Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on July 25, 2005, 02:14:06 am
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050724/D8BI21R80.html
Well it is the end of collective bargaining. In all honesty it really started back in the 80s with some air traffic controllers wanting to be paid $100,000/year.
-
I'm hardly surprised that this happened. The union movement is beginning to crumble; not only because of external pressure but also from internal conflict.
Say goodbye to workers rights everyone.
-
the world is changing and so is the shape of the american working force. What I mean is unskilled and skilled jobs alike are disapearing as more people get and finish their post secondary education. Especially since more and more manufacturing jobs are done over seas. Basically, America doesn't want to pay the cost of Unionized labor.
-
I can't speak to whether / how much the US unions are ****ed up, but the basic principle of unionisation is pretty solid IMO; to give the individual workers a defense from being ****ed over by their employers. Having a skilled job in a world with increasing skilled people, doesn't act to stop that.
-
Shhhhh Aldo. We all know that Trade Unions are the last vestige of communism that hasn't been purged from the US. ;)
-
No, but the unions are stuck in the old ways. In other words they represent basically manufacturing, delivery etc. However, some issues in manufacturing are not issues in skilled labor. Such as risk of injury. Also skilled jobs often provide benefits which gives less of a reason for unions to bully companies into providing benefits to their employees. Additionally, Unions also are problematic. The best example is the difference between FedEx and UPS.
People also in the US don't like them for a number of reason including the increase costs, increase delays, etc. They alse are very political which some members of Unions even resent.
-
Risk of injury is a factor of the working environment, not the skill level required for the job; I'd class electrical engineering as high skill level, but it can take place in highly risky environments. Also, if an environment has an inherently higher risk of injury, it only increases the need for some form of pressure to ensure that same risk is reduced or at least noted by the employer (who is responsible for the working environment).
And skilled jobs aren't exactly immune from bad working practices, etc; unions aren't restricted to manual labour, but applicable to all jobs, as there is always a potential for abuse of employees by the employer. Whilst there are some 'bad' unions (I'm looking at you, Scotrail train drivers!), this doesn't negate the purpose behind unionisation. Just look at, for example, the guys at EA forced to work 80-hour weeks without proper overtime pay.
-
Well I am saying that the unions have not been able to break into those type of organizations. I am also saying some of the main original reasons that the unionization occured have been greatly reduced. BUT, if companies start to jerk people around enough, I am sure that they will make a comeback.
As for the example of EA, I assume these 80hr work weeks are programmers working towards a release?
On a side note, if you are an engineer (Like a welding engineer), you will obviously be worth more to the company and therefore there would be higher safety precautions than otherwise.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Well I am saying that the unions have not been able to break into those type of organizations. I am also saying some of the main original reasons that the unionization occured have been greatly reduced. BUT, if companies start to jerk people around enough, I am sure that they will make a comeback.
But if they've been reduced by the effects of unions, what's to stop these problems coming back in their absence? I'm all for reform, but I'm not going to salute removal -even if self inflicted by internal strife- of what is still an important principle in workers rights.
Originally posted by redmenace
As for the example of EA, I assume these 80hr work weeks are programmers working towards a release?
No, just in general; reportedly working 9am to 10pm 7 days a week; and without proper pay in recompense. They launched a class action suit over it, i believe.
Originally posted by redmenace
On a side note, if you are an engineer (Like a welding engineer), you will obviously be worth more to the company and therefore there would be higher safety precautions than otherwise.
So we have a situation where the safety of the employee becomes a balance sheet issue? The implicit meaning being that the safety of less skilled employees isn't important because they're cheap to replace; a manual toy assembler who loses an arm can be easily replaced by the company, after all.
That's exactly what we want to avoid; it's discriminatory, and veers almost into sweatshop territory.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So we have a situation where the safety of the employee becomes a balance sheet issue? The implicit meaning being that the safety of less skilled employees isn't important because they're cheap to replace; a manual toy assembler who loses an arm can be easily replaced by the company, after all.
That's exactly what we want to avoid; it's discriminatory, and veers almost into sweatshop territory.
As horrible as it sounds, yes.
Originally posted by aldo_14
But if they've been reduced by the effects of unions, what's to stop these problems coming back in their absence? I'm all for reform, but I'm not going to salute removal -even if self inflicted by internal strife- of what is still an important principle in workers rights.
