employee. That's an incorrect statement. I think its an individual > everyone else (an example would be you care for your family more than your neighbor). A company is owned by someone, if its the stock holders then its a group, if its a private enterprise than its an individual. In either case, the employees want to benefit and so does the employer and its not "morally" correct to abuse either one. Rather, its "moral" to allow each employee to decide what he is willing to work for and an employer what he is willing to pay. My initial rejection of unions were based on the idea that the government came in and has a tendency to side with the unions (likely to garner more votes). For your other point: The government can be as bad or worse to the economy than any company. If that's your argument you'd have to ignore a significant portion of history where inappropriate regulation has damaged humanity. The point is, the only "moral" regulation is one that robs no one.

mpyne 13y ago

> You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world. That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.

kbolino 13y ago
There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Sure, but that's what I said. "Why should we help you up the pyramid, it's not my fault you're down there and I'm up here. It's not like I kicked you down there!" I'm certainly glad that I grew up in a world where my success and health growing up weren't completely dependent on how much my parents had, or what strata they happened to have found themselves on that pyramid. If that had been the case I may very well still be eating generic corn flakes with condensed milk today, instead of having been given the opportunity to demonstrate by merit my qualifications to do the work I do.
  - kbolino 13y ago
    You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Even if we stipulate that elitism is a product of the human condition, that does not mean that we cannot (or should not) try to ameliorate that. There are lots of 'products of being human' that we choose to control instead of allowing to go unfettered. E.g. conflict is a product of the human (and natural) condition but we strive to avoid violence anyways. Additionally saying that elitism will happen anyways doesn't mean that structural factors play no role or should be ignored. You left out one of the biggest factors of elitism of all: dumb luck! Even if you forbid force and theft how can you claim that someone meritoriously became elite when they simply inherited what they had through no skill or effort of their own? Likewise you can gain elite status by being given it (such as in a cartel or trust), without stealing it from anyone or using force. Does that fact that the rest of the cartel feel you're pliable enough to warrant being used as their lackey really serve as 'merit' in this situation? So even playing in the logic you've laid out I've established ways to become elite without merit, and that's assuming your logic is right. I would say instead that the world of interpersonal relationships (politics and sociology) is in reality more complex than your logic allows for, which even further muddies what insights we might be able to draw and apply from that logic. For instance I don't think I'd agree at all that forbidding theft and force necessarily leaves only meritorious actions. Another large question is how do you account for indirect force or theft? If I burn something noxious and it comes down on a farmer's field as rain and kills his crops, it's not like I stole it from him or used force, right? But the effect is the same for him, whether he even knows there is some single person responsible or not.
josh2600 13y ago
Sidenote: Have you ever tried to hit a home run off of a tee? That's not an easy feat at all; the kinetic energy provided by the pitcher helps quite a bit.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You know I was afraid someone was going to call me out on that, but it was either leave it or stay longer at my work computer to lookup the actual quote before I went home. :) But you're exactly right.

lettergram 13y ago

You must have missed: >> Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. I simply disagree that the government should be involved. If it turns out a factory is dangerous then no one will want to work in it and if they do? Well if they do want to work in dangerous conditions, let them. The point is, most people wont work in awful conditions and its in the employers best interest not to hurt its employees anyways. In the 1920's when all this hoopla started because the workers rebelled and both the workers and employers were literally shooting at one another (this was also when communism was entering the scene). Relating it back to this article, its a citizens duty to enact (or attempt to enact) change into the government because the government is there for its populous. A company is there for its own bottom line. The company wasn't forced upon you and you shouldn't force yourself upon it, unless it does so. AKA the company store was bad and forced something unreasonable upon you, for that a union is great and should be formed. In either case unions supported by government intervention are something a tad more draconian in my mind, by denaturing a company and making it about its employees rather than about its product. Leading to issues such as car manufacturers.

josh2600 13y ago
This is your argument in a nutshell: Product>Employee. Your argument is fundamentally inhuman. The ultimate point of a product is not the product, it is the benefit to mankind. If you sacrifice people for the product, you are imbuing a product as god. That's completely the opposite of reality, in which products are the "product" of humans (and if we're continuing with deities as a part of this analogy, humans would therefore be divine, not products). A company does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within many larger societal themes. When a company chooses to pursue profit while negatively impacting the aggregate economy, it is the point of regulation to punish such behavior. Without regulation, the whole world gets torn asunder, as it nearly has been many times in recent history. TL;DR: The correct answer, IMHO, is People>Product. To think otherwise is to err morally.
- lettergram 13y ago
  >> This is your argument in a nutshell: Product > Employee. That's an incorrect statement. I think its an individual > everyone else (an example would be you care for your family more than your neighbor). A company is owned by someone, if its the stock holders then its a group, if its a private enterprise than its an individual. In either case, the employees want to benefit and so does the employer and its not "morally" correct to abuse either one. Rather, its "moral" to allow each employee to decide what he is willing to work for and an employer what he is willing to pay. My initial rejection of unions were based on the idea that the government came in and has a tendency to side with the unions (likely to garner more votes). For your other point: The government can be as bad or worse to the economy than any company. If that's your argument you'd have to ignore a significant portion of history where inappropriate regulation has damaged humanity. The point is, the only "moral" regulation is one that robs no one.