-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Ethics
- Thread starter vodkazvictim
- Start date
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Jesus would say you're full of shit because the statement is is 100% false. $240 billion will solve it 4 times over? Who's ass did this number get pulled from?
I was going to use other words, but you beat me to it.
Even if we were to "reorganize" all the wealth in the world and distribute it equally amongst all nations and peoples, the same individuals who have the bulk of it now would undoubtedly end up with it right back in their hands in short order. They have the money because they know how to get it. Change the system, and they will change their priorities and adapt their strategies to fit that new system, and will still be in control of the wealth, whether its in their own personal bank accounts or not.
Yes and they value it. Many of the have-nots do not value wealth as the haves do. Focus on what you want and you have a better chance of getting it.
twat36975248664224
Closed Account
A main problem with the wealth is when the buy things they don't buy from a local small town business that a family in the middle or lower class owns. They instead buy things from other expensive or big business so they might spend a lot of money but yet most of that money goes to the rich and little to the workers. If the rich did look to help improve areas and spent money in small businesses it would drastically help the economy. Cause the many would have money to pay their taxes instead of the money staying in the top 1%. We need more money to flow from the top down to the bottom to help people pay taxes and expenses.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Ignore the maths; I didn't do it and I don't know who did. This topic focusses on the ethics.
Possibly the best argument for redistributing the wealth I've ever heard; let's equalise all the wealth.
The rich can have fun getting all their cash back.
Apparently it will be easy for them :rofl:
1: The haves have because they don't earn their wealth; the have nots earn it for them.
2: The rich (as a rule) value money over that which is ethically right. I'd rather have ethics like a real person, than money and no ethics, like george osbourne.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
What is unethical about making money?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
You'll have to clarify your question, that topic is too vague. On it's face, there's nothing unethical about hard work and fair compensation, but that's not the question you asked.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Vodka somehow thinks there is a problem with it. Some people have more than others and it doesn't seem fair to him. Should there be a limit on how much money we are allowed to have? If he has 2 cars and I have none, should he give me one?
There is nothing ethically wrong about making money.
There is something ethically wrong about using people unfairly and manipulating them to make money. I suspect that is what VV is talking about.
I have the unpopular idea that labor laws should be changed. I do not agree with Right to Work laws for larger companies. I believe they make people into non-precious commodities. From a purely capitalistic view there is nothing wrong with it, but without some sort of rights and power given to the worker it is too easy to put the workers in a very difficult spot. Even if there is no intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employer.
(So for those who think I'm a right winger, this is pretty close to socialist talk, no?)
I'm a capitalist myself and make most of my income through investment. I personally see putting other humans in an unfair position as unethical. I realize this view is not accepted by most and the feeling is that everyone should be able to fend for themselves. My much (rightly so) maligned religion that was embedded in my upbringing taught me differently.
What's ethical/moral about third worlders having more babies than they can even imagine being able to afford; what's ethical about bringing a child into this world into such extreme poverty? Couldn't afford to have 'em, shouldn't have had 'em. Survival of the fittest - natural selection.
How compassionate of you
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
:goodpost:
Aren't we past that BS "compassionate" crap yet? I mean, who's more compassionate - me, the guy with no kids (yet) or the guy or gal that brings multiple children into this world and yet can't afford them? Honestly, am I a villain in making that non-compassionate statement or the person who I'm supposed to support?
Here's a newsflash: the world cannot sustain the level of growth we've been experiencing over the course of the last couple centuries.
(And FWIW I do donate to the food shelf and will give Joe Nobody money out of my own pocket when I can.)
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
That's a rep-worthy post, and if I'll be sure to get back around to it when I have some to give you.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
We are not precious commodities, we are meat puppets. You've been around enough to know that. There is no loyalty in large companies on either end. Nothing stops an employee from picking up and moving on at any time. Complacency is is dangerous and it happens at all levels of business. When business is off there is only so much that can be done to keep it going. It's not the bottom level that feels the pressure first. The big numbers are seen first by the boys upstairs. Come up with an idea because costs are overrunning profits for too long. Getting new business shouldn't be their first choice since it's their job to do that in the first place. No one from the top down wants to decide on cuts because they may be the next one cut. Shit rolls down hill so those that it hits have to react in the same way. Produce, cut, or you will be cut.
I'll give you retail as an example since that is my business. The same theory can be applied to any corporation. Quarterly numbers come in from a chain of stores and they are trending down. The past 6 months have all been bad. Time to react. Where did our business go? How are the other stores doing? Can we form a strategy to get our customers back? If not then we have to work leaner. How does each market or region look? Has the market been saturated to the point that certain stores no longer can float themselves? How long does it make sense operating at the current level? Closing a store is expensive so make cuts first.
At the store level decisions have to be made and it's payroll. Replace full timers that leave with a part timer. Everyone has to do more. People that have been there for 5-10-15 years have to kick it up a notch too. Store managers included. Sometimes it gets to the point that there are still not enough hands to do all of the work. Something's got to give. The store secretary has to go and the managers will have to do more paperwork. Or a department manager has to go and everyone has to pick up an additional piece of the store. There are scores of other people there and if the store closes they are all out of work. Last one in first one out? Not necessarily. Dude that was hired last year is doing more work than some that have been there for 5-8 years. Tough to call someone in and tell them that but it is what it is.
I'll give you retail as an example since that is my business. The same theory can be applied to any corporation. Quarterly numbers come in from a chain of stores and they are trending down. The past 6 months have all been bad. Time to react. Where did our business go? How are the other stores doing? Can we form a strategy to get our customers back? If not then we have to work leaner. How does each market or region look? Has the market been saturated to the point that certain stores no longer can float themselves? How long does it make sense operating at the current level? Closing a store is expensive so make cuts first.
At the store level decisions have to be made and it's payroll. Replace full timers that leave with a part timer. Everyone has to do more. People that have been there for 5-10-15 years have to kick it up a notch too. Store managers included. Sometimes it gets to the point that there are still not enough hands to do all of the work. Something's got to give. The store secretary has to go and the managers will have to do more paperwork. Or a department manager has to go and everyone has to pick up an additional piece of the store. There are scores of other people there and if the store closes they are all out of work. Last one in first one out? Not necessarily. Dude that was hired last year is doing more work than some that have been there for 5-8 years. Tough to call someone in and tell them that but it is what it is.
I see your point. It is admirable that you donate to charities that you feel are worthy. I just think that there are probably factors in the third world family that may beyond what you experience. I don't think it would be reasonable to assume they are all dumb or parasites.
Good post. I would not advocate a union type of economy where tenure and compensation or based on longevity. I also wouldn't think of restricting smaller businesses. The only thing I would look to change are the Right to Work laws. I think when I say that, that draws the line on union v. non-union and I'm less interested in that than I am in fairness, even over profit. So, another law that I'm not in favor of that may make my position clearer is "At Will" employment for larger companies. This grants the employer the right to treat people as that non-precious commodity as well. Doing away with At Will Employment can work, but doing away with it is not a economic tool for employers. Without it they need to manage their organizations better.
My position is an ethical one. I'm one of those crazy people that thinks our government is there to help make improvements for all. Often there are no economic justification for it. It is my Utopian outlook and is the reason why I'm disgusted with the corruption on both sides of the aisle.