Honestly, the world has changed and these organizations, if they want to survive, will adapt. But nothing, maybe except the threat of litigation, can prevent a relapse in "workers rights." That and OSHA.
In regaurds to EA employees I would be interest to know what their salary was. If it is considerably higher that others in the industry, I think that would justify their long work weeks.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
As horrible as it sounds, yes.
Honestly, the world has changed and these organizations, if they want to survive, will adapt. But nothing, maybe except the threat of litigation, can prevent a relapse in "workers rights." That and OSHA.
That's a very blase assumption your making there. Employment can be regarded as a classic checks-and-balances system; unionisation being one of the main checks against employee abuse. I see no reason to salute or hail their prospective removal.
Originally posted by redmenace
In regaurds to EA employees I would be interest to know what their salary was. If it is considerably higher that others in the industry, I think that would justify their long work weeks.
It wasn't. Why do you think they were suing over it?
There's a legal limit ($90,000) above which unpaid overtime is legal; very few of these employees would be over that.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's a very blase assumption your making there. Employment can be regarded as a classic checks-and-balances system; unionisation being one of the main checks against employee abuse. I see no reason to salute or hail their prospective removal.
They are not being removed. They are dying. There is a difference. And like I said, if things got bad again with employee abuse, and their was no recourse I have no doubt they would be used again.
-
Removal = absence of (through whatever reason).
which you are saluting with the thumbs up smiley in the title.
-
Basically, America doesn't want to pay the cost of Unionized labor.
What makes you so sure about that?
Do you want to go back to the 1800's when unions didn't exist? Do you want to go back to the sweatshops? Do you want to go back to the days when 12 year old children would work 14 hours days for a wage that was considered petifully small even then? Do you want to have to work 14 hours a day for $5 a day or less?
Those kinds of abuses were why the unions were organized. Without them, what is to keep the empoyers from trying to pull that same crap again?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Removal = absence of (through whatever reason).
which you are saluting with the thumbs up smiley in the title.
well as a business major I don't care much for unions, since their "removal" mean greater efficiency.
@Kosh: if america was willing to pay the price unionized labor then we would be relying on american steel mills which we are not.
-
if america was willing to pay the price unionized labor then we would be relying on american steel mills which we are not.
Fair enough, but you still did not answer the second part of the post.
-
The first day you work in a factory redmenace, is the day you become a socialist.
;) ;)
God damn filthy air, intolerable heat and menial labour.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
well as a business major I don't care much for unions, since their "removal" mean greater efficiency.
And reduced worker rights.......
-
Frankly, it's about time.
Unions have for a long time now served no discernible purpose; the actual workers-rights things have been upheld or expanded by litigation by small groups or individuals.
The basic problem with unions (and a few civil rights organizations) is that they were created for a specific purpose, and they have long since outlived it. Once they secured what was intially sought, they had to keep getting more wages, more benefits, more vacation time, whatever, to justify their existence. But it can't go on forever. There has to be a limit. That limit has been arrived at and perhaps passed.
-
It's somewhat expensive for a small group of people to litigate against a large company, though.
-
True. But they are the ones who actually do so, whereas the unions do not.
-
Because the unions use stuff like strike ballots or go slow days?
-
God damnit. I thought you were talking about the NHL CBA.
-
Unions have always represented this romanticised notion of the under-represented working classes against their faceless fat cat masters, but as ngtm1r points out they've long outlived their usefulness in today's labour market. The fact that so many jobs are on offer - to the point of abject stupidity through subsidisation under Labour in the UK - makes them even more redundant than in the days of their inception.
If a job doesn't satisfy you, and you're not getting a good enough return on the time you put in, then quit and do something else rather than make a loss. It's a market, after all; there're no ties to hold you down.
-
Yeah, it's a pity hockey's back. Canada was getting to be such a nice place lately.
*runs*
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Frankly, it's about time.
Unions have for a long time now served no discernible purpose; the actual workers-rights things have been upheld or expanded by litigation by small groups or individuals.
The basic problem with unions (and a few civil rights organizations) is that they were created for a specific purpose, and they have long since outlived it. Once they secured what was intially sought, they had to keep getting more wages, more benefits, more vacation time, whatever, to justify their existence. But it can't go on forever. There has to be a limit. That limit has been arrived at and perhaps passed.
