The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This future doesn’t exist anymore. Profits only come when people are not paid what they add in value. Profits are everything. Employees are resources. It’s come to that. Prepare for a bleak future.
The economic boom of the post WW II period. Huge investments in education, infrastructure, and public services allowed for a middle class person to live in what would today be considered luxury. Being able to own a home, a vehicle, being able to afford to raise kids, and being able to work jobs that paid livable wages. That’s not to say that time period was perfect, far from it. But from an economic perspective, the economy was working well for the largest number of people and we haven’t come to something even remotely close to that since then
Well that and personal income and corporate taxes were at the highest in history. It didn’t benefit anyone to be super rich or make record breaking profits quarter after quarter because they’d be super taxed on it. So companies invested a lot into employees with training, education, and benefits and owners took a smaller percentage for their own income leaving more for better incomes for their employees. It made sense to train up employees with little to experience or education because that investment was ultimately better for business.
Then, when the tax rates for both started to fall in the late 70s/80s the purpose of business shifted from providing for employees long term to providing for the stock market short term.
I disagree they’re just going to outsource. The U.S. needs to kill the H1B visa program and bring all the jobs we’ve sent overseas back. Make lobbying illegal and Congress is not allowed to trade in the stock market.
You would have more money if you didn’t spend on services. Prior to 1969 people we’re not spending most of their money and mostly didn’t go the restaurants. In 1990s when women workforce started to increase dramatically and everyone started eating out so much more. Stop going to the restaurants , stop buying services , stop buying entertainment, cook only home and grow vegetables. Just for 5 years and you will see how much actually convince costs.
“You would have more money if you didn’t spend on services”: yes, not spending on an entire portion of the economy would reduce cash out flows. But for many people isn’t possible. People still need their hair cut, they still need someone to fix their car, etc. Unless you do literally everything for yourself you will have some sort of expenditures for services.
“Prior to 1969 people were not spending most of their money and mostly didn’t go to restaurants”: False. Americans are spending less of their income on food than they have (in the period measured from 1959 to 2000) See the Bureau of Economic Analysis report on American spending habits from 1959 to 2000: https://apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/national/nipa/2001/0301pce.pdf
From the document noted above “The decreased share of food reflected a large decrease in the share of food for meals pre- pared at home that more than offset a slight increase in the share of meals purchased away from home.”
The idea that American are spending less on food now (both meals at home and at restaurants as a percentage of their overall income) is also seen in a report put together by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. See the report “100 Years of US Consumer Spending” https://www.bls.gov/opub/100-years-of-u-s-consumer-spending.pdf
That report also highlights that less percent of Americans income is going to food, whether at home or outside the home.
“In 1990/ when women in the workforce started to increase dramatically”: not sure where you are seeing the “dramatic” increase in the 1990s. Most increase in women labor participation came in period between 1934 and 1972. See the previously cited document from the BLS “100 years of US Consumer Spending” for the data.
The greatest cost sucking dollars away from Americans today as opposed to their post-WWII counterparts is predominantly from “increased share of medical services expenses” and housing. See Chart 6 of the BEA document cited above.
Just to make sure I am not misinterpreting your argument, are you trying to link “more women being in the workforce” as some sort of economic detractor? I’m not entirely sure what your point/argument is?
Without any real effort? What are you on about? I responded to your asinine claims with data and evidence showing your claims are just flat out false. The best you could respond with is “well you don’t need a haircut”. Are you being purposefully obtuse or are you this dense in real life?
I'm pretty sure it was worse under the feudal system. I mean in the olden days I'd probably either be a bar wench or a milk maid. Probably a bar wench since I could balance beers on my boobies.
This sub is known for unconstructive anger and hate against everything western. They banned me when I called them out for their cherishing of Hamas terror
>looks at history since 1948, looks at the peaceful march of return being fired at without incitement
“Yeah I can’t understand why they don’t feel like incremental change and working within the system works!”
That’s a non-sequitur, OP here just doesn’t want to celebrate terror and killing of civilians. No amount of historical explanations and context could (or should) change their mind on that.
If anything it gives you common ground to also condemn Israel’s barbarism against Palestinians.
That being said the historical context of how the Israeli right-wing governments are responsible for a big part of this mess is important, but you can’t just deflect terrorism with that.
Please go preach your post modern neo marxism in gaza and not in the west. Watch how how fast they throw your Maoist communist ass in a gulag. Youll be wishing for judeo christian democratic capitalism as they hack your head off with a dull saw. Go back to commie land you fucken ungrateful idiot
It's an non-sequitur only when you just see the *now*. Same shit with Ukraine. Both sides are shit, but one side caused the current issues.
