Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[LeVeL]

I'm not sure how and why this became politicized. Lev, have you considered that maybe it is also not worth it for that particular gym owner to keep it open 24 hours? Sure it sucks for you, but if his market research has shown that in your neighborhood there is little interest in people to work out at, say 3am, it wouldn't make sense for him to hire employees and keep everything open for maybe 4-5 people who want to workout at that time.

So yes, you are right and I agree with you that this particular government rule about businesses opening at 5am is unnecessary. But for your particular example, do you know for a fact that the gym owner would like to keep it open 24 hours a day, and that it would be profitable for them?

My example is with tacos. I sure would love a place with good tacos at 4am. Government forbids them to work that early - true. But I'm not sure the taco truck owner would even like to work at 4am considering I may be one of the very few customers he gets at that time of night.

Every other location is open 24/7, even in smaller towns, so I doubt that this one would still be closed overnight if it wasn't for town policy. That's irrelevant anyways though because this town policy shouldn't exist.

 

[GRtak]

I would also like to know why people that feel the need to be up at 5am think that everyone else needs to be up too?

 

[TC]

I would like to know why people feel the need to make those decisions for others.

 

[GRtak]

What decisions?

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I would also like to know why people that feel the need to be up at 5am think that everyone else needs to be up too?

I actually get Lev's point. The regulation itself is stupid and unnecessary. I don't understand why bars close at 2am. Or that in certain states I can't buy alcohol on Sundays. These decisions should be left to individual business owners to decide. The gym owner can still say "Fuck you, I'm not keeping my gym open just because you want to work out." Or a religious liquor store owner can decide not to keep their store open on Sundays. But it shouldn't be because of some old-fashioned law. Nothing to do with being liberal or conservative in this case.

 

[LeVeL]

I actually get Lev's point. The regulation itself is stupid and unnecessary. I don't understand why bars close at 2am. Or that in certain states I can't buy alcohol on Sundays. These decisions should be left to individual business owners to decide. The gym owner can still say "Fuck you, I'm not keeping my gym open just because you want to work out." Or a religious liquor store owner can decide not to keep their store open on Sundays. But it shouldn't be because of some old-fashioned law. Nothing to do with being liberal or conservative in this case.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic moment. HV and I actually agree on something :lol:

At 4:55am there's a line outside my gym. I'm sure at least some of those people (myself included) would love to be able to come in earlier. As HV said, if the owner decided not to open up till a certain time, so be it - he weighed the pros and cons and made a decision. But why does the town need to make this decision for him?

 

[prizrak]

I'm not sure how and why this became politicized.

Because no matter what the gym owner wants, he legally could *not* be open 24 hours, that's what makes it political. If there were no law in place and the gym was still not 24 hours there would be no conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

What decisions?

In this case opening a business at a specific time.

 

[SirEdward]

There are three 8-hour shifts in a day. Currently one is not being worked - the night shift. Hiring someone for that shift does not displace the employees that work the other two shifts.

You still live in a fairy-tale world, my friend. I see another reality around me.
Try being creative, my friend. You employ someone, then to avoid peying him more, you have everyone shift hours to keep all at the same wage. Everyone works at night, but not all night, so no raise in wage, because hey...

Or, you can stretch the turns of other people -a bit-, like one-two hours each, and cover the night turn (which normally require less people).

Or, you might do like they did here. They started opening the supermarkets at sundays, and just used the same employees they had before, but shifting them to cover Sundays too.

They didn't sign up for that job, but since unemployment is high...

what negotiation power do they have, especially now that labor union killed themselves with bad politics and they are painted like the devil by the employers?

Your point of view is not stupid, but it's wishful thinking to think that everyrhing will work out as if the world was always the idealized world of your imagination.

Maybe John does offer a higher wage for the night shift. If the night shift is truly less desirable, John will have a tough time hiring someone and will have to offer a higher wage. However, if someone is willing to work for the same wage as the day workers, then great - they get a job and everyone is happy.

When you -have- to work, you adapt. But adaptation to adaptation, without ever fighting off injustice, you get enslaved.

And why would John offer higher wages, if someone will take the job anyway? Being out to make money means being mean, if the occasion arise. Technically, good employers are not the best employers. This is another sign that the system is not built on good premises. Working premises, yes; good premises, no.

No, he doesn't. He knows the requirements going in so he can't complain when he has to, you know, meet those requirements.

Hey, you know what you got, now don't complain! That's cynical and mean, as widespread as it may be.

It's easy to unload upon other people the weight of the thing, and keeping the surplus money.

If he doesn't want to work nights, then he shouldn't have taken a night shift job, plain and simple.

If the kid wouldn't want to work in a sweatshop, he shouldn't have taken the job in a sweatshop. That's exactly the same thing, just taken to its full consequences.

That reasoning you offer is flawed. Necessity exist for everyone; that doesn't mean you can't complain or fight for better conditions.

[quote[
What? :lol: Sucks for Paul then, he should look for a day job.[/quote]

Yes. Do they exist, or every job requires night shifts, in a world where everything wants to be operative 24/7 and few people want to do only night shifts?

What's your point? I also have bills to pay so I work for less money than I'd like.

And that's sucks. And you are telling me to let me know that you don't like that. -That- is my point; there are many things people do because they can't do otherwise.

Exactly! Look, if John offered $0.50/hr he would get zero applicants. If he offered $50/hr he would get thousands of applicants. Somewhere in-between is a wage that is acceptable to both the employer and the employee and it's up to them to agree on what the job is "worth" (keeping in mind wage laws).

That mechanism is flawed at its core, because it depends on necessity and because the two parties rarely have comparable power during the negotiation.

It is so flawed that we all need minimum wages to avoid having people forced to work for nothing or almost nothing; enslaved, if you prefer the correct term.

Again, why is this such a bad thing and what should be done about it? Some people are born into royalty and are millionaires at birth, while others grow up in poverty, yes.

And that's unfair. This fact doesn't simply disappear because you deem it unmodifiable to give peace of mind to your vision of the world.

What!?!??! Just because I want to hit the gym at a certain hour, I "lack empathy" and "think of myself"?

I'm speaking of people not seeing that in order to have gyms open at night, someone have to open them, while they might prefer sleeping. Do you count yourself in that list? If yes, then the answer to your question is also yes.

To be clearer, I kept the discussion impersonal; don't bring it to personal ground, it's not necessary, and it only brings unnecessary proud rage in the discussion.

Look man, I've worked shitty jobs before - for a while I was working noon to 9pm on Sundays, closing up shop, which cut my weekend in half - and my girlfriend has to work all three shifts, depending on the week, including night shifts. In both cases, that's what we signed up for and accepted. So yeah, been there, done that - didn't complain, still don't, and fully expect others to do their jobs.

You are telling me like it was tough and how good and resilient you were. You -are- complaining.

I think good of you because of this, but it was still shitty, so it's right to say it, and it's right to try and make everything better for everyone. You could have done something about it before, but you didn't, probably because you needed the money. I understand it perfeclty, but it clearly is something that is not working well and should be improved. You yourself tell us that it was bad.

He should look for a day job. If he can't find one, he should decide what's better for his kids - food or seeing dad whenever it's convenient for his highness. Hell, when I was little my dad ran a company and would stay at the office late most days, often not getting home until I was already asleep.

And that was bad, as you are telling me.

But if it was bad, why do you refuse to say that it was bad? The best you do is to tell us how strong and good you and your family were, by telling us your difficulties. YES! You are confirming me that those situations are bad.

Why then would we like to impose them on others, just for the sole beneift of us exercising at night?

I agree with you that a law is not the best way to set things like these, but if it's not a law, we should build a system which naturally eliminates the bad deals, so that a law isn't necessary. Those who would want to work at night will then be able to do that without any law interfering.

That's the brilliance of the free market - it doesn't force anyone to do anything.

Sorry, that's a fairy tale.

There are worse systems, yes.

 

[SirEdward]

Working weekends sucked but I no longer do it because I transferred to a department where I don't have to.

ding. My point.

BS freedom is having the ability to work not the ability to work a "good" job.

Actually, your freedom is just the first part of it. Why stop there?

Jobs need to be done, people need jobs, some jobs suck more than others. It's not far fetched to work at a crappy job and bide your time till something better comes along or you are noticed and transferred internally.

No, it isn't. It is when your future perspectives are bad, for whatever reason.

Benefits were, bit more money, a better company, better (more diverse) experience with technologies I work with, and not having to use Windows for any reason. I could have gotten a job at a different company but I hated my job and since I had no kids at the time while it was sucky it was worth the experience I gained. I also worked my ass off to become the go-to person for just about anything related with our product and was picked up by the L3/DevOps when one of theirs was leaving and mentioned to his boss that I might be interested.

That's a good way. A good balance between -bad things- and -benefits-

If you have a law that literally prevents people from working nights how would night owls work nights? Last I checked all 50 states and however many territories of the US were at-will employment, you can't be forced to work period.

As I said to Lev, the law is not the best thing. But if saves more day-larks than kills night-owls, it's worth it.

The need argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever because the only system under which people take only the jobs they want is Communism and we know how well that works.

You only see two systems. Deregulative free market and soviet communism; this is why you think my argumnet don't hold any water.

P.S. Fuck you for saying I lack empathy, I try to do my best to NOT go to the 24 hour stores after about 10pm (normal closing time for stores around here) unless I absolutely have to. But guess what? When my daughter was sick and I needed meds for her yeah I went to the 24 hour store at 2am. When I used to be heavy in the car scene we would go eat at odd hours of the night to the 24 hour diners around here and guess what my tip was never less than about 40% because I *do* feel bad for overnight employees but sure am thankful that where I live it's not uncommon, I'm sure they also appreciate being able to put food on the table.

Why are you angry with me? If you have special needs, it's good to know that you can find what you are looking for; if you can do that, it's good to know that it's because there are people who prefere to take the night job, because of their personal balance.

But you knew and you were grateful.

Also, if you avoid doing things after 10 pm, why do you thing I was referring to you?

P.P.S. Have you considered that night shifts increase total amount of jobs available? Like Lev said you can't really just move employees around you have to have certain coverage at certain times, that means any night job creates at least one more (many times it's actually two) opportunity for someone to feed their kids.

They do less than you think. the amount of customers is marginally higher on a 14/7 basis than it would on a normal basis. For many companies it's more a form of advertisement than anything else. Also, it's better to pay someone to sell your things than someone to guard your things. One job, better use of the resources.

Anyway, and maybe I'll be third time lucky, I don't think that night openings are bad in general; but they should be a real share of business born out of true demand and offer, not some sort of drugged extra-time for lazy people; night openings has cost on both the individuals and the society. I hope for a healthy system that can make good use of the time (working and not working) in a freer way, rather than see people forced to work strangely hours and destroying the social tissue so that a clothing company could sell at 2 a.m. (for example)

 

[prizrak]

SirEdward,

Dude what you are saying makes no sense, no one not Lev not myself, not even HV are claiming that capitalism is the absolute perfect system. What we are saying that it is the *best* system that humans can come up with. Are there going to be people working shit jobs because they have no choice (for any reason) of course. So this type of law tries to "protect" those people by eliminating even those shit jobs that they would otherwise be able to take.

Bottom line is that there is certain regulation in place to protect workers, minimum wage laws, work duration limits, etc... This law doesn't protect anyone, it decreases possible pool of available jobs and potential tax revenue to the town (city?) itself.

 

[prizrak]

ding. My point.

Not really because shitty jobs is just part of life, we don't live in a utopia. You try to get out of a job you don't like, sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail.

Actually, your freedom is just the first part of it. Why stop there?

I mean specifically for work, I am guaranteed that I theoretically *can* get any job I want, as in no one is going to turn me away for being fat and balding Russian. But I am in no way guaranteed that whatever job I can get will be the perfect job that fosters my snowflake sensibilities.

No, it isn't. It is when your future perspectives are bad, for whatever reason.

I don't understand that point at all.

As I said to Lev, the law is not the best thing. But if saves more day-larks than kills night-owls, it's worth it.

It's not on any level (hehe) worth it. You are making a classical socialist argument "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", individual freedom should always be above society otherwise you end up with either straight up socialism or the weird system in Japan where people don't want to date and off themselves because they feel like they have to contribute more to society. Somewhat related highest suicide rates in developed countries are in the ones with the higher emphasis on society vs individual.

You only see two systems. Deregulative free market and soviet communism; this is why you think my argumnet don't hold any water.

I absolutely do not, I believe that there is no way to have a society without regulations and there are regulations that are good, this one isn't.

Why are you angry with me? If you have special needs, it's good to know that you can find what you are looking for; if you can do that, it's good to know that it's because there are people who prefere to take the night job, because of their personal balance.

Special needs means something a little different around here... I'm angry because you are implying that all people who patronize businesses according to their schedule are essentially sociopaths (lack of empathy).

Also, if you avoid doing things after 10 pm, why do you thing I was referring to you?

See above.

They do less than you think. the amount of customers is marginally higher on a 14/7 basis than it would on a normal basis. For many companies it's more a form of advertisement than anything else. Also, it's better to pay someone to sell your things than someone to guard your things. One job, better use of the resources.

That's up to the business, though Kohls (department store), Babies/ToysRUs and Best Buy in my local plaza are not open 24/7 yet the near by RiteAid is.

Anyway, and maybe I'll be third time lucky, I don't think that night openings are bad in general; but they should be a real share of business born out of true demand and offer,

That's exactly what Lev and I are saying, but that law prevents it...

not some sort of drugged extra-time for lazy people;

You are again attributing to people who might have different schedules/responsibilities traits they may or may not have.

night openings has cost on both the individuals and the society. I hope for a healthy system that can make good use of the time (working and not working) in a freer way, rather than see people forced to work strangely hours and destroying the social tissue so that a clothing company could sell at 2 a.m. (for example)

That's completely irrelevant, people have different schedules and different responsibilities that might prevent them from going to places during the day. This is something that I never got, businesses that are open when people work. Like banks that are 9-5, how are you supposed to go to a bank when you are at work?

 

[LeVeL]

You still live in a fairy-tale world, my friend.

I live in a world where I've personally gone through everything we're discussing.

You employ someone, then to avoid peying him more, you have everyone shift hours to keep all at the same wage. Everyone works at night, but not all night, so no raise in wage, because hey...

Or, you can stretch the turns of other people -a bit-, like one-two hours each, and cover the night turn (which normally require less people).

It really doesn't work that way. You aren't going to force someone to "stretch" their shift by an additional 50%. Besides, those that would agree to do this, would get paid for their time.

Or, you might do like they did here. They started opening the supermarkets at sundays, and just used the same employees they had before, but shifting them to cover Sundays too.

They didn't sign up for that job, but since unemployment is high...

Unemployment is high... but you have a job - sounds like an advantageous position to be in.

what negotiation power do they have, especially now that labor union killed themselves with bad politics and they are painted like the devil by the employers?

Most people I know that constantly complain about work, aren't actually looking for anything. I don't feel one bit bad for them.

When you -have- to work, you adapt. But adaptation to adaptation, without ever fighting off injustice, you get enslaved.

Voluntarily seeking paid employment is slavery? Please explain.

And why would John offer higher wages, if someone will take the job anyway? Being out to make money means being mean, if the occasion arise. Technically, good employers are not the best employers. This is another sign that the system is not built on good premises. Working premises, yes; good premises, no.

I already explained to you why he might offer a higher wage. Besides, you said it yourself - working nights sucks so workers might want to be compensated extra. What kind of commie world do you live in if every business owner is a greedy evil bastard?

Hey, you know what you got, now don't complain! That's cynical and mean, as widespread as it may be.

Mean? Are you ten years old? Newsflash: the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

It's easy to unload upon other people the weight of the thing, and keeping the surplus money.

That is the most Marxist statement I've ever read on FG.

If the kid wouldn't want to work in a sweatshop, he shouldn't have taken the job in a sweatshop. That's exactly the same thing, just taken to its full consequences.

No, it's not the same thing. At all. Child labor is no bueno.

That reasoning you offer is flawed. Necessity exist for everyone; that doesn't mean you can't complain or fight for better conditions.

Complain and fight all you want. But at the end of the day, you're still the one that took the job and you can leave at any time.

And that's sucks. And you are telling me to let me know that you don't like that. -That- is my point; there are many things people do because they can't do otherwise.

If that wasn't the case, most people wouldn't work at all. Even Utopians aren't that silly.

That mechanism is flawed at its core, because it depends on necessity and because the two parties rarely have comparable power during the negotiation.

It is so flawed that we all need minimum wages to avoid having people forced to work for nothing or almost nothing; enslaved, if you prefer the correct term.

I don't think minimum wage laws were a thing back when Henry Ford was building the T. If you recall, he famously chose to pay his workers a high wage... I can pretty much guarantee you that no employer would offer $1/day wages if minimum wage laws were repealed. Unless, of course, you blindly subscribe to the evil capitalist pig theory.

And that's unfair. This fact doesn't simply disappear because you deem it unmodifiable to give peace of mind to your vision of the world.

Why is it unfair and why does anything have to be fair? Is it unfair that Michael Jordan is better at basketball than me so he can earn a ton by playing it and I can't?

I'm speaking of people not seeing that in order to have gyms open at night, someone have to open them, while they might prefer sleeping. Do you count yourself in that list? If yes, then the answer to your question is also yes.

It's called a JOB and it involves RESPONSIBILITY. Obvious someone has to work overnight and I guarantee you there are lots of people that would gladly take the job without some sob story about how it's "rough" and the owner is "mean". Besides, since when do you get to decide what is and isn't an acceptable hour to work?

You are telling me like it was tough and how good and resilient you were. You -are- complaining.

Uhh no. If I went on long rants on Facebook whining about my job being hard and "unfair", I'd be complaining. Acknowledging that a job is shitty is the first step to getting a better job, which is what I'm talking about.

I think good of you because of this, but it was still shitty, so it's right to say it, and it's right to try and make everything better for everyone. You could have done something about it before, but you didn't, probably because you needed the money. I understand it perfeclty, but it clearly is something that is not working well and should be improved. You yourself tell us that it was bad.

No one forced me to stay at that job, as clearly evidenced by the fact that I no longer work there.

And that was bad, as you are telling me.

But if it was bad, why do you refuse to say that it was bad? The best you do is to tell us how strong and good you and your family were, by telling us your difficulties. YES! You are confirming me that those situations are bad.

Of course it's bad. But tough shit, buttercup, suck it up. Life is hard - get over it.

I agree with you that a law is not the best way to set things like these, but if it's not a law, we should build a system which naturally eliminates the bad deals, so that a law isn't necessary.

Let me guess - some sort of socialism hybrid?

Those who would want to work at night will then be able to do that without any law interfering.

That's already the case. That's literally what I'm trying to tell you.

Anyway, and maybe I'll be third time lucky, I don't think that night openings are bad in general; but they should be a real share of business born out of true demand and offer, not some sort of drugged extra-time for lazy people...

Wait, are you suggesting that businesses stay open at night for some other reason other than, well, business? No one would consciously lose money like that.

 

[SirEdward]

.

I like your reasoning, even when we disagree.

What is important to me is not that everyone should have it the safe way. But I would like to stop seeing people forced, by other human beings, in bad circumstances.

The working shifts may be that, a way to force people into work when they would likely be somewhere else; left to its own device, the totemic force known as "the market" would destroy everyone's lives and force people into... well... slavery, basically. It needs some laws, either by nature, or by common sense, to work acceptably. Because market is a tool, so using it as a rulebook is bound to bring problems.

Of course laws are not the best way, and they might even be wrong, but they mostly try to defend something important.

Working during the night, for example, or simply destroying the social use of time by having everyone work in completely different shifts, will bring problems, even if it also bring positive things.

What I would like to see is a system which is capable of implementing the good portion of 24/7 stores without implementing the social disruption of destructured work time. Until that, I do prefere a law than the market jungle.

I live in a world where I've personally gone through everything we're discussing.

I am doing that right now. If you say what you say, you forgot about jobs like mine. They do exist.

It really doesn't work that way. You aren't going to force someone to "stretch" their shift by an additional 50%.

I don't know the reality you live in. I assure you you can force people. Not forever, not for a long time. But enough to make their lives miserable.

Besides, those that would agree to do this, would get paid for their time.

Not necessarily. Again, it depends on the world you live in.

Unemployment is high... but you have a job - sounds like an advantageous position to be in.

You are in a cage, but at least it's not raining o your head at night.

It's along the same tones.

Voluntarily seeking paid employment is slavery? Please explain.

It is when you cannot refuse to take the job because no one is offering a decent salary for it. I know there are infinte ways to try and punctualize this sentence, but if you understand what I mean, you won't use any of them.

I already explained to you why he might offer a higher wage. Besides, you said it yourself - working nights sucks so workers might want to be compensated extra. What kind of commie world do you live in if every business owner is a greedy evil bastard?

They are not all like that, luckily. But those who are should be punished, instead they are awarded. That's a huge problem.

That is the most Marxist statement I've ever read on FG.

That is true nonetheless. No one would hire you if thanks to your work they didn't earn more money than you cost. Your value is your entire value minus your wage. It -has- to be positive, or you wouldn't work there.

No, it's not the same thing. At all. Child labor is no bueno.

Yet accorgind to your idea, why not?

Complain and fight all you want. But at the end of the day, you're still the one that took the job and you can leave at any time.

I didn't say it's easy. But it's better than accept kicks in the back and convincing oneself that is the right way to go.

I don't think minimum wage laws were a thing back when Henry Ford was building the T. If you recall, he famously chose to pay his workers a high wage... I can pretty much guarantee you that no employer would offer $1/day wages if minimum wage laws were repealed.

I can assure you many will. Because I live in a place where there are possibilities beyond minimum wage and wage offered might be ridiculously low, or nonexistant, and people are forced by social push and hope for future improvements to take jobs which can't even be called jobs because they are not paid. And I have myself worked for less than 5?/hour... because there is a ton of reasons why you might do things like that, knowing fully well you are going to be exploited.

[qupte]
Unless, of course, you blindly subscribe to the evil capitalist pig theory.[/quote]

The goal of a compan is to make profit. If the profit comes at the expense of someone else, should the company do it? The answer is there.

Why is it unfair and why does anything have to be fair? Is it unfair that Michael Jordan is better at basketball than me so he can earn a ton by playing it and I can't?

Why don't you go there and rob Michael Jordan?

Or is fairness only good when it happens one way?

 

[LeVeL]

What is important to me is not that everyone should have it the safe way. But I would like to stop seeing people forced, by other human beings, in bad circumstances.

What's a bad circumstance? Most people don't actually enjoy what they do for a living - if that was the case we'd have no garbage men, plumbers, painters, etc.

The working shifts may be that, a way to force people into work when they would likely be somewhere else; left to its own device, the totemic force known as "the market" would destroy everyone's lives and force people into... well... slavery, basically.

Christ, you're a full-blown Marxist. In a free market economy you can pick whatever job you want or none at all - it's completely up to you, your ability, and your work ethic.

It needs some laws, either by nature, or by common sense, to work acceptably. Because market is a tool, so using it as a rulebook is bound to bring problems.

Yeah, and we have plenty of laws. But to suggest that creating laws that forbid businesses to create additional jobs because having people voluntarily agree to work at night is "mean", is just stupid.

Working during the night, for example, or simply destroying the social use of time by having everyone work in completely different shifts, will bring problems, even if it also bring positive things.

Tough shit. Don't like it, get a different job. It's pretty simple.

I am doing that right now. If you say what you say, you forgot about jobs like mine. They do exist.

I have no idea what you do for a living.

I don't know the reality you live in. I assure you you can force people. Not forever, not for a long time. But enough to make their lives miserable.

Define miserable. I think starving in Zimbabwe is miserable. Working in a North Korean gulag is miserable. Being a sex slave in Qatar is miserable. Having Hamas shell your town is miserable. Sitting in a gym reception area playing with your phone at 3am and getting paid for it, is pretty awesomely luxurious in comparison.

You are in a cage, but at least it's not raining o your head at night.

See above.

It is when you cannot refuse to take the job because no one is offering a decent salary for it. I know there are infinte ways to try and punctualize this sentence, but if you understand what I mean, you won't use any of them.

Newsflash - you have to work for a living. If you don't like your job, find another one. If you can't, then obtain some marketable skills so that you're not useless.

They are not all like that, luckily. But those who are should be punished, instead they are awarded. That's a huge problem.

You really are a legit commie. Holy shit.

That is true nonetheless. No one would hire you if thanks to your work they didn't earn more money than you cost. Your value is your entire value minus your wage. It -has- to be positive, or you wouldn't work there.

Good. Why should I hire you if you're worthless and nothing but a burden? If you want a job, you need to be ready to work.

Yet accorgind to your idea, why not?

Now you sound like the super-Christians who think that sodomy leads to child molestation. What a ridiculous idea.

I can assure you many will. Because I live in a place where there are possibilities beyond minimum wage and wage offered might be ridiculously low, or nonexistant, and people are forced by social push and hope for future improvements to take jobs which can't even be called jobs because they are not paid. And I have myself worked for less than 5?/hour... because there is a ton of reasons why you might do things like that, knowing fully well you are going to be exploited.

I have literally worked without pay because there were other benefits involved. I knew that I would have to get by on savings while I had this position and I accepted the offer voluntarily anyways. Didn't complain once about the lack of pay.

The goal of a compan is to make profit. If the profit comes at the expense of someone else, should the company do it? The answer is there.

Yes, of course it should. Just keep in mind that it is usually to the company's benefit to not take advantage of others. For example, it's to the company's benefit to offer high wages and good benefits - that way they get better applicants.

Why don't you go there and rob Michael Jordan?

Or is fairness only good when it happens one way?

That's basically what you're proposing, so I am not sure why you're bringing it up. Do explain.

 

[prizrak]

What is important to me is not that everyone should have it the safe way. But I would like to stop seeing people forced, by other human beings, in bad circumstances.

The working shifts may be that, a way to force people into work when they would likely be somewhere else;

Realistically vast majority of people wouldn't work if they didn't need to.

left to its own device, the totemic force known as "the market" would destroy everyone's lives and force people into... well... slavery, basically. It needs some laws, either by nature, or by common sense, to work acceptably. Because market is a tool, so using it as a rulebook is bound to bring problems.

Of course we can't have completely unregulated market that would be a nightmare (in fact we had this before and know exactly what it looked like)

Working during the night, for example, or simply destroying the social use of time by having everyone work in completely different shifts, will bring problems, even if it also bring positive things.

Why? People on the same shifts would socialize with people on those shifts. Think about it this way, my wife and I go out to dinner from time to time, the wait staff in those restaurants is working they are not socializing. However the customers in those restaurants are socializing, that's why they are in a restaurant.

What I would like to see is a system which is capable of implementing the good portion of 24/7 stores without implementing the social disruption of destructured work time. Until that, I do prefere a law than the market jungle.

So essentially what we already have (at least stateside). There is a relatively small percentage of businesses that are open 24/7, for some it makes no sense (say bankers), for others they can easily outsource to other countries (customer service). You are acting as if not having a law that says you can't have a business open 24/7 would force all businesses to be open 24/7 and force a bunch of people who are currently not night owls to work nights, it's clearly not the case in many places without such silly laws.

EDIT: The idea that employer always has the upper hand in negotiations is demonstrably false, it might be the case in unskilled labor where you can train just about anyone to do the job but once you move into skilled* labor the power dynamic changes drastically. Simple example, my wife wanted to leave her current job, there were many different reasons but among them the schedule. Her boss/owner of the company made her a counter offer with more money than the other job was offering, matching hours, matching vacation time and some other perks she would have gotten. She was in the position of power as her boss was the one who needed her to stay, *she* didn't.

*When I say skilled I mean anyone with a certain not easy to learn skill, I'm not talking white collar only. As an example electricians get paid better than many white collar workers because they are scarce and extremely needed.

 

[SirEdward]

.

I still disagree, but your point has validity. Let's say I dislike the idea of certain ways of life being the norm. I fear we just fall from one excess into another, different, excess. But I am not able to argument my entire point.

EDIT: The idea that employer always has the upper hand in negotiations is demonstrably false, it might be the case in unskilled labor where you can train just about anyone to do the job but once you move into skilled* labor the power dynamic changes drastically.

I think your argunent here doesn't take account of the full spectrum. You are talking about skilled labour (as you describe it) of which there is an aknowledged need for. I, for example, can do two jobs which require not easy to learn skills, but they both pay miserably, because of offer, demand and perception. The least skilled of the jobs I know how to do is the one that pays me more, and the one I least would want to do of the three. But since it's perceived higher compared to the other three, it's the only one that can give me a pay I could live on.

Simple example, my wife wanted to leave her current job, there were many different reasons but among them the schedule. Her boss/owner of the company made her a counter offer with more money than the other job was offering, matching hours, matching vacation time and some other perks she would have gotten. She was in the position of power as her boss was the one who needed her to stay, *she* didn't.

Yes, but not all people can be in such a strong position, and there will always be need for unskilled (in you definition) jobs, and those workers deserve a fair treatment, which is not always the case, unfortunately.

--

What's a bad circumstance? Most people don't actually enjoy what they do for a living - if that was the case we'd have no garbage men, plumbers, painters, etc.

I think you are just prejudging jobs based on a hierarchy that doesn't exist.

Christ, you're a full-blown Marxist. In a free market economy you can pick whatever job you want or none at all - it's completely up to you, your ability, and your work ethic.

People have to eat every day, they are not free, even when they can choose. It's easy to force them, if you play on those necessities. That's not marxism, that's realism. Or, if that's Marxism, I should warn you about the system you believe so firmly on, because it fools you into believieng you are free when you are not.

Yeah, and we have plenty of laws. But to suggest that creating laws that forbid businesses to create additional jobs because having people voluntarily agree to work at night is "mean", is just stupid.

This is why I haven't said it. This is a construction of yours.

Tough shit. Don't like it, get a different job. It's pretty simple.

When you want to ignore the problem, the problem doesn't exist. Simple.

I have no idea what you do for a living.

And you don't need to know; but it's a job you're forgetting to consider.

Define miserable. I think starving in Zimbabwe is miserable. Working in a North Korean gulag is miserable. Being a sex slave in Qatar is miserable. Having Hamas shell your town is miserable. Sitting in a gym reception area playing with your phone at 3am and getting paid for it, is pretty awesomely luxurious in comparison.

Yes, but it's still miserable if you'd rather do something else.

Newsflash - you have to work for a living.

Bing. Now you see your freedom can turn into an illusion so fast you won't even notice?

If you don't like your job, find another one. If you can't, then obtain some marketable skills so that you're not useless.

You're too simplistic.

You really are a legit commie. Holy shit.

You're using communism as an alternate form of Godwin Law.

Good. Why should I hire you if you're worthless and nothing but a burden? If you want a job, you need to be ready to work.

You're still missing the point. Which is: what percentage of your total value to the company goes to you and what part goes to the company -is- important.

Now you sound like the super-Christians

I just challenged your vision. You think labour conditions can be determined by market only. But when I show you, through a provocative question, that market alone can have children working 10 hours per day, you refuse to challenge the limits of your claim and try to put forward a mild form of ad personam phallacy.

I have literally worked without pay because there were other benefits involved. I knew that I would have to get by on savings while I had this position and I accepted the offer voluntarily anyways. Didn't complain once about the lack of pay.

And yet you knew you were being exploited. So much so that you are telling to me to show how hard you are.

What if the benefits are not true, but just promised? That happens quite a lot. If it doesn't in your world, please tell me by what means your country is able to achieve this goal, because it definitely isn't so elsewhere.

Yes, of course it should. Just keep in mind that it is usually to the company's benefit to not take advantage of others.

That is very dependant on the company's business. You have a ton of scandals based exactly on that.

But, just to stay into legal practices. Social Networks.

For example, it's to the company's benefit to offer high wages and good benefits - that way they get better applicants.

If they don't get good applicants anyway because of multiple reasons.

 

[prizrak]

I still disagree, but your point has validity. Let's say I dislike the idea of certain ways of life being the norm. I fear we just fall from one excess into another, different, excess. But I am not able to argument my entire point.

I'm ok with agreeing to disagree

I think your argunent here doesn't take account of the full spectrum. You are talking about skilled labour (as you describe it) of which there is an aknowledged need for.

Yes absolutely there is a spectrum no doubt about it, it's basic law of supply and demand. My point is more that it's not as cut and dry when it comes to the job market as you pointed out.

I, for example, can do two jobs which require not easy to learn skills, but they both pay miserably, because of offer, demand and perception. The least skilled of the jobs I know how to do is the one that pays me more, and the one I least would want to do of the three. But since it's perceived higher compared to the other three, it's the only one that can give me a pay I could live on.

I don't know your circumstances but I would assume that was your own choice that you made knowing the trade offs. You can still learn some other valuable skill that you may enjoy more or even parlay your less valuable skill into some sort of a business. You might find a niche for that skill that might not make you a millionaire but at least give you an outlet.

Yes, but not all people can be in such a strong position, and there will always be need for unskilled (in you definition) jobs, and those workers deserve a fair treatment, which is not always the case, unfortunately.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that but it's pretty tangential to the discussion at hand. What I was trying to illustrate is that employer is not always the one with all the cards and employees also have power. Additionally having or not having an overnight shift in and off itself is not abuse of workers. Hell even being a skilled worker doesn't save you from abuse, everyone has a horrible boss story I'm sure no matter where they work.

People have to eat every day, they are not free, even when they can choose. It's easy to force them, if you play on those necessities. That's not marxism, that's realism. Or, if that's Marxism, I should warn you about the system you believe so firmly on, because it fools you into believieng you are free when you are not.

You are talking about circumstances but not looking at the actual system. Under free* market capitalism there is no real way to force anyone to do anything, you always have choices. If you don't like the way McDonalds works you can work for Burger King or Five Guys or Starbucks. There is no only one job that you can do for the rest of your life, that's what Lev is getting at.

*Free not laissez faire but free as in private not government run

When you want to ignore the problem, the problem doesn't exist. Simple.

His not wrong though, like I said above there is not just one job, maybe you can't switch jobs every week but you don't have to stay in it for the rest of your life...

Bing. Now you see your freedom can turn into an illusion so fast you won't even notice?

That's not really an argument though, even when we lived in caves and had no government we still had to work for a living. We had to hunt and forage in order to stay alive, no animal on the planet doesn't have to work for a living. Thanks to our civilization the nature of our work has changed but the idea of survival has not. What you are talking about is ideologically pure communism, I am not saying that to diminish your argument I am saying that this is the exact thinking behind that ideology.

You're still missing the point. Which is: what percentage of your total value to the company goes to you and what part goes to the company -is- important.

Why? The only thing that matters is that the company is making a healthy profit and is likely to stay in business for a while. As long as you are being compensated fairly of course and if you are not you make moves to change that, be it a different job or increasing your marketability.

 

[LeVeL]

I think you are just prejudging jobs based on a hierarchy that doesn't exist.

And you didn't do that when you declared that working a night shift is so horrible?

People have to eat every day, they are not free, even when they can choose. It's easy to force them, if you play on those necessities. That's not marxism, that's realism. Or, if that's Marxism, I should warn you about the system you believe so firmly on, because it fools you into believieng you are free when you are not.

Biological needs? That's what you're basing your argument against free markets on? :lol: I can't even

This is why I haven't said it. This is a construction of yours.

Are you not defending my town's regulation? Because if not then we should be in agreement that it's a stupid law.

When you want to ignore the problem, the problem doesn't exist. Simple.

The problem does exist. You've created it by not taking a job and instead complaining about it endlessly. Now you've made your bed and you must lie in it.

And you don't need to know; but it's a job you're forgetting to consider.

Cool story. Not sure if I'm expected to start guessing or something but I don't care that much.

Yes, but it's still miserable if you'd rather do something else.

I'd rather sit in a pool with a dozen hot babes all day, sipping on scotch and smoking Cubans than having any job ever. Can you think of any system that would allow me to do that?

Bing. Now you see your freedom can turn into an illusion so fast you won't even notice?

Huh? By "have to work" I don't mean anyone is physically forcing you to, unlike under, say, communism.

You're too simplistic.

But also correct.

You're using communism as an alternate form of Godwin Law.

That's like discussing WWII and complaining that someone brought up Hitler.

You're still missing the point. Which is: what percentage of your total value to the company goes to you and what part goes to the company -is- important.

Company gets whatever it can - that's a good thing. If it wasn't for that, there would be no companies and, in turn, no jobs. Unless, of course, the government provides the jobs, in which case we're right back to... well, I don't want to "Godwin" this again.

I just challenged your vision. You think labour conditions can be determined by market only. But when I show you, through a provocative question, that market alone can have children working 10 hours per day, you refuse to challenge the limits of your claim and try to put forward a mild form of ad personam phallacy.

You used a ridiculous example. There is certainly a place for minimal intervention - such as protecting children; this should be a no-brainer. But worrying about an adult who has to work a night shift because of his fee-fees? lol nope

And yet you knew you were being exploited. So much so that you are telling to me to show how hard you are.