Well, why shouldn't wages continuallly increase? Quality of life is meant to improve or stay the same over time, and as I understand it that's hasn't been the case lately.
Whatever problems the unions may have, and I fully admit they do have problems, reform is the answer. The reason why unions originally came into existance is still in play, it will be in play for a long time yet. If unions are gotten rid of, it will almost certainly trigger a backslide in worker's right. The AFL-CIO is too big and too corrupt, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of unions.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And reduced worker rights.......
You are making an assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. The absence of unions make it easier for businesses to cope with change and react in such ways as layoffs. But at the same time they can turn around and hire different workers with greater ease as well. It is also easy to fire workers for incompetence without unions as well. Do I see these as infractions of workers rights, in a word: no. Now you might ask me what do I consider workers rights? well alright in short
- The right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race or sex. Of course this swings both ways and means you shouldn't recieve favoritism because of your race or sex.
- The Right to a safe and hospitable work enviroment
- The Right to not be sexually harassed both in terms of a hostile work enviroment and a Quid Quo Pro. And this isn't limited to just women, men can be sexually harased and so can homosexuals. And this includes harasment from customers.
- The Right to a fair wage and paid overtime according to the federal standard or the standard in the respective state.
- Your employer is required to allow you to leave the premises to vote in elections.
- There are more right not mentioned here
This is a condensed list basically. Currently there are laws inplace to prevent workers abuse and the fines and punitive damages are quite severe.
Now I should also mention that there are Employers right and the employee has obligation and requirements as well.
As per litigation, it is expensive but, the gov't sometimes will do it for you. Also the jury rewards sometimes are up in the millions of dollars so they can easily cover the costs of a class action lawsuit.
@ Kosh - There is not way that I want conditions in a work place to degrade to the point of say Atlanta, George Textile Mills or conditions in Industrialized Cities in Russian prior to the Revolutions there. However, the loss of unions I don't think will cause a relapse in "workers rights."
-
Gotta love that good old-fashioned American egalitarianism: "Strikes are bad because they hurt the bottom line. Be happy with your minimum wage pay."
-
Don't like it work some where else, or better yet get an education.
-
This is a condensed list basically. Currently there are laws inplace to prevent workers abuse and the fines and punitive damages are quite severe.
Laws can be changed by politicians and politicians can be bought.
Don't like it work some where else, or better yet get an education.
Maybe they work there because they can't work somewhere else and can't afford a college education.
-
in this day and age most can infact get an education at state run school. Only time when this might be impossible, is if they have to support a family.
and as for politicians, they can bought off by unions as well. And if infact they are, as I said before, people can unionize again.
-
in this day and age most can infact get an education at state run school. Only time when this might be impossible, is if they have to support a family.
Considering how few job opportunities there are for people who have a high school diploma, I don't see how getting one will help much.
and as for politicians, they can bought off by unions as well. And if infact they are, as I said before, people can unionize again
Better than a corperation like Enron buying off the politicians.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Considering how few job opportunities there are for people who have a high school diploma, I don't see how getting one will help much.
I meant College diploma.
Better than a corperation like Enron buying off the politicians.
Corruption is corruption regaurdless who it involves. just because one group decides to buy off politicians for their purposes doesn't make them any more right than the other. Enron was just looking after its shareholders and interests. Soooo really, who is any better. Unless you have this over glorified and romantic idea of the Blue Collar Worker. Or are we just highlighting class warfare? See I am convinced that some people that want to speak so glowingly of unions have an ingrained bais against the upper class or Corporations. As for enron, alot of good it did them huh?
-
I meant College diploma.
College is hideously expensive, and it is getting worse. With the federal government cutting back Pell Grants and Perkins loans, a lot of poor people are getting screwed over.
Corruption is corruption regaurdless who it involves. just because one group decides to buy off politicians for their purposes doesn't make them any more right than the other.
True. I suppose it is the lesser of 2 evils (it just depends on who is more evil to you). Still, whoever wins, we lose.
See I am convinced that some people that want to speak so glowingly of unions have an ingrained bais against the upper class or Corporations.
Maybe because the upper class or corperations have a LONG history of ****ing everyone else over. "some people" have good historical reasons not to trust the upper class or corperations.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
College is hideously expensive, and it is getting worse. With the federal government cutting back Pell Grants and Perkins loans, a lot of poor people are getting screwed over.
depends of your state. GMU in virginia is 3500 a semester. A economy apartment on campus is 2500. Stafford loans and grants can cover that. I also recieve $5000 from the great state of virginia. So it all depends. There are resources for poorer individual to go to college.
True. I suppose it is the lesser of 2 evils (it just depends on who is more evil to you). Still, whoever wins, we lose.
Maybe because the upper class or corperations have a LONG history of ****ing everyone else over. "some people" have good historical reasons not to trust the upper class or corperations.
Corporation bring us many goods and services that make the quality of life better. Now in response we use a progressive tax system to then punish success? There is class warfare and each side has totally ingrained into their heads that they are right. Each side pretty much looks after its self using one means or another. When everything is said and done is any of this real progress? but for the record there are bad rich people and there are bad proletariat. The French Revolution is the primary example. In reality it is a historical viscious cycle.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, why shouldn't wages continuallly increase? Quality of life is meant to improve or stay the same over time, and as I understand it that's hasn't been the case lately.
Whatever problems the unions may have, and I fully admit they do have problems, reform is the answer. The reason why unions originally came into existance is still in play, it will be in play for a long time yet. If unions are gotten rid of, it will almost certainly trigger a backslide in worker's right. The AFL-CIO is too big and too corrupt, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of unions.
There is continual increase, and then there is continual increase. Non-unionized workers get pay increases too, you realize. To justify their existence the unions must do better. But better is not always sane. The steel industry is ****ed because the unions pushed them too far and they could no longer stay competitive. So the steelworkers are out of their jobs now thanks to the people who are supposed to protect them.
The reason unions came into existence is NOT in play. They were formed to obtain legal protections for the workers; those protections were obtained. To allow backslide as you seem to think would happen would be tantamount to political suicide. Politicians can be bought. But you can't spend money if you're dead. Perhaps that's pitching it a bit high, but few people willingly toss their careers into the toilet and then pull the handle. Somebody in the media would notice. Word would get out. People would vote for the guy with the platform of getting workers' rights back. It just sounds good, doesn't it?
The unions no longer fight for workers' rights. The fight for benefits. They have been fighting for them so long that they have ultimately pushed business to the wall. There's not much more left to give, if anything. That's what happened to the US steel industry. That's why the automotive industry teeters on the edge. And that's what happened to the airlines' safety net.
-
Progressive taxation is a staple of the micro and macro economical theory, what you do is not punishing the success since you still have more money than who is paid less to you but this way it ensures that the surplus is actually used instead of being piled in inefficent uses.
This thing that progressive taxation is unfair to the rich (oh, the irony) and the successful (how unfair to pile up money) is pure propaganda.
Go on, put back proportional taxatation, sooner or later you'll get to inverse progressiveness because "you have to encourage the success" meanwhile those at the bottom gets screwed more and more...
Just hope that it won't be too late when you rediscover that accumulation is the worst way to use money by far, otherwise next thing you will get is a communist government brought by social unrest.
Like all economical theories capitalism produces monsters when someone tries to use it at the purest form and you are already welcoming social darwinism.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
There is continual increase, and then there is continual increase. Non-unionized workers get pay increases too, you realize. To justify their existence the unions must do better. But better is not always sane. The steel industry is ****ed because the unions pushed them too far and they could no longer stay competitive. So the steelworkers are out of their jobs now thanks to the people who are supposed to protect them.
The reason unions came into existence is NOT in play. They were formed to obtain legal protections for the workers; those protections were obtained. To allow backslide as you seem to think would happen would be tantamount to political suicide. Politicians can be bought. But you can't spend money if you're dead. Perhaps that's pitching it a bit high, but few people willingly toss their careers into the toilet and then pull the handle. Somebody in the media would notice. Word would get out. People would vote for the guy with the platform of getting workers' rights back. It just sounds good, doesn't it?
The unions no longer fight for workers' rights. The fight for benefits. They have been fighting for them so long that they have ultimately pushed business to the wall. There's not much more left to give, if anything. That's what happened to the US steel industry. That's why the automotive industry teeters on the edge. And that's what happened to the airlines' safety net.
Sure, I'll just remember you that the most cost efficent way is to get to the same salary of the lowest paid globally plus the cost of transport. This way you reach maximum competitive efficency because you cannot be undercut through costs.
Anyways in the US the legal system can replace the unions without problems, you can start a lawsuit if you don't like something, no matter how futile your motives are.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
You are making an assumption that the two are mutually exclusive. The absence of unions make it easier for businesses to cope with change and react in such ways as layoffs. But at the same time they can turn around and hire different workers with greater ease as well. It is also easy to fire workers for incompetence without unions as well. Do I see these as infractions of workers rights, in a word: no. Now you might ask me what do I consider workers rights? well alright in short
- The right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race or sex. Of course this swings both ways and means you shouldn't recieve favoritism because of your race or sex.
- The Right to a safe and hospitable work enviroment
- The Right to not be sexually harassed both in terms of a hostile work enviroment and a Quid Quo Pro. And this isn't limited to just women, men can be sexually harased and so can homosexuals. And this includes harasment from customers.
- The Right to a fair wage and paid overtime according to the federal standard or the standard in the respective state.
- Your employer is required to allow you to leave the premises to vote in elections.
- There are more right not mentioned here
This is a condensed list basically. Currently there are laws inplace to prevent workers abuse and the fines and punitive damages are quite severe.
Now I should also mention that there are Employers right and the employee has obligation and requirements as well.
As per litigation, it is expensive but, the gov't sometimes will do it for you. Also the jury rewards sometimes are up in the millions of dollars so they can easily cover the costs of a class action lawsuit.
@ Kosh - There is not way that I want conditions in a work place to degrade to the point of say Atlanta, George Textile Mills or conditions in Industrialized Cities in Russian prior to the Revolutions there. However, the loss of unions I don't think will cause a relapse in "workers rights." [/B]
Workets rights cost money. Businesses aim to reduce losses and increase gains. Thus, businesses have a vested interest in reducing workers rights where possible; something which is easier in unskilled professions where there is a large pool of labour and not much training expenditure.
Specifically; [q]The Right to a fair wage and paid overtime according to the federal standard or the standard in the respective state.[/q]
Now, I'm not saying you don't get unions asking for stupid money, because you do. But you also get companies offering a different kind of stupid money, if they can get away with it (again coming back to unskilled labour in particular). Which is fair?
-
Corporation bring us many goods and services that make the quality of life better
How does dumping PCB's, mercury, lead, and a bunch of other toxic crap into the water system make quality of life better? Granted not all corperations do that, but more than enough have done that in my state to make the Willamete (the main river, however the hell it is spelled) a nice Superfund site.
Now in response we use a progressive tax system to then punish success?
Progressive tax systems do not punish their success, it makes sure that they give something back to the system that permitted them to be successful. Besides, there are so many loopholes in the tax code that corperations hardly pay taxes anyway. Here is my favorite example: Portland General Electric. A couple of years ago it paid a whopping $5 for a full years worth of income taxes, despite making millions of dollars in revenues.
There is class warfare
Your right, and the middle class and the poor are losing badly.
-
The difference is the middle class rarely understand the real reasons why.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
There is continual increase, and then there is continual increase. Non-unionized workers get pay increases too, you realize. To justify their existence the unions must do better. But better is not always sane. The steel industry is ****ed because the unions pushed them too far and they could no longer stay competitive. So the steelworkers are out of their jobs now thanks to the people who are supposed to protect them.
If you want to say it like that, there is probably not one single industry, aside from service, within the US that can compete globally. Agrobusiness get subsidized, protectionist trade policy helps prop up the rest. That's not capitalism buddy, that's government handouts to help keep uncompetitive industries open. Whatever you make: grain, cars, medicine, shirts - someone in the Third World can do it for a fifth of the cost.
Originally posted by redmenace
Don't like it work some where else, or better yet get an education.
A college or university eduction was valuable back in the days when it was rare. That's no longer the case. A college graduate get **** job opportunuties, because, guess what? everyone else has a college diploma as well. Trade labourers routinely gets better pay than those with a college diploma. And this isn't too likely to change. The rest of the world, aside from having cheap labour, also has no shortage of college grads who are harder working and willing to fight for their piece of bread. Against that, the youth of America don't stand too good a chance.
The truth is that the economy has, from what can tell, undergone some significant changes lately. First of all, more and more jobs are in the service industry, because cheap overseas labour can and does screw over the production industry as a whole. Secondly, job stability (secutity) is way down. The days of working for one company for 25 years are gone. I vaguely remember reading statistics that state that an average person, in their lifetimes, will change careers (not jobs, careers) about 5-8 times. Say hello to "workforce agility", you have to find tooth and nail to land a job, work there for two years then go through the same bloody process again.
And yes, I will admit that I have a bias against large (notice I said large) corporations and the upper classes. But to me, it only makes sense that if the majority of the population by far is of the middle-class, to fight for the rights and benefits of the middle-class. Sure, corporations do alot of good, but not because they want to make the world a nice, happy place. They do it because it pays. If the best way to make money is to screw the workers and the environment, that's exactly what they'll do. Hell, they'de dance on their hands if it was profitable.
-
Against that, the youth of America don't stand too good a chance.
And when it rains it pours: The youth of America also have that crushing debt that they will have to deal with; both on a consumer and a governmental level.
But to me, it only makes sense that if the majority of the population by far is of the middle-class, to fight for the rights and benefits of the middle-class.
You're right, but that is not what is happening in reality. The number of middle class people should be growing, or at least staying the same.......but it's not. The numbers of middle class people are actually dropping.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
A college or university eduction was valuable back in the days when it was rare. That's no longer the case. A college graduate get **** job opportunuties, because, guess what? everyone else has a college diploma as well. Trade labourers routinely gets better pay than those with a college diploma. And this isn't too likely to change. The rest of the world, aside from having cheap labour, also has no shortage of college grads who are harder working and willing to fight for their piece of bread. Against that, the youth of America don't stand too good a chance.
Some of us work just as hard as the next hard worker. The entire youth of the world should be concerned as rich, old farts **** with our future. (Grr, I hate censorship!) And I agree, college means crap. You'd better at least have a masters to get any attention.
But to me, it only makes sense that if the majority of the population by far is of the middle-class, to fight for the rights and benefits of the middle-class.
The poor is the largest and always will be the largest group. Otherwise the pyramid would collapse. It's just a matter of how poor is poor. The middle-class just has a louder voice, though seldom is it heard. One only needs to look at how we get screwed when it comes to college: the poor get most of the help, the rich can afford it, while the middle-class have to scrape by.
Originally posted by Kosh
The number of middle class people should be growing, or at least staying the same.......but it's not. The numbers of middle class people are actually dropping.
It should at least stay the same. In time, the middle-class will cease to exist unless the economics of the world change. The key here is how poor is poor. I see it as a bit like inflation. The poor would be better off than they were before, but compared to everyone else, still poor, if we go by the definition of possessing the least wealth. However, little has improved for them, and I fail to see better times for them, because the rich love to dominate over someone. There has to be a better system than capitalism.
-
AFAIK the rich-poor divide in the US is increasing rapidly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that reflected across most of the (1st) world.
One thing about graduates; MS is moaning about there not being enough (CS) in the US (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/graduates_versus_kids/). I'd suggest they come here then, because we definately have an excess........
Although, what's a 'college diploma' anyways?
-
Although, what's a 'college diploma' anyways
I think they mean a college degree of some kind.
AFAIK the rich-poor divide in the US is increasing rapidly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that reflected across most of the (1st) world.
As I understand it, it isn't happening in the rest of the developed world. I could be wrong.
But about a month ago, I heard the CEO of Intel say that his company "doesn't need to hire another american". They can just hire oversees in China and India.
EDIT: Btw, I just thought of another example of corperate evil: The pharmasuetical industry!
Pfizer is making billions of net revenue while they keep drug prices sky high. Many poor people here, and many people in the developing world either cannot afford these extravegant prices, or they simply do not have access to it. They often don't have access to generic alternatives either because Pfizer and other pharmasuetical companies block the generics from being able to produce them. So while Pfizer makes billions and billions of dollars, people are dieing because of their greed.
-
I thought colleges didn't do degrees?
-
College technicly means a 2 year post high school school, but people often use it to refer to 4+ year universities too.
But you can get a Ascociates Degree from a community college.
-
And what is an Associates Degree, then?
-
A 2 year degree. Bachelors takes 4, etc....
-
A bachelors is only supposed to take 4, but a lot of people take longer because of the academic bueraucracy/BS, at least here in the States. I think the average is 5 years. This will be my 5th year in college.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
A 2 year degree. Bachelors takes 4, etc....
Sounds like an HND or something. Which isn't really all that good (about the first 2 years of a 'proper' degree in UK terms).
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Pfizer is making billions of net revenue while they keep drug prices sky high. Many poor people here, and many people in the developing world either cannot afford these extravegant prices, or they simply do not have access to it. They often don't have access to generic alternatives either because Pfizer and other pharmasuetical companies block the generics from being able to produce them. So while Pfizer makes billions and billions of dollars, people are dieing because of their greed.
People are not dying because of high prices, they die because of disease. Drugs ARE NOT A RIGHT. They are a life enhancing product. Nothing Pfizer does kills anyone. And in addition to this, do you have ANY idea how long and how much money it takes to develope and test drugs. This not to mention the amount of insurance that they have to purchase because of their industry. But the bottom line, you want to call them evil for what? Meeting a demand? They do not to cause anyone grief.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
People are not dying because of high prices, they die because of disease. Drugs ARE NOT A RIGHT. They are a life enhancing product. Nothing Pfizer does kills anyone. And in addition to this, do you have ANY idea how long and how much money it takes to develope and test drugs. This not to mention the amount of insurance that they have to purchase because of their industry. But the bottom line, you want to call them evil for what? Meeting a demand? They do not to cause anyone grief.
Meh, only in a social darwinism drugs are not a right.
The skewed view many people got about profit being the first priotity is just sickening.
The fact you're supporting a crippled welfare state doesn''t mean it's right.
In any serious democratic system life saving drugs are available to everyone, because it's one of the main ways to ensure the same starting chances to everyone.
Enjoy your social inequality and income divide, US is running to its economical collapse and you refuse to recognize it...
The change from a market economy to a corporativist one is subtle but devastating, nonetheless you're going there.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
People are not dying because of high prices, they die because of disease. Drugs ARE NOT A RIGHT. They are a life enhancing product. Nothing Pfizer does kills anyone. And in addition to this, do you have ANY idea how long and how much money it takes to develope and test drugs. This not to mention the amount of insurance that they have to purchase because of their industry. But the bottom line, you want to call them evil for what? Meeting a demand? They do not to cause anyone grief.
What about the use of generic AIDs drugs in Africa? Or paying for cancer drugs that can cost thousands of pounds per year?
Supply and demand is not the right way to price medicine; it might be the most profitable, but it's far from being the most humane. It's bad enough having a price tag put on a right to life, but it's pretty damn unforgiveable when a generic alternative is withheld from people who will never, ever be able to afford the RRP (the average wage in - for example - Mali is $275 per year; how can they afford drugs charged at 100s of dollars per dose).
-
Originally posted by redmenace
People are not dying because of high prices, they die because of disease. Drugs ARE NOT A RIGHT. They are a life enhancing product.
Is that how you sleep every night?
This is what I hate, the bull**** hypocrysy.
People who trumpet absolute morality, etc. etc. and yet are perfectly willing to justify the death of people. Deaths that did not have to occur.
Where is your absolute morality now? Did these people deserve to die? Oh, god loves successful people... they weren't successful and so were sinners and deserved to die then.
I hate the hypocrysy, I hate the hubris. The ones who should be suffering from the lack of drugs, from their own decisions, are the ones not effected.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Is that how you sleep every night?
This is what I hate, the bull**** hypocrysy.
People who trumpet absolute morality, etc. etc. and yet are perfectly willing to justify the death of people. Deaths that did not have to occur.
Where is your absolute morality now? Did these people deserve to die? Oh, god loves successful people... they weren't successful and so were sinners and deserved to die then.
I hate the hypocrysy, I hate the hubris. The ones who should be suffering from the lack of drugs, from their own decisions, are the ones not effected.
Basically: "help them but not with my money".
But you shouldn't be surprised.
That's what happens when you are educated from childhood to think almost exclusively using competitive logic.