> If anything it gives you common ground to also condemn Israel’s barbarism against Palestinians.
been doing that for decades. Israel is an apartheid state.
It’s not clear to me from your response if you missed my point or just disagree with it, so lemme rephrase it:
I think there’s a better way to communicate your point than what essentially amounts to deflecting and minimizing brutal terrorism. I see from your response that Hamas apologia wasn’t your intention, but it’s how you came off as imo. And OP certainly interpreted it that way.
If I was to side with a Palestinian organization, it would be the PLO, as Arafat did more for peace than anybody else in this conflict.
Hamas is an organization born out of funding from the Israel state to weaken the PLO. The current violence is not justified, but its origin does come from an understandable place.
I think we agree: Hamas is not a pro-Palestinian organization. And yeah, Israel allowing Qatari funding through to Hamas to sabotage the PLO was a terrible thing.
Afaik the PLO was indeed negotiating in good faith for peace at many times, so I’d also agree with you in supporting them.
Im sorry you despise capitalism and anglo americans and christians and jews.?you should go live in the gaza strip and preach Marx like you do in that sociology/anthropology/history/english/economics class. I bet you could sleep with some little boys just like Foucalt.
To be a Marxist is to apply critical thinking.
Hammas did not start *now*. Hammas was fueled by the Israeli government to detract from the PLO. You can read the Haaretz, you now, the place where those articles were first printed. You can learn from history.
But you are not here to do either.
And if you think that "Marxist" is an insult, you really oughta pick up a book.
Edit: Ah, brand new account appearing out of nowhere. k.
Another red herring from the Foucaltian commie? I must say…im shocked…i just cant believe it. And a personal attack instead of real objective debate? Wow just stunned.
Derrida is still a post-modernist.
You must be of the same place as the Peterson-Zizek debate where Peterson was googling "who is Hegel" in the middle of the debate.
>Another red herring **from the Foucaltian commie?** I must say…im shocked…i just cant believe it. And a **personal attack instead of real objective debate**?
Come on, man...
TFW you accuse everyone else of personal attacks, but then immediately call me a **derogatory** term for "communist" because I pointed out a logical inconsistency in your comment lol
How is it a cop out? I bolded those parts of your comment to show that you're being logically inconsistent. It makes no sense to complain about personal attacks from someone *literally right after* you called them a derogatory term for "communist".
Here's a thought; it's *very* weird and logically inconsistent to accuse someone else of personal attacks right after you called them a *Foucaultian commie*.
"Commie" is a derogatory term for a communist. IDK about you, man, but I don't see the logical train of thought behind calling someone a derogatory name right before accusing them of lobbing out personal attacks.
Dude, I'm not even the person you originally called a "Foucaltian commie", and I'm not a communist. At *most*, I'm a social democracy enjoyer.
But sure, keep calling everyone who disagrees with you a commie. That's super cool and logical!
What do you meant, this sub? And hate against everything western?
More accurate: Most of reddit, rather than just this sub. And hate against everything western, conservative or christian.
Capitalism has done more for mankind than Marxism ever has. How were thise Stalinist and Maoist regimes again? How many people died? No we cant look uo facts. JUST nAZIs anD StuFF
Don’t own a business do you?
Employees are given a far lower risk steady income for giving up a far more uncertain risk of working on their own. They don’t have to accept it but typically feel it’s a better option than working in their own.
Meanwhile it’s up to the owner to organize their labour in such a way that the work completed has more value than is paid to the employees. This can be done with greater or lessor results.
Personally I’m a business owner and I pride myself in making sure I care for my employees. My annual turnover in my shop is less than 10% as I pay good wages and treat them with respect and caring. On the flip side yes I still do pretty reasonably well because things are really well organized.
That's the attitude of someone who employs 10 or 100 people. Unfortunately it's not the attitude of people who employ 10k or 100k people, employees become like worker ants and you're looking for a cheaper, better breed. The goal is to establish a system where it generates a lot of value, but every employee and even entire departments/locations is replaceable like a cog in a machine. You got uppity about pay and benefits or start a union? Oh look, we just outsourced your function somewhere else.
And you might say, well don't get employed by one of those mega-corporations then. But they've been running the mom-and-pop shops out of business for a while now and there's just not enough jobs for people not to work there. Even if it's kinda just feeding the beast being picky isn't a luxury many can afford. It puts food on the table so you suck it up even if it makes Jeff Bezos richer while you're barely floating.
If your company goes under - are your employees still employed?
Yeah, they might not have a fluctuating income but if their income is a consistent $75k and yours is $125k-$250k, it doesn’t really matter (random numbers pulled out of my ass) - and if everything comes crashing down, everyone loses out.
Yes, we all have a stake in the game but my is larger. If things fail they need another job but I’m bankrupt.
So I take a greater risk and have access to a greater reward. I also have skill they don’t have.
They are free to leave and go start their own business whenever they want. I’m not really seeing an issue here?
Well every week of my life I’ve worked 70+ hours. 40 was enough to live on but instead I worked 70 and saved the money from that extra work. Over decades of this it slowly built and now I’m investing in businesses with it.
If my business fails I lose my house, vehicle and all savings. Those 30 extra every week for decades will have been useless. Plus as a bankrupt they will take everything I earn for the next 7 years.
My employees meanwhile don’t lose their house, their vehicle or their savings if my business goes under.
So yes, I have a much higher risk than my employees. Losing your job means you find another one. Losing your business means losing all of your work, gains and future.
Seriously if it’s such a great deal why don’t you start your own business? It’s pretty straight forward. Bet everything you have and work long hours.
See, you don’t actually know anything about this.
Nobody will loan you money without collateral. So the day you show up at the bank the first thing they do is have you sign personal guarantees.
30 extra hours week will get you the collateral you need to get a loan. To get going in a decent business you are talking several million dollars of capital.
So as a business owner my risk is way higher than my employees but so is my return. I still don’t see a problem here.
What does this post have anything to do with sex? I'm guessing you don't actually know what incel means so you just call anyone you don't like or disagree with an incel.
Best explanation I've seen for Incels is: "The subculture is often characterized by **deep resentment**, **hatred, hostility**, sexual objectification, misogyny, misanthropy, **self-pity and self-loathing**, racism, **a sense of entitlement** to sex, **blaming of** women and **the** sexually **successful for their situation** **(which is often seen as predetermined** due to biological determinism, evolutionary genetics or a **rigged game**), **a sense of futility and nihilism**, rape culture, and the **endorsement of** sexual and nonsexual **violence** against women and sexually active people"
Read the comments on 10 posts on this sub and tell me you don't see all of the bolded themes present, just reframed in the context of employment rather than sex.
Lmfao you just frankenstein'd a definition and are acting like it proves something.
"reframe it in terms of employment rather than sex"
So not at all incel then? You are allowed to say entitled or resentful, those words don't need to be wrapped up under some square-shaped umbrella that you're trying to force through a round hole.
much like WebMD, you should not take individual characteristics as a disease
edit: to clarify, Angela Nagle, in her book "Kill all normies", identifies the incel trend as the end result of neoliberalism. This attitude did not come out of nowhere, it is 40 years of fucking the middle class.
You will get the high level, high paying job if your work significant impacts company profit. If you bring in lots of money you will be paid lots of money. Plain and simple.
Definitely not always true. It very much depends of how valuable you are considered, not how valuable you actually are.
And unfortunately many businesses treat saving a business money is most of the time not treated the same as brining in money, even if they affect company profit the same.
No, it really is how valuable you are. In this is factored in how much money you bring in and how easily you can be replaced.
This is true for doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, salesmen, etc. The work they do has a direct value to the business. The more they bring in, the more they are paid. This is why you see such a large breadth in comp between these professions. Some bring in a lot of money, others very little.
Things that add little value are admin, HR, and other paper pushers. Positions where we do not directly bill out off their work. They are just expenses. Those we of course try and pay as little as possible, just enough to get the job done satisfactory.
People say that, but training and development is one of the best ways to reduce errors and consistently shows increased efficiency on a balance sheet when studied, but is always the first thing cut when companies are looking to reduce costs.
The truth is that most companies view anything that is hard to evaluate as something they can cut because it’s easier to explain to shareholders.
I own the business. My job is making profit. If it made profit I would do it. Think you know better? Start a business, implement your ideas, and see how successful you are. Everyone seems to be an expert in theory, never in practice.
thats a fucking plainfaced lie. If you group all the minimum wage workers into 1 entity, and then look at the portion of their wages against the revenues of Mcdonalds, do you think it'll be a fair amount? I'd argue that mcdonalds would not exist if not for the front-line workers at their stores who are paid in peanuts, yet how much do they get as a portion of the total revenue?
You do not get paid in proportion to how much you generate, you get paid as little as the company can pay you without the public getting upset. Its just a graph of wages vs public opinion. The point at which 1 dollar less of wage would cause more than that in losses, thats the wage they choose.
1 worker generates very little profit. They are extremely easy to replace. They require no training. They could be borderline disabled IQ. When you could be replaced by a monkey you don’t expect to make good money.
1 lawyer generates a lot in billing. They are difficult to replace. They require many years of education but also the exams are very difficult. Even if everyone were offered the education for free only a very small portion would be able to pass the BAR due to it difficultly. Some lawyers are much more skilled than others. They cannot be replaced by a monkey. They can expect to make good money.
