• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporations Aren't People

Gipper said:
Name me some corporations today with "monopolistic control". There are a couple, but I want to see if you pick the right ones or say something insane like "Walmart".
Click to expand...

Walmart May not be the same as say Google, however with that said, they are a monopoly in a trading network.

"Wal-Mart is known for the incredibly low prices that it gives to its customers. After all, its slogan is “Every Day Low Prices.” It is praised by many consumers for this, but most people do not realize that this powerhouse for cheap goods is actually a monopoly as seen through its actions as a trader between suppliers and consumers." Wall Mart as a Monopoly in a Trading Network | Networks
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Walmart May not be the same as say Google, however with that said, they are a monopoly in a trading network.

"Wal-Mart is known for the incredibly low prices that it gives to its customers. After all, its slogan is “Every Day Low Prices.” It is praised by many consumers for this, but most people do not realize that this powerhouse for cheap goods is actually a monopoly as seen through its actions as a trader between suppliers and consumers." Wall Mart as a Monopoly in a Trading Network | Networks
Click to expand...

Have a nice day.
 
TurtleDude said:
the solution of the left for large allegedly oppressive corporations is bigger more oppressive government
Click to expand...

Oh, really the only choice we have to an allege abuse from a corporation is bigger more oppressive government??? Sounds like a straw man to me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Take this simple example: Your property (say your tool shed) is destroyed by J. Q. Criminal or MegaCorp. If the citizen is convicted then you get nothing but the satisfaction of paying to lock them up for a bit, but you will get full restitution and likely a bit more from the conviction of the corporation.

Would you rather have the captain of the Exxon Valdez (or even the Exxon CEO) locked up or have the millions (billions?) in clean up costs recovered. To assert that a corporation is not legally liable for its actions ignores reality.
Click to expand...

I would have to see comparative rates of justice for criminal victims and civil victims before making a judgement on this issue. We see all the time corporate "discipline" that isn't even vaguely comparable to a person spending unreplaceable years of their lives for an offense of similar severity.

At no point has a corporation surrendered years of its existence for killing somebody. To the contrary, they usually receive fines/judgements representing a small fraction of that years profits.

A months pay, net.

As with the union/corporation argument, it isn't a one to one relationship per rights/obligations between human beings and corporations.

One can draw valid, partial comparisons: unions and corporations spend money on political campaigns. But this isn't an apples and apples comparison.

Unions reflect the desires of all members through a democratic process, while corporations represent the desires of their owners/officers. The latter wields the negative entropy of a much larger group which has no say in these decisions.

This is one of those places where "absolutes" have crept into our discourse where they don't belong.

One can say that corporations shouldn't be muzzled while workers are not. This is true.

We should not be talking as if they are the same thing as part of a "right to assembly" argument in defense of unlimited anonymous campaign spending.

A useful discussion includes the gray shades.

Gray shades don't make for good talking points, but talking points are designed to END conversation.
 
Fisher said:
You mean the hypocrisy? Yes I see it quite glaringly. Keep at it. Union membership is cratering in the US.
Click to expand...

Ever ask yourself why it is that unions are an anachronism that are dying a natural death but untold millions are spent trying to destroy them?

One is tempted to draw comparisons to Civil War era America.
 
What if...? said:
Ever ask yourself why it is that unions are an anachronism that are dying a natural death but untold millions are spent trying to destroy them?

One is tempted to draw comparisons to Civil War era America.
Click to expand...

Workers are being freed from their Union slave masters...yeah I agree with that analogy.
 
What if...? said:
Ever ask yourself why it is that unions are an anachronism that are dying a natural death but untold millions are spent trying to destroy them?

One is tempted to draw comparisons to Civil War era America.
Click to expand...

It's because there are always some uninformed trying to bring them back. Unions are very smooth-talking, deceitful institutions. They're organized snake oil salesmen.

You can't blame some stupid, gullible people falling for it.

Unions aren't a real concern to me anyway. Now if this was pre-Taft Hartley, that'd be another story.
 
