Work is like a sandwich

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 198
Topic's author
#1
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
If I offered you a bite of a sandwich you might say "thank you I love sandwiches!" but if I offer you five dollars to take a bite of a sandwich you will probably think "well what's wrong with the sandwich?"

Capitalism makes work like a sandwich. No longer is it a dignified self determination of what one needs to do in order to subsist nor is it a labor of love that we are passionate about. I mean maybe sometimes it is but that is the exception not the rule.

Now work has become synonymous with employment and is used as both the carrot and the stick to keep the proletariat in line. This has resulted in useless jobs and unnecessary components of jobs being common place and also to a necessary amount of unemployed individuals.

That's right unemployment is not a bug of capitalism but a feature. Without a steady supply of unemployed workers to draw on the work force might be able to negotiate from a position of strength. These scab workers are necessary to keep the wealthy in power.
#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@secularmerlin
but if I offer you five dollars to take a bite of a sandwich you will probably think "well what's wrong with the sandwich?"
And when you are offered 456 billion Korean won for being good at children’s games, you get thrilled to participate.



#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@secularmerlin
This has resulted in useless jobs and unnecessary components of jobs being common place and also to a necessary amount of unemployed individuals. 
It is meant to lower unemployment rates. Roosevelt built dams because the country needs something to do and the people need jobs.

Have a fun day having no job to do.

The wealthy isn’t inherently evil, and they only are if they are exploiting the poor, not fostering them. A firm that make jobs because of high unemployment rates and make people work for them and give them fair wages while themselves being wealthy is not bad.
Topic's author
#4
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Intelligence_06
And when you are offered 456 billion Korean won for being good at children’s games, you get thrilled to participate.
I don't know that that would be true or at least I don't think the game would be the exciting part. Someone close to me likes big brother and will occasionally watch the program while I am visiting. Something strikes me about the show. The contestants do not seem to enjoy "playing" the "games" they are presented with as challenges and really don't seem to really enjoy the larger game either. Everyone is doing everything in the name of winning the cash prize... also I haven't watched squid games yet so please no spoilers. 
Topic's author
#5
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Intelligence_06
It is meant to lower unemployment rates. Roosevelt built dams because the country needs something to do and the people need jobs.
The idea of employment is what creates unemployment. Work needs to be done but I'm not sure why that means anyone needs to be employed. Do you honestly think if we don't pay one another we will stop doing what we must for the survival of the species?
The wealthy isn’t inherently evil, and they only are if they are exploiting the poor,
I am unaware of any other way to become truly wealthy. 
fair wages 
Is this a joke? No CEO is as necessary to the continued operation of a corporation as the frontline essential workers and yet universally their salaries are orders of magnitude larger. CEO wages are far from fair. Only by paying CEOs and other beugoisie a fair wage could employers possibly afford to pay everyone else a fair wage.
#6
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin

It is meant to lower unemployment rates. Roosevelt built dams because the country needs something to do and the people need jobs.
The idea of employment is what creates unemployment. Work needs to be done but I'm not sure why that means anyone needs to be employed. Do you honestly think if we don't pay one another we will stop doing what we must for the survival of the species?
People need to be employed because they don't have land, or because they've only developed a specialized skillset for which they cannot survive of their own accord, given that nobody claims them as a dependent.
I am unaware of any other way to become truly wealthy.
Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.   

Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.  

Do you honestly think if we don't pay one another we will stop doing what we must for the survival of the species?
If we stop accounting for more valuable resources then is necessary for survival then we've forfeited responsibility for our own well being. 

Taking on that responsibility is part of "growing up", at least among free individuals.
Topic's author
#7
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Conway
People need to be employed because they don't have land, or because they've only developed a specialized skillset for which they cannot survive of their own accord and nobody claims them as a dependent.
This seem like a non sequitur. All this means is that humans must cooperate in order to survive. That alone doesn't necