Aestu wrote:
Azelma wrote:
However, I don't feel for some of the protestors who are simply art history majors angry that their lone career option after graduation is Chilis or Applebees. Sorry buddy, you should have known that studying impressionism for 4 years won't mean shit in the real world, and won't translate into a real job opportunity.
So what, you think everyone in this country can or should be a high-paid white collar professional?
Certainly I don't. Which is why those art history majors need to quit bitching and accept their lot in life. Someone has to work at Applebees, and if they don't, then some Mexican will and will probably do it for less.
I just think those people shouldn't complain about not having white collar, highly paid jobs, when they didn't bother to go after them by getting a law degree, or learning how to code, or by trying their hand at being entrepreneurial, or going to business school, or becoming an engineer, or any of the other thousands of things they could have done to avoid being a waiter.
Aestu wrote:
There were once an abundance of working-class jobs in this country. Corporations made the choice to change that.
I think a global economy changed that actually. If someone will do the same job for less and not demand every benefit they can possibly get, can you fault the corporations (whose main goal is to increase profits for shareholders) for hiring them?
Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, the times change...we became a service based economy. We
can't go back. You either adapt or you don't. If you don't adapt, or won't adapt, then I can't say I feel sorry for you.
Aestu wrote:
Azelma wrote:
Corporations don't OWE people jobs. However, they do have a social responsibility that many are not meeting.
One and the same. The system exists to serve man.
Wrong. For-Profit organizations exist solely serve to increase their value for shareholders. That's it. I personally feel that with that, however, shareholders and executives should have a social conscience. The fault was with individuals, not corporations themselves...they exist because the government allows them to...and they act within the confines that they are allowed to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhoodThe fault lies with the asshole executives and the enabling government.
Aestu wrote:
Azelma wrote:
Basically if the protestors had more direction and weren't simply like "HERR DERR YOU EXECUTIVES ARE ASSHOLES" i'd take them more seriously...they'd probably be more effective in the long run as well.
Also I think they are directing too much anger at the private sector and not enough at the public sector. It was the government who bailed people out. It was the government that removed regulations in the first place. It is the government that allows loop-holes to remain.
I think that qualified as corporate asshole behavior. It was corporations that asked them to do that. They are the driving force.
Who has more culpability, the person who asks or the person who gives? The government didn't have to authorize the bailout...they could have let them fail, which they
should have done. I fail to see how it is the corporations fault for doing anything they could to survive. Did you expect all the executives and shareholders to simply say "oh, well, we're fucked.....ce'st la vie!"? No. It was the government's responsibility to be the parent and let them fail. The government didn't though...so here we stand.
Yes, the corporations created the mess. Yes corporate greed was the impetus. It was up to the government to let them implode...but they got cold feet "too big to fail."
Aestu wrote:
Azelma wrote:
There's a thing called "bloat" in business. All large companies have it. Hiring more people wouldn't necessarily result in a universal improvement in customer service. In fact, it could make things even more complicated by adding levels of bureaucracy...making the organization even less efficient.
This is pure propaganda.
No...it's called "what happens in growing organizations." Adding employees doesn't = added value 100% of the time...and in fact it can take away value. Ask any businessman ever. Hey test it out if you want. Start your own business (taking all the risk of course), and just start hiring people because it's "the right thing to do" or whatever and let me know how that works out for you.
Aestu wrote:
EBT and similar systems exist because corporations are actively opposed to an effective role for government.
Corporations are terrified that government should try to force them to change, to become more competitive, or to even gain some sort of legitimacy by constructively dealing with people's problems.
This is why they try so hard to demonize the USPS. Because nothing is more offensive to them than government working.
You are mixing corporations and people (Understandable given the problem that is corporate personhood). That said, the government is terrible at enforcing change or competitiveness in corporations.
Think of how the government allows Clear Channel Communications to exist. Again, you are blaming the problems of corporate America on everyone but the government. Really, the government is equally culpable. They made the rules of the game and have the nerve to blame corporations for exploiting them.
Here's a WoW example for you. Blizzard rages when people use exploits to defeat boss encounters or get achievements (even going so far as to ban people). Is it the player's fault that Blizzard's mistakes led to exploitable flaws in the system that they didn't anticipate? Nope. It's Blizzard's fault for not finding and eliminating those flaws in the first place. Sure, it's pretty cheap for a player to exploit...but it wouldn't be an issue if the exploit didn't exist - can't blame human nature.