Gipper said:
It's because there are always some uninformed trying to bring them back. Unions are very smooth-talking, deceitful institutions. They're organized snake oil salesmen.

You can't blame some stupid, gullible people falling for it.

Unions aren't a real concern to me anyway. Now if this was pre-Taft Hartley, that'd be another story.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with your dislike of unions. The problem with one institution's power being diluted is the competing institution's power becomes more powerful. This imbalance of power is part of the reason workers can be exploited today.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This has nothing to do with your dislike of unions. The problem with one institution's power being diluted is the competing institution's power becomes more powerful. This imbalance of power is part of the reason workers can be exploited today.
Click to expand...

For educated, skilled workers, they have quite a bit of power. This is why headhunters exist - their entire occupation is to find people with the proper education, proper skills, and proper experience to add net value to high-worth corporations with their intellectual capital.

Unions to protect marginally educated and skilled workers only exist (these days) to bring market inefficiency to wages - for a price. They collect very handsomely for their sevices. In fact, they're so bad that many low-wage, low-skill, low-education employers will gladly pay their workers an otherwise better wage. At least when they do this in a unionless workplace, they have workers who directly benefit and are happier, as opposed to unions who skim off the top and flex muscles of coercion, manipulation, and fear.

At one point, unions were necessary to protect the lives and livelihoods of certain people in certain professions. Today, they're just greedy institutions whose entire existence is predicated on the lowest common denominator believing that they "need" them while using them for their own collective goals, both monetarily and politically.
 
Gipper said:
For educated, skilled workers, they have quite a bit of power. This is why headhunters exist - their entire occupation is to find people with the proper education, proper skills, and proper experience to add net value to high-worth corporations with their intellectual capital.

Unions to protect marginally educated and skilled workers only exist (these days) to bring market inefficiency to wages - for a price. They collect very handsomely for their sevices. In fact, they're so bad that many low-wage, low-skill, low-education employers will gladly pay their workers an otherwise better wage. At least when they do this in a unionless workplace, they have workers who directly benefit and are happier, as opposed to unions who skim off the top and flex muscles of coercion, manipulation, and fear.

At one point, unions were necessary to protect the lives and livelihoods of certain people in certain professions. Today, they're just greedy institutions whose entire existence is predicated on the lowest common denominator believing that they "need" them while using them for their own collective goals, both monetarily and politically.
Click to expand...

False, many times the only time a company will pay their workers a decent wage with benefits is the fear of workers organizing in areas where unions are still active. Grocery employees, for instance, are paid pretty median wages in my neck of the woods because we have one chain with a fairly strong union. In other areas of the country where unions barely exist, the workers aren't paid nearly as well for same exact labor. It's because of a shift of power.

Saying many workers are being exploited, the need seems to be real.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
False, many times the only time a company will pay their workers a decent wage with benefits is the fear of workers organizing in areas where unions are still active. Grocery employees, for instance, are paid pretty median wages in my neck of the woods because we have one chain with a fairly strong union. In other areas of the country where unions barely exist, the workers aren't paid nearly as well for same exact labor. It's because of a shift of power.

Saying many workers are being exploited, the need seems to be real.
Click to expand...

People being paid inefficient wages should not be a bragging point. However, if it works for them, so be it. I don't care about their side of the street as long as they don't come on mine.

They can pay their scrubs 15 bucks an hour with benefits if they want. I'll pay mine 8 with no benefits. They don't like it? They can go work over there or just get the hell on.

I leave them alone, and I expect the same courtesy.

They better not bitch when I can offer a can of corn for 69 cents and they have to charge 1.19 though. For the same reason, if someone wants to go over there and "do the right thing" for 40% markup, good for them. My customers are plentiful.
 
Gipper said:
People being paid inefficient wages should not be a bragging point. However, if it works for them, so be it. I don't care about their side of the street as long as they don't come on mine.

They can pay their scrubs 15 bucks an hour with benefits if they want. I'll pay mine 8 with no benefits. They don't like it? They can go work over there or just get the hell on.

I leave them alone, and I expect the same courtesy.

They better not bitch when I can offer a can of corn for 69 cents and they have to charge 1.19 though. For the same reason, if someone wants to go over there and "do the right thing" for 40% markup, good for them. My customers are plentiful.
Click to expand...

Whose bragging about insufficient wages? The whole point is many workers are getting paid insufficient wages because their is an imbalance of power.

Your concern about prices isn't a concern in my area. We have five markets within a short distance of us, they compete wildly for consumers. Everyone in the community benefits. We have competition, which knocks down prices. Workers also benefit from decent wages instead of having to depend on the state for the basics. The markets are all still in business because they believe in fair competition and are ethical in their practices.
 
Fisher said:
Let me guess, it is okay for a union to speak for all their members as a collective in endorsing a Progressive candidate? But, but...
Click to expand...
No. But here's the difference between the collective bargaining activites of a union acting on behalf of its members and a corporate owner acting independently in a similar regard.

If employees don't agree w/the candidate of choice they can voice their displeasure to union representatives or end their union membership. But when the CEO/President/businessowner steps into that role his only motivation is to protect the interests of the business by forcing his own beliefs onto his employees.

To be clear, individuals who sign up for union membership accept that said union will "collectively bargain" on employment issues/benefits on their behalf. They expect that the business will always act in its own self interest. In any case, union members understand that the union generally speaks for its members. Those who disagree with its positions can terminate their membership w/o fear of losing their job. Conversely, an employee who disagrees w/the boss can expect some level of reprocussions.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
Whose bragging about insufficient wages? The whole point is many workers are getting paid insufficient wages because their is an imbalance of power.

Your concern about prices isn't a concern in my area. We have five markets within a short distance of us, they compete wildly for consumers. Everyone in the community benefits. We have competition, which knocks down prices. Workers also benefit from decent wages instead of having to depend on the state for the basics. The markets are all still in business because they believe in fair competition and are ethical in their practices.
Click to expand...

InEFFicient...not inSUFFicient.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Whose bragging about insufficient wages? The whole point is many workers are getting paid insufficient wages because their is an imbalance of power.

Your concern about prices isn't a concern in my area. We have five markets within a short distance of us, they compete wildly for consumers. Everyone in the community benefits. We have competition, which knocks down prices. Workers also benefit from decent wages instead of having to depend on the state for the basics. The markets are all still in business because they believe in fair competition and are ethical in their practices.
Click to expand...

Also, if they all pay those inEFFicient wages to their employees, then they're not competing hard enough. Collusion is not competition.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Okay, whose bragging about inefficient wages.....
Click to expand...

Well, you are. You're talking about markets in your area paying workers more than the market determines that they're worth. If people want to expose themselves to that, they can.

Put a Walmart supercenter in your area, and we'll see if people still don't mind paying a 30% higher grocery bill just so some high school scrub can get a Lexus.
 
Gipper said:
Also, if they all pay those inEFFicient wages to their employees, then they're not competing hard enough. Collusion is not competition.
Click to expand...

Workers getting paid median wages for full time hours is not inefficient. It benefits everyone in the community. I already explained having many markets in the area make them compete for consumers. There is no collusion.:roll:
 
Gipper said:
Well, you are. You're talking about markets in your area paying workers more than the market determines that they're worth. If people want to expose themselves to that, they can.

Put a Walmart supercenter in your area, and we'll see if people still don't mind paying a 30% higher grocery bill just so some high school scrub can get a Lexus.
Click to expand...

That is a fair market price.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Workers getting paid median wages for full time hours is not inefficient. It benefits everyone in the community. I already explained having many markets in the area make them compete for consumers. There is no collusion.:roll:
Click to expand...

If they're all overpaying their workers, that damn sure is collusion.
 
Gipper said:
If they're all overpaying their workers, that damn sure is collusion.
Click to expand...

They are not over paying their workers. The community just doesn't have to pick up the basic needs for their employees because they don't qualify. That is good business ethics not bad.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
They are not over paying their workers. The community just doesn't have to pick up the basic needs for their employees because they don't qualify. That is good business ethics not bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah they do. They pick them up by paying well above market rates for grocery items.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom