Jump to content

Renegade

Member
  • Posts

    3,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Renegade

  1. It depends upon how you decide how to divide classes. The "lower class" of today is still richer than the "lower class" of yesterday, it might even be richer than the middle class of yesterday.
  2. Corporations have a vested interest in getting rid of unions as unions are an obstacle to productivity and efficiency. Government is only interested in getting re-elected. If the population is better served by removing unions then the government is incented to get rid of unions. The population has multiple roles (such as taxpayer, consumer in addition to worker) which are affected by unions. This is an example of the false logic which seems to be propogated. There is some notion that compensating their workers richly, a company will be able to generate additional profit because the workers will be rich enough to buy a company's products. This is pure nonsense. The way a company can drive profit is by increasing revenue and lowering costs. Lowering costs implies getting more efficiencies from their workforce. On the public sector side one of the largest expenditures is in labour costs. Lowering lower costs mean that govenment can either lower taxes, pay down debt, or provide additional services. On the private sector side, both the shareholder and consumer will beneift from lowered labour costs.
  3. benny, if the intruder is starving it would indicate that the resources are limited. In those circumstances the territorial defender is not likely to share territory and will fight to protect it. In nature the strong survive and the weak perish. Your contention that somehow the strong and possessors of resources will willingly share it with the empty-handed is devoid of reality. No surprise really, virtually all of your posts are devoid of reality. Out of courtesy for others and because I value my time, I will cease to respond to nonsensical one-liners.
  4. You may be able to pull the plug on your machine, but just try and pull the plug on mine. You may not survive the attempt. Therein lies the point. You may think you are in control, but you only control the small number of machines which are within your domain. There may be vastly more which affect you over which you have NO control. For example the machines which track your credit history and bank accounts. Even if they cause you "harm" by misinformation, you don't have the power to shut them down and they could devestate your life.
  5. Sure. which is why the intruder usualy doesn't risk it: He knows that the defender will likely fight to the death. Back to the worker, he can work and accept compensation for his work, or he can choose not to work but try to obtain what he needs through combat. IOW, he can choose to work or he can choose a life of crime. Both paths have implications and consequences but it still remains the choice of the individual.
  6. Just as fruit trees grow naturally, so is the protection of territory. An animal who traspasses on the territory of another is usually killed.
  7. Then I suggest that workers have the option not to work but go seek out naturally growing fruits. Perhaps they might find some in the middle of winter as the tundra freezes over.
  8. How is this food to magically appear?
  9. and who is the culprit that causes the body to need food?
  10. Who/what prevents one from negotiating his/her compensation?
  11. Of course everyone has the right not to work if they so choose as there is no law permitting slavery. Of course by choosing not to work the forgo the benefit of working (ie renumeration).
  12. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily true. A worker doesn't have a choice on if to join a union or not. If a worker doesn't want to join a union but enough co-workers do, he will be forced to join regardless of his wishes. At least in some states, workers have a choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
  13. How do you know? And how do you measure which is superior: Is it by reasoning, intellect, knowledge, or some other criteria? The machine doesn’t cause universal harm. The ones who build and control the machines are not necessarily the same individuals who have harm inflicted. As an example: Weapons cause undeniable harm by design. How is it weapons are not universally “tossed away”? How is it a child can be smarter than its parents? I don’t have to. Such systems already exist as self-learning systems. It is only a matter of time before more of the systems become commercially viable. If human beings could not evolve we would still be struggling to survive among the other animals. Our success is due to our evolution. To discount machines as a “few electrons dashing about” is analogous to calling a human brain a few protein molecules strung together floating in protoplasm. It is a completely meaningless statement.
  14. It is not clear to me that safeguards and competition are enough. What kind of safeguards do you have in mind? Even companies with the best of reputations release products which have flaws which can be exploited. Furthermore the consequence of even intended features cannot always be forseen so that safeguards put in place. There is assumption in your response that somehow people will cooperate to get the best advantage out of technology, but how do you know this is true? Even today a small number of individuals control the technology and it really becomes up to them to determine to what extent they do or don't want to share the spoils of the productivity gains with other humans. Also, access to advanced technology is not universal nor is it guaranteed. You can look today and see a difference in standards of livings between technology-developed countries and those who are technology-lacking. As technology advances further, those with power are those who can control technolgy.
  15. I mostly agree with you, however there are a couple of considerations you perhaps are discounting. 1. The impact of technology control is greater than is ever before and promises to get greater still. Our monatary systems, our productivity tools, our communication technology, our transportation, and our entertainment is all computer controlled. For now all of these systems are relatively isolated from each other and relatively "dumb" and require our intelligence to control. With time these systems will be more integrated and intelligent. For example, I expect that automated systems will pay my bills, and choose my entertainment and monitor my communications systems. This may work fine until the system either stops doing my bidding due to unintentional programming errors or by malicious intent from other parties. What happens when the automation which our lives depend upon are programed to service priorities which are not consistent with our own. Even if it isn't a case of computers taking over control from all humans, it allows for the posibility that a large number of mankind can be controlled through computers by a small number of other humans using computers as the mechanism of control. 2. Technology is replacing what humans do. Humans have a value-add because they do somethings which automation cannot. As the scope of what humans can do which automation cannot becomes smaller and smaller, the number of displaced humans will increase. Very few people have domestic help anymore because technology has reduced the need for such labour. Similarly manufacturing jobs have been replaced by automation. Human labour is relatively expensive when compared to automation especially since the cost of technol0gy and automation continues to decrease. In essence human labour is forced to compete with the constantly decreasing cost of automated labour. Does it not seem inevitable that at some point machines will replace EVERY job that humans can perform? If so, what need is there for humans? How would humans survive in a world where they add no value?
  16. http://news.cnet.com/Scientists-worry-mach..._3-6249920.htmlMachines are increasingly replacing man in many areas of society. As technology advances besides performing repetitive tasks, machines will aquire skills beyond the capabilities of humans. At some point they will even "think" and be smarter than humans. What then for humans? Should we stop such progress?
  17. A larger % of the population being over 65 is only a problem if we expect the younger segment to support those over 65. Once we stop or reduce that dependancy, it stops being a problem. If anything a larger aged population means more service jobs for the workforce caring for the aged.
  18. You seem to miss something. The government is only in businesses where they are a monopoly. They make money because they can unilaterally charge whatever they want no matter how ineffiently it is run. You may save some money as a taxpayer if profits are recycled into the system but as a consumer you will undoubtly pay more. Are we not better off overall if instead of over-charging consumers and then returning only part of that payment as services, we were never overcharged to begin with? With a government run monolopy, what incentive is there to reign in costs?
  19. No, I'm not blaming Unions. I fully expect that unions will act to maximize their self interest. If there is no enforcement they have no downside for them breaking the law. What I fault is a system which doesn't work. Laws are supposed to be there to counterbalance the monopoly power unions have, but laws are useless if they aren't enforced. Legislative powers are supposed to be used to balance the power public-sector unions have in witholding necessary services to the public, however those powers are useless if they are rarely or not used. I'm suggesting a more effective system would be one which ends a union monolopy on public sector labour.
  20. Of course it is illegal but it hasn't stopped some strikers from doing so. The problem is enforcement. I can't recall the last time when police arrested a striker for obstructing access to facilites. The police shouldn't be "sent it". They should enforce the law as part of their normal duties as they would for any other law. There, completed it for you. You're welcome!
  21. The reason that managment won't give you a zillion dollars/hour is because they cannot. It is beyond their power of taxation. A union can make outrageous demands and while they will not always get them they stand a better chance than a private uniion because they have the balance of power. IOW, a politician has few choices: He can accept the union demands, he can refuse and let them strike and thus impact his constitutients, he can legislate them back to work. It is not always the same polititican who has the power to legislitate as the one negotiatating with the union. The government should have more options. Such as being able to hire alternate labour. Actually they do more than withold their labour. They frequently obstruct access to facilities and sometimes resort to violence. In the Toronto strike, picketers did not permit residents access to the depot to deposit trash. Excellent. It is a pity more governments don't have the courage to pass such legislation. Where is Mike Harris when you need him?
  22. Peter, you seem to acknowldege that workers in general would make outrageous demands. You also assume that managent should decline those demands if demed outrageous. The point that other posters are making is that given that management has not refused those demands, it is rational to conclude that management doesn't have the power or incentive to refuse. This is really what needs to be addresssed Actually what is required is more than overriding the contracts. Government has the power to and should change the rules of the game as it is one-sided in favour of the unions. The question is do they have the incentive and will to do so or is it easier to capituate to the demands of the union?
  23. Unless YOU have the financial capability to take care of our elders, you are also asking that someone else's money be used to take care of elders, unless of course, what you favour is a scheme where each elder is entitled to the equivalent of what they have contributed. So does a rainy-day savings account. Are you proposing that people be forced to save for bad times? When someone's freedom is taken away they are hard done by. Since people are are forced to contribute, they lose their freedom of choice. Unless you have future vision, you cannot possibly know if an investement outside CPP would be better than a CPP investment. This is precisely why the onus of making pension choices shoudl be up to the individual and not the corporation. Corporations should not be running pensions because it forces them to take unwarrented risk, and risk that they seem to be bad at guaging. If individuals take undue risks, it is they themselves who will suffer the consequences. Would you instead propose that deferred wages be put into GICs or Treasury bills? Sure it is safe but it earns only a small rate of return.
×
×
  • Create New...