In these theories you should help the others only when you have a return on investment capable to outmarket your competitors, otherwise it's just a loss of efficency.
The fact this efficency is mostly short to mid term based doesn't matter to them as long as they can find new demand for their offer.
Very few politicians (minority ones of course) have the courage to admit this is a doomed strategy in the long term, as it applies the pretense of infinite growth to a universe with limited and dwindling resources.
What they mistakes for economical growth is nothing more than capital concentration, a trend that brings always diminishing benefits (law of diminishing returns, another staple of market economy) until it reaches a point of no growth and crisis.
What is happening in many cases is that progressive governments are routinely telling the various corporations to give tolerable terms for the local economy (and so not even giving drugs or other goods for free), giving an aut aut (latin terms for "my way or no way") to corporations.
Notably south africa and many south american countries are now producing the drugs at generic prices, paying to the US corporations only a minimal part of the IP fee they asks.
Nonetheless you aren't seeing Pfizer, Novartis or something other big corp declaring bankruptcy because of that.
In thruth they are still making a profit from that, only a smaller one.
The problem with many western economies today is that they are switching from maket based to corporativism, which means a level of concentration so high that allows businesses to control various levels of a society including politics, giving them the capability to stop any real competition (collusive oligopoly is worse than monopoly) but avoid any real antitrust measure because they are still nominallly competitors.
The US healthcare is the best example of that:
Despite their pride, US is ranked 34th in the world, behind nations like Croatia.
This is because private control in sectors where the demand is quite unflexible to the price kills competition allowing business to screw badly the market if left unchecked.
The top five healthcare systems are public ones, where the private clinics are for those who wants a 5 stars hotel environment while sick, basically paying for the luxury.
Getting back to the main topic, worker unions aren't made to make the workers fat rich, but to ensure minimal standard of safe working conditions and fair wages.
You don't want to work on minimum wage in the US, nad that wage isn't going up anytime soon because the workers doesn't have the strength to claim its arisal anymore.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Despite their pride, US is ranked 34th in the world, behind nations like Croatia.
They're behind Croatia now?! :lol: In the 2000 survey they were a mere 6 places ahead (which was pathetic in its own way because Croatia wasn't long out of the war).
-
How do they rank that? Because if it's based on general quality, I'd be shocked -given the obscene prices the US health service charges. Thank god for the NHS; it might be badly run, creaking to bits and full of underpaid fowk, but at least they don't ask for a credit card before re-attaching a severed digit.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How do they rank that? Because if it's based on general quality, I'd be shocked -given the obscene prices the US health service charges. Thank god for the NHS; it might be badly run, creaking to bits and full of underpaid fowk, but at least they don't ask for a credit card before re-attaching a severed digit.
I don't really know the exact criteria, it's likely a mix of average quality and accessibility, what matter is that it comes from an unbiased source.
-
If it's accessibility, the Us is ****ed.....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If it's accessibility, the Us is ****ed.....
Well, i think their politic on healthcare is, regardless of the ranking ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If it's accessibility, the Us is ****ed.....
I think that was one of the criteria but it wasn't the only one. When it came to fairness the USA was ranked joint 54th with Fiji (The UK was in joint 8th place!).
In case you want to look the ranking was on page 197 of this (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf) WHO report.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Is that how you sleep every night?
Yes, I sleep quite nicely thankyou.
Now, at the risk of this turning into a complete breakdown of civility. I now consider this thread to have run its course.
*Leaves before I say something I will regret.*
-
Yes, I sleep quite nicely thankyou.
How can you even live with yourself?
People are not dying because of high prices, they die because of disease. Drugs ARE NOT A RIGHT.
People ARE dieing indirectly from high prices. Because of the inflated prices, they can't get access to the drugs they need to get better. So Pfizer DOES kill people via proxy.
Every other industrialized country in the WORLD has a universal healthcare system, so why doesn't the US? Is the US really so backwards?
Enjoy your social inequality and income divide, US is running to its economical collapse and you refuse to recognize it...
The change from a market economy to a corporativist one is subtle but devastating, nonetheless you're going there.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Kosh, don't you know poor people don't count? It's not like they can make major campaign contributions or pay for junkets... in fact, you can't even use them as slaves any more thanks to those pesky laws.