Atlas Shrugged

My situation is similar to Percy's "at will" definition. In the future, I'll certainly be on the look out for "work for hire" as I don't like it's implications. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.PM1K

Perhaps I'm unable to perceive why an employee should have an advantage over his employer. Please elaborate on this point.In my situtation, my employer allows me to earn a living doing something I enjoy. My skill is something that my employer uses to meet a need in their business. His wealth is good for me since if he's not making money his need for my skill may disappear. How is his wealth some overwhelming advantage over me?PM1K

Oh? You don't like eating, or paying the rent? The employee should have an advantage over the employer for the same reason that a seller should expect to have to provide a value in exchange for payment.In the best world, the employer and employee would be equally advantaged. What I meant to imply was that is rarely the case. Why don't you ask the (ex-)employees of Walmart in Jonquiere, Quebec?

Did you intend this answer to be vague? I like to eat and have housing but don't see how that's related to me having some kind of advantage of my employer. Unless I would want my employment to be some kind of threat. Please explain your analogy of employee/advantage as compared to seller/value. Ok. How about I ask them if Walmart exist to provide them with jobs. Then I might ask if all Walmart stores had to spend more for operations costs if would it hurt their sales as they increase prices. I'd let them tell me the consquences of an operation forced to spend more while seeing a reduction in sales and profit.What answers to you think I would receive?PM1K

quote:

---

What answers to you think I would receive?

---

Well, I don't know much about ex-Walmart employees in Quebec, but my guess is that they would explain how the consequences of their higher wages would be less anxiety about having to go onto social assistance, food on the table for their kids, maybe even a college education so their kids can have the type of software job that you seem to enjoy.Let me give you some advice -- this attempt to lead the person to a desired conclusion by asking loaded questions worked for Socrates because Plato was able to put the right words in everyone's mouths. In real life it makes for a lousy debate technique, as well as being an annoying rhetorical device.

Advise noted.However, your hypothetical reponses still do not answer my question about why Walmart should provide higher wages. Would it merely be based on the employee needs?PM1K spelling correctedThis message has been edited by portmaster1000, 02-19-2005 17:37 AM

quote:

---

However, your hypothetical reponses still do not answer my question about why Walmart should provide higher wages. Would it merely be based on the employee needs?

---

Sure.

What about Walmart's need to pay it's employees based on their merit and worth the company. I as a consumer don't want to overpay for the goods I buy. I'm sure Walmart doesn't want to overpay for the work it receives from it's employees.Paying based on need is a vicious cycle. If Walmart is giving jobs out strictly based on need they should give all their jobs to the homeless. After all, they have greater need than most everyone. Many skilled employees will have to be fired to make room but after all, those trained employee's need wasn't as great as the homeless need.I know sarcasm isn't any better than loaded questions as a debating technique ... I just couldn't help myself.thanx
PM1K

Hello, portmaster. Don't worry about the sarcasm; I didn't catch it, and sarcasm can be good sometimes, anyway.-

quote:

---

What about Walmart's need to pay it's employees based on their merit and worth the company.

---

I don't recognize that as a legitimate need. I do recognize that all goods and services need to be provided by people who are able to provide them, and that any organization, whatever its purpose, has only limited manpower needs. But no concern exists only to provide you, a consumer, with certain goods at the lowest prices -- it also exists to ensure that those working within it are provided with their needs.I believe that the workers have the right that their needs will be met by Walmart if it is feasible. I believe that the workers have the right to determine what their reasonable needs are, and what sacrifices they will be willing to make if Walmart is unable to meet all of the needs in an adequate manner; I also believe that the workers themselves have the right to determine when Walmart is unable to meet those needs, and what policy changes should be made to meet those needs. But then I believe that Western economics, based on private ownership (and control) of capital, is a grossly inefficient economic system since I define efficient as being able to provide the material needs of every individual in the population and to allow each individual to pursue her path to self-fullfillment (the "pursuit of happiness" business of the US Declaration of Independence).You may not want to "overpay" for the goods you buy, but you are not the sole person to decide what constitutes "overpaying". You do not have a "right" to cheap goods -- your "right" to cheap goods is balanced by your obligation to help ensure that everyone has their needs met. Make no mistake -- I do not agree with Rand's philosophy in the slightest (or at least what I take to be her philosophy). Your rights are balanced by everyone else's rights, and I believe that you have obligations to help ensure that everyone else's rights are provided for, including their rights to a decent life, a life where one's material needs are met and where there is the potential for self-fullfinllment.

If at that moment I decide to commit suicide, then hitting the girl isn’t gonna help, as Car v Human usually turns out bad for human on foot and not for the human driving car. So the only real decision is to hit the anchors and try and avoid the dumb bitch who jumped out in front of you. Go home, go out to bar get hammered and then find a building over 7 floors and jump off it (under 7 floors, it’s gonna hurt but isn’t guaranteed to do the job)

So to put it more simply those with need have the "right" to demand that those with ability provide for them.By this arugment you must agree with my statement about Walmart giving those folk's jobs to the homeless. After all, those folks have the obligation to the homeless as much as Walmart does. Those folks should be happy to give the homeless a chance. In fact, they shouldn't be organizing to demand higher wages for themselves but for the homeless that now have their jobs.Or would that be bit too selfless?thanx
PM1K

I guess that makes about as much sense as saying that in a true free market society we should allow people with the proper skills to hire themselves out as assassins and terrorists. Or in a society where everyone acts according to their own self-interest, then someone bigger than you can come over and take your lunch away from you.Or is that a bit too much self-interest?Whee! We can play this game all day!Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation.

I was completely serious. If Walmart has obligations toward those employees by your definition it doesn't stop with Walmart. Those employees have obligations to the homeless as well, right?If no obligation exist then I must must misunderstand your need/obligation based system. I gathered from your system that everyone has an obligation to everyone else to meet the others needs.PM1K

If Walmart doesn't, then no company does, which means that you prove my point - capitalism is a failure, and we can't rely on it. The benefits that anyone who isn't a business leader gets - like a wage, or like the value of something they bought - is, at best, a side effect of processes designed for the specific benefit of very few. A side effect that is eliminated whenever possible.If companies don't exist to provide their workers with a living, then we simply can't rely on capitalism. It's insufficient for the needs of a human society.Which was my point in the first place.

Just so you know, the doctor is now In, and available to take questions on this topic.Percy - Rand is purely a shill. I'll agree her work is supeficially compelling, in that it is well argued, buit it is methologically baseless, pure Utopianism. It consists entirely of abstract propositions about how things SHOULD be, and does not examine the real, material realities in which we operate. Furthermore, Rand lies about communism, and her work is more accurately seen as propaganda than any form of serious argument.Yes Rand has a lot of influence in American governmental circles. This is because the American government is completely mad and living in a world of its own creation, a hall of propaganda mirrors.The abtract and Utopian nature of Rands argument is echoed by Portmster: "If Walmart has obligations toward those employees by your definition it doesn't stop with Walmart. Those employees have obligations to the homeless as well, right?" Yes, it can stop with Wal-Mart, because engaging to work in a REAL company in the REAL world entails certain specifics. It is an actual contract, both technical and social, and overextension of mere notional principle to all circumstances is a logical fallacy.thats just for starters as unfortunately I have run out of time. But I can set you this homework:Rand talks about the "value" of intellectual contribution, and who ends up with that value. What is value, anyway?Its a central issue.