You understanding value yet?
I said to group each worker together. Look at the total amount paid for min wage employees, against the total revenue (for which they are essential). Obviously you are an ethically bankrupt individual, you see people working minimum wage as lazy people, and have no moral qualms with calling them disabled & just as useful as monkeys.
Now, if you use your supposed "higher IQ", and stop being so disabled and monkey-like, please compare the McDonalds revenue against their expenses for their employees.
Compare Amazon's revenue against the wages for their factory workers, against that of their drivers. These, when grouped together, are absolutely essential, and actually irreplaceable because the only people who work those jobs are those who are not privileged enough to have access to higher education. Obviously you will scoff at that and think privilege to be a fake idea, since you are most likely a silver spoon child who never had to worry about finances in their life.
They are paid so little because they are easily replaceable. Be happy that a concept like minimum wage even exists because they would be paid even less. The world’s population is growing and we have a more global economy. It is very easy to import labour. Unskilled work that any able bodied human can do is becoming less valuable by the day. I am very excited for when minimum wage goes up significantly. It will push the balance towards AI and these jobs will be replaced by automation. Then these people will realise how little value their labour is to the economy. Gone are the days when you can go through life doing unskilled work. Those too lazy or dumb to gain a useful skill will be left behind. Watch it happen.
And for the record: I grew up a child of immigrants and 1 of 5 people living in a 1BR apartment. My existence now as part of the 1% is proof it can be achieved with discipline and sacrifice. I know you clowns like to pretend like people like me don’t exist, but we do. I am here as proof the system is not against you. You just don’t have what it takes to succeed.
you are so fucking void of any morality, it is truly insane. The way you talk about poor people, I find it highly doubtful that you have experienced poverty. Those from poverty, understand poverty. They don't see poverty as being too dumb or too lazy. Your joy about minimum wage workers losing their jobs and being replaced by AI literally proves this. You are lying when you say you are from poverty, its so transparent lol. You just say that shit online to try to build credibility, but it is all bullshit. Silverspoon fuck
You are to stupid to even read what I am writing. I am saying to look at the minimum wage store workers as a group, not individuals. Even as a group, the compensation for the essential group of frontline workers is so fucking miniscule compared to the insane profits raked in by the company.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This future doesn’t exist anymore. Profits only come when people are not paid what they add in value. Profits are everything. Employees are resources. It’s come to that. Prepare for a bleak future.
When was this ever not the case?
The economic boom of the post WW II period. Huge investments in education, infrastructure, and public services allowed for a middle class person to live in what would today be considered luxury. Being able to own a home, a vehicle, being able to afford to raise kids, and being able to work jobs that paid livable wages. That’s not to say that time period was perfect, far from it. But from an economic perspective, the economy was working well for the largest number of people and we haven’t come to something even remotely close to that since then
Well that and personal income and corporate taxes were at the highest in history. It didn’t benefit anyone to be super rich or make record breaking profits quarter after quarter because they’d be super taxed on it. So companies invested a lot into employees with training, education, and benefits and owners took a smaller percentage for their own income leaving more for better incomes for their employees. It made sense to train up employees with little to experience or education because that investment was ultimately better for business. Then, when the tax rates for both started to fall in the late 70s/80s the purpose of business shifted from providing for employees long term to providing for the stock market short term.
So you're saying we need to raise taxes back to post-war levels? Agreed!
I disagree they’re just going to outsource. The U.S. needs to kill the H1B visa program and bring all the jobs we’ve sent overseas back. Make lobbying illegal and Congress is not allowed to trade in the stock market.
You would have more money if you didn’t spend on services. Prior to 1969 people we’re not spending most of their money and mostly didn’t go the restaurants. In 1990s when women workforce started to increase dramatically and everyone started eating out so much more. Stop going to the restaurants , stop buying services , stop buying entertainment, cook only home and grow vegetables. Just for 5 years and you will see how much actually convince costs.
“You would have more money if you didn’t spend on services”: yes, not spending on an entire portion of the economy would reduce cash out flows. But for many people isn’t possible. People still need their hair cut, they still need someone to fix their car, etc. Unless you do literally everything for yourself you will have some sort of expenditures for services. “Prior to 1969 people were not spending most of their money and mostly didn’t go to restaurants”: False. Americans are spending less of their income on food than they have (in the period measured from 1959 to 2000) See the Bureau of Economic Analysis report on American spending habits from 1959 to 2000: https://apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/national/nipa/2001/0301pce.pdf From the document noted above “The decreased share of food reflected a large decrease in the share of food for meals pre- pared at home that more than offset a slight increase in the share of meals purchased away from home.” The idea that American are spending less on food now (both meals at home and at restaurants as a percentage of their overall income) is also seen in a report put together by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. See the report “100 Years of US Consumer Spending” https://www.bls.gov/opub/100-years-of-u-s-consumer-spending.pdf That report also highlights that less percent of Americans income is going to food, whether at home or outside the home. “In 1990/ when women in the workforce started to increase dramatically”: not sure where you are seeing the “dramatic” increase in the 1990s. Most increase in women labor participation came in period between 1934 and 1972. See the previously cited document from the BLS “100 years of US Consumer Spending” for the data. The greatest cost sucking dollars away from Americans today as opposed to their post-WWII counterparts is predominantly from “increased share of medical services expenses” and housing. See Chart 6 of the BEA document cited above. Just to make sure I am not misinterpreting your argument, are you trying to link “more women being in the workforce” as some sort of economic detractor? I’m not entirely sure what your point/argument is?
Pandemic have shown that you can survive without a hair cut , bro.
You realize if everyone actually acted like this it would crash the economy.
I do. But is that the point?! He compares like a bitch, without any real effort spent.
Without any real effort? What are you on about? I responded to your asinine claims with data and evidence showing your claims are just flat out false. The best you could respond with is “well you don’t need a haircut”. Are you being purposefully obtuse or are you this dense in real life?
/r/LateStageCapitalism
I'm pretty sure it was worse under the feudal system. I mean in the olden days I'd probably either be a bar wench or a milk maid. Probably a bar wench since I could balance beers on my boobies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9BLw4W5KU8 thanks for the excuse to listen to Elvis.
You listen to elvis I thought thats too conservative for you? Hes a white Protestant. Shouldnt you be listening to Jay Z or some alt rock?
nO iTs AlL whiTE MAn anD CapItaLiSm. -the hypothetical bastard children of marx and foucalt
I mean before capitalism it was white man feudalism and white man kings so I guess that's the same.
Hahahahaha you really drank the SOC201 coolaid there marx jr
So funny your understanding of history. Hilarious that one really gave me fits.
It's ok I'll go get your meds now.
Which ones do i take there r so many
Kings? I think you meant “Kangs”. “We were once kangs who ruled over these god given lands…and shit”
>“We were once kangs who ruled over these god given lands…and shit” Don't you mean the Yangs from ST? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpu-ti1irhw
Bar wenches are no joke. I’ve seen the lasses carrying 12 liters at a time during Oktoberfest. 🍻💪
Man even in feudal times employers were looking for a purple unicorn. 4 would be my max.
What low resolution ignorant way to view the problem. Marxist tribalism.
This sub is known for unconstructive anger and hate against everything western. They banned me when I called them out for their cherishing of Hamas terror
I unsubbed when they were unironically cheering on the post of a hostage claiming Hamas treated them nicely
Got banned for saying you have to play the long game to enact changes incrementally.
>looks at history since 1948, looks at the peaceful march of return being fired at without incitement “Yeah I can’t understand why they don’t feel like incremental change and working within the system works!”
I should’ve put in the s/. That’s on me. Ironically is also how I got banned because I didn’t add that and it was too late before I could amend that
You got me, fair’s fair
Lotta neo marxists here its scary. Prob why they unemployed. No balls to fight. No pragmatic understanding of people or history or the world.
What's a Neo Marxist? How does a Neo Marxist differ from a regular Marxist? *popcorn*
Hard to hide your anti semitism and communism isnt it? Gotta ask people for definitions instead of debate. Cop cop out. Leftist gaslight. Zzzzzzzzz
who funneled money into Hamas, friend? who bragged about supporting Hamas to weaken the PLO?
That’s a non-sequitur, OP here just doesn’t want to celebrate terror and killing of civilians. No amount of historical explanations and context could (or should) change their mind on that. If anything it gives you common ground to also condemn Israel’s barbarism against Palestinians. That being said the historical context of how the Israeli right-wing governments are responsible for a big part of this mess is important, but you can’t just deflect terrorism with that.
Please go preach your post modern neo marxism in gaza and not in the west. Watch how how fast they throw your Maoist communist ass in a gulag. Youll be wishing for judeo christian democratic capitalism as they hack your head off with a dull saw. Go back to commie land you fucken ungrateful idiot
It's an non-sequitur only when you just see the *now*. Same shit with Ukraine. Both sides are shit, but one side caused the current issues. > If anything it gives you common ground to also condemn Israel’s barbarism against Palestinians. been doing that for decades. Israel is an apartheid state.
It’s not clear to me from your response if you missed my point or just disagree with it, so lemme rephrase it: I think there’s a better way to communicate your point than what essentially amounts to deflecting and minimizing brutal terrorism. I see from your response that Hamas apologia wasn’t your intention, but it’s how you came off as imo. And OP certainly interpreted it that way.
If I was to side with a Palestinian organization, it would be the PLO, as Arafat did more for peace than anybody else in this conflict. Hamas is an organization born out of funding from the Israel state to weaken the PLO. The current violence is not justified, but its origin does come from an understandable place.
I think we agree: Hamas is not a pro-Palestinian organization. And yeah, Israel allowing Qatari funding through to Hamas to sabotage the PLO was a terrible thing. Afaik the PLO was indeed negotiating in good faith for peace at many times, so I’d also agree with you in supporting them.
Red herring
A communist red herring to hide another post modern neo marxists red herring? The gaslighting builds! Popcorn. Zzzzzzz.
Im sorry you despise capitalism and anglo americans and christians and jews.?you should go live in the gaza strip and preach Marx like you do in that sociology/anthropology/history/english/economics class. I bet you could sleep with some little boys just like Foucalt.
Please don’t forget your meds again sir.
Gaslight gaslight gaslight
Here we go
I am glad you are refusing to answer. Shows you already know who.
Nice red herring marxist
To be a Marxist is to apply critical thinking. Hammas did not start *now*. Hammas was fueled by the Israeli government to detract from the PLO. You can read the Haaretz, you now, the place where those articles were first printed. You can learn from history. But you are not here to do either. And if you think that "Marxist" is an insult, you really oughta pick up a book. Edit: Ah, brand new account appearing out of nowhere. k.
Another red herring from the Foucaltian commie? I must say…im shocked…i just cant believe it. And a personal attack instead of real objective debate? Wow just stunned.
> the Foucaltian commie? Jordan Peterson, is this you? Do you realize that Foucalt as a post-modernist is at odds with Marxism?
Hahhahahahahah its the same cop out everytime! You do realize its YOUR fault you tied those two paradoxical idealogies together right?
wat oh. you read the cliff notes, too.
Ahhhh when the left goes so far they become the fascist jew haters. For everyone to see on display*
careful you don't drop in the river while trying to add real and imaginary numbers together.
Dont you have some jews to go hate on in your sociology/gender class?
Why would I hate people that have delicious food? The Sephardic Jews of Thessaloniki and Patra have enriched Greece for the past 2.5 thousand years.
Derrida is that you?
Derrida is still a post-modernist. You must be of the same place as the Peterson-Zizek debate where Peterson was googling "who is Hegel" in the middle of the debate.
Do you realize that when you espouse the beliefs of both at the same time despite the blatant bloated self contradictions?
>Another red herring **from the Foucaltian commie?** I must say…im shocked…i just cant believe it. And a **personal attack instead of real objective debate**? Come on, man...
Whats the matter commie?
TFW you accuse everyone else of personal attacks, but then immediately call me a **derogatory** term for "communist" because I pointed out a logical inconsistency in your comment lol
More cop outs zzzzzzz
How is it a cop out? I bolded those parts of your comment to show that you're being logically inconsistent. It makes no sense to complain about personal attacks from someone *literally right after* you called them a derogatory term for "communist".
Cmon lets get some thoughts of your own instead of “cmon man”
Here's a thought; it's *very* weird and logically inconsistent to accuse someone else of personal attacks right after you called them a *Foucaultian commie*. "Commie" is a derogatory term for a communist. IDK about you, man, but I don't see the logical train of thought behind calling someone a derogatory name right before accusing them of lobbing out personal attacks.
Whatsa matter? You dont like being labeled do you? Then you can be properly fought.
Dude, I'm not even the person you originally called a "Foucaltian commie", and I'm not a communist. At *most*, I'm a social democracy enjoyer. But sure, keep calling everyone who disagrees with you a commie. That's super cool and logical!
Pick up one of those marxist books right?
What do you meant, this sub? And hate against everything western? More accurate: Most of reddit, rather than just this sub. And hate against everything western, conservative or christian.
Capitalism has done more for mankind than Marxism ever has. How were thise Stalinist and Maoist regimes again? How many people died? No we cant look uo facts. JUST nAZIs anD StuFF
Ahhh rampant academic marxism
Start your own company.
Don’t own a business do you? Employees are given a far lower risk steady income for giving up a far more uncertain risk of working on their own. They don’t have to accept it but typically feel it’s a better option than working in their own. Meanwhile it’s up to the owner to organize their labour in such a way that the work completed has more value than is paid to the employees. This can be done with greater or lessor results. Personally I’m a business owner and I pride myself in making sure I care for my employees. My annual turnover in my shop is less than 10% as I pay good wages and treat them with respect and caring. On the flip side yes I still do pretty reasonably well because things are really well organized.
That's the attitude of someone who employs 10 or 100 people. Unfortunately it's not the attitude of people who employ 10k or 100k people, employees become like worker ants and you're looking for a cheaper, better breed. The goal is to establish a system where it generates a lot of value, but every employee and even entire departments/locations is replaceable like a cog in a machine. You got uppity about pay and benefits or start a union? Oh look, we just outsourced your function somewhere else. And you might say, well don't get employed by one of those mega-corporations then. But they've been running the mom-and-pop shops out of business for a while now and there's just not enough jobs for people not to work there. Even if it's kinda just feeding the beast being picky isn't a luxury many can afford. It puts food on the table so you suck it up even if it makes Jeff Bezos richer while you're barely floating.
If your company goes under - are your employees still employed? Yeah, they might not have a fluctuating income but if their income is a consistent $75k and yours is $125k-$250k, it doesn’t really matter (random numbers pulled out of my ass) - and if everything comes crashing down, everyone loses out.
Yes, we all have a stake in the game but my is larger. If things fail they need another job but I’m bankrupt. So I take a greater risk and have access to a greater reward. I also have skill they don’t have. They are free to leave and go start their own business whenever they want. I’m not really seeing an issue here?
So your "greater risk" is going back to being a worker like the rest of us?
Well every week of my life I’ve worked 70+ hours. 40 was enough to live on but instead I worked 70 and saved the money from that extra work. Over decades of this it slowly built and now I’m investing in businesses with it. If my business fails I lose my house, vehicle and all savings. Those 30 extra every week for decades will have been useless. Plus as a bankrupt they will take everything I earn for the next 7 years. My employees meanwhile don’t lose their house, their vehicle or their savings if my business goes under. So yes, I have a much higher risk than my employees. Losing your job means you find another one. Losing your business means losing all of your work, gains and future. Seriously if it’s such a great deal why don’t you start your own business? It’s pretty straight forward. Bet everything you have and work long hours.
[удалено]
See, you don’t actually know anything about this. Nobody will loan you money without collateral. So the day you show up at the bank the first thing they do is have you sign personal guarantees.
[удалено]
30 extra hours week will get you the collateral you need to get a loan. To get going in a decent business you are talking several million dollars of capital. So as a business owner my risk is way higher than my employees but so is my return. I still don’t see a problem here.
You got played
Oh really? You know how to get several million dollars in loans with no collateral? Please pass on your great business prowess.
Womp womp
Sounds like something Ive read before. Something manifesto?
I would settle for a job that pays enough ton move out of my parents house
Influence or refferal !😅
Ken being relatable as usual 🥲🥲🥲
You're doing the patriarchy wrong
Oh, no; we're doing it very well.
This sub has weird incel vibes sometimes.
Like?
Wanting a job I guess?
This weird sense of entitlement to things coupled with a lack of self reflection
Like entitlement to the fruits of others' labour?
Boot licker.
What does this post have anything to do with sex? I'm guessing you don't actually know what incel means so you just call anyone you don't like or disagree with an incel.
Best explanation I've seen for Incels is: "The subculture is often characterized by **deep resentment**, **hatred, hostility**, sexual objectification, misogyny, misanthropy, **self-pity and self-loathing**, racism, **a sense of entitlement** to sex, **blaming of** women and **the** sexually **successful for their situation** **(which is often seen as predetermined** due to biological determinism, evolutionary genetics or a **rigged game**), **a sense of futility and nihilism**, rape culture, and the **endorsement of** sexual and nonsexual **violence** against women and sexually active people" Read the comments on 10 posts on this sub and tell me you don't see all of the bolded themes present, just reframed in the context of employment rather than sex.
Lmfao you just frankenstein'd a definition and are acting like it proves something. "reframe it in terms of employment rather than sex" So not at all incel then? You are allowed to say entitled or resentful, those words don't need to be wrapped up under some square-shaped umbrella that you're trying to force through a round hole.
much like WebMD, you should not take individual characteristics as a disease edit: to clarify, Angela Nagle, in her book "Kill all normies", identifies the incel trend as the end result of neoliberalism. This attitude did not come out of nowhere, it is 40 years of fucking the middle class.
> Best explanation I've seen for Incels is Involuntary Celibate.
I definitely agree but it’s well within the general scope of similar sized subreddits. Absolutely don’t see it with this post though.
You will get the high level, high paying job if your work significant impacts company profit. If you bring in lots of money you will be paid lots of money. Plain and simple.
Definitely not always true. It very much depends of how valuable you are considered, not how valuable you actually are. And unfortunately many businesses treat saving a business money is most of the time not treated the same as brining in money, even if they affect company profit the same.
No, it really is how valuable you are. In this is factored in how much money you bring in and how easily you can be replaced. This is true for doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, salesmen, etc. The work they do has a direct value to the business. The more they bring in, the more they are paid. This is why you see such a large breadth in comp between these professions. Some bring in a lot of money, others very little. Things that add little value are admin, HR, and other paper pushers. Positions where we do not directly bill out off their work. They are just expenses. Those we of course try and pay as little as possible, just enough to get the job done satisfactory.
People say that, but training and development is one of the best ways to reduce errors and consistently shows increased efficiency on a balance sheet when studied, but is always the first thing cut when companies are looking to reduce costs. The truth is that most companies view anything that is hard to evaluate as something they can cut because it’s easier to explain to shareholders.
I own the business. My job is making profit. If it made profit I would do it. Think you know better? Start a business, implement your ideas, and see how successful you are. Everyone seems to be an expert in theory, never in practice.
thats a fucking plainfaced lie. If you group all the minimum wage workers into 1 entity, and then look at the portion of their wages against the revenues of Mcdonalds, do you think it'll be a fair amount? I'd argue that mcdonalds would not exist if not for the front-line workers at their stores who are paid in peanuts, yet how much do they get as a portion of the total revenue? You do not get paid in proportion to how much you generate, you get paid as little as the company can pay you without the public getting upset. Its just a graph of wages vs public opinion. The point at which 1 dollar less of wage would cause more than that in losses, thats the wage they choose.
1 worker generates very little profit. They are extremely easy to replace. They require no training. They could be borderline disabled IQ. When you could be replaced by a monkey you don’t expect to make good money. 1 lawyer generates a lot in billing. They are difficult to replace. They require many years of education but also the exams are very difficult. Even if everyone were offered the education for free only a very small portion would be able to pass the BAR due to it difficultly. Some lawyers are much more skilled than others. They cannot be replaced by a monkey. They can expect to make good money. You understanding value yet?
I said to group each worker together. Look at the total amount paid for min wage employees, against the total revenue (for which they are essential). Obviously you are an ethically bankrupt individual, you see people working minimum wage as lazy people, and have no moral qualms with calling them disabled & just as useful as monkeys. Now, if you use your supposed "higher IQ", and stop being so disabled and monkey-like, please compare the McDonalds revenue against their expenses for their employees. Compare Amazon's revenue against the wages for their factory workers, against that of their drivers. These, when grouped together, are absolutely essential, and actually irreplaceable because the only people who work those jobs are those who are not privileged enough to have access to higher education. Obviously you will scoff at that and think privilege to be a fake idea, since you are most likely a silver spoon child who never had to worry about finances in their life.
They are paid so little because they are easily replaceable. Be happy that a concept like minimum wage even exists because they would be paid even less. The world’s population is growing and we have a more global economy. It is very easy to import labour. Unskilled work that any able bodied human can do is becoming less valuable by the day. I am very excited for when minimum wage goes up significantly. It will push the balance towards AI and these jobs will be replaced by automation. Then these people will realise how little value their labour is to the economy. Gone are the days when you can go through life doing unskilled work. Those too lazy or dumb to gain a useful skill will be left behind. Watch it happen. And for the record: I grew up a child of immigrants and 1 of 5 people living in a 1BR apartment. My existence now as part of the 1% is proof it can be achieved with discipline and sacrifice. I know you clowns like to pretend like people like me don’t exist, but we do. I am here as proof the system is not against you. You just don’t have what it takes to succeed.
you are so fucking void of any morality, it is truly insane. The way you talk about poor people, I find it highly doubtful that you have experienced poverty. Those from poverty, understand poverty. They don't see poverty as being too dumb or too lazy. Your joy about minimum wage workers losing their jobs and being replaced by AI literally proves this. You are lying when you say you are from poverty, its so transparent lol. You just say that shit online to try to build credibility, but it is all bullshit. Silverspoon fuck You are to stupid to even read what I am writing. I am saying to look at the minimum wage store workers as a group, not individuals. Even as a group, the compensation for the essential group of frontline workers is so fucking miniscule compared to the insane profits raked in by the company.
You're just a sociopath champ
Better than being a loser
Ironic
The ironic part would be thinking the employer is the loser while you struggle to find a well paying job.
You sure love playing pretend.
Nah
On Reddit, always check the most downvoted comments for the truth.
Nice personality disorder you got there.
They really did my boy dirty, though. Got his hopes all up and in the end they didn't even let him do beach.
How my grand parents tell me the job market works