I wasn't being exploited - I voluntarily agreed to the terms when I could've found something else.

What if the benefits are not true, but just promised? That happens quite a lot. If it doesn't in your world, please tell me by what means your country is able to achieve this goal, because it definitely isn't so elsewhere.

Sounds like a lawsuit in the making. Go ahead and sue the company for breach of contract.

That is very dependant on the company's business. You have a ton of scandals based exactly on that.

Yes, lawsuits are brought against some companies and those companies pay the price (financial, loss of reputation, etc).

But, just to stay into legal practices. Social Networks.

What about them?

If they don't get good applicants anyway because of multiple reasons.

You're missing the point.

 

[rickhamilton620]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic moment. HV and I actually agree on something :lol:

At 4:55am there's a line outside my gym. I'm sure at least some of those people (myself included) would love to be able to come in earlier. As HV said, if the owner decided not to open up till a certain time, so be it - he weighed the pros and cons and made a decision. But why does the town need to make this decision for him?

I hope someone screenshotted this shit for posterity!

Also, campaign ad for Level 2016: "It's 4:55 AM.....you want to go to the gym....who will open the door? Level for Boston mayor! ...."

 

[SirEdward]

Yes absolutely there is a spectrum no doubt about it, it's basic law of supply and demand. My point is more that it's not as cut and dry when it comes to the job market as you pointed out.

Which is exactly the point I made here. I know perfectly that not all which company do is try to f**k the workers, but I am confronted with people, like LeV, for example, who can't understand the fact that the number of companies that actually do that is greater than the number of companies that don't.

It's not an unchangeable fact either; it depends on the situation, on people's culture and ideas, on laws too. But I feel the need to protect workers over the idea of profit, when I have to choose between the two, as well as I feel the need of having a society where healthy mechanisms are rewarded and exploiting mechanisms are punished (not necessarily by law). That is not the case, and the current push is towards the opposite, because many times exploitation mechanisms bring more money to a company (at the price of less of them to other groups).

I don't know your circumstances but I would assume that was your own choice that you made knowing the trade offs. You can still learn some other valuable skill that you may enjoy more or even parlay your less valuable skill into some sort of a business. You might find a niche for that skill that might not make you a millionaire but at least give you an outlet.

Yes, of course things can change; but hard roads are not paved. It's difficult to understand -what- to do, if the entire society tries to convince you that how things are is how things hould be and I shouldn't try to change the situation in any way, rather you should admire people who got the right skills which were requested at the time. This applies, in its own area, even to my discussion with LeV.

Yes, I could also learn new skills, but what I am is what I am, and what I am good at is what I am good at; we seldom choose it. I won't be able to learn skills in what I'm not good at, and it's also a bit stupid trying to do it just to accomodate the will of a semi-blind society. Tough luck? Perhaps, but I don't like hearing people telling me they are better or harder just because they got a set of skills which has a better market. I don't lack things I know how to do. What I lack is the aknowledgment; I keep hering people telling me what I know is worth nothing, which is not true, and rewarding more the more common among my skills just because there are laws that -force- them to do so.

Where those laws cease to exist, working resembles more and more a pathway to a modern slavery than anything else.

And the results of this general mindset are clear. Yet people will still go on with their own wrong assumption, and choosing with their own false premises. This is why I keep telling LeV that his ideas are fluffy cotton candy, because he assumes everyone always acts out of a perfect logical analysis of pros and cons, which is almost never the case. People do stupid s**t because they are dumb, or a***oles, or both. We all are imperfect. some people just do stupid s**t or are a***oles while running a company. And that has effects.

In this regards, I understand the need for a law stopping certain behaviours. Even if a law is almost never the best way to do things, because it tend to block healthy enterprises too.

And I know -for a fact- that good employers and good companies exist. But I see more reward to bad companies than to good ones.

An example on the night openings. Under my apartment there is a Slot-Machine bar. There wasn't, then the field was deregulated and now there is. The bell-ringing and music and general jingling of the thing kept me awake at night, and at some point I could hear it perfectly. Also, the value of my apartment dropped. But I could do nothing about it; the thing could be open 24/7, it was difficult to show that volumes where high and there is no regulation on insonorization.

So, when several communities which had the same problems managed to win a court case to enforce an existing law on shop-openings and to include those venues into the law, thus forcing it to close the doors at night, I was not only relieved, I was happy. It plain saved my life.

So, should I not be happy that that venue is closed at night? And should I not favour the presence of laws to regulate night openings and night work?

Yes, of course. Also, in this case, the venue is providing absolutely no increase of wealth for the entire society, and is almost certainly a loss in wealth for society.

Is a law the best way to do this? No, not at all; but is a law an effective and sometimes useful way? yes, for sure.

The best way would be to have a society where that kind of unhealthy enterprises wouldn't exist because people wouldn't want them on a free decision, but that requires a very high amount of work elsewhere. And in the meantime? Well, some laws might help, if they are well done.

Well, I hope this sums up our exchange. I understand what you tell me, and it really has its solid logic, even if I still think it's incomplete.

---

@ LeV

Sorry, LeV, it's not possible to go on with our part of the discussion; you have fallen into the use of phallacies, changing my words, Red-Godwining my arguments and not understanding what I am telling you.

More exchanges will just lead to more sterile tries to make you understand what you don't seem, or don't want, to understand about the words I have said. I don't think that's useful, for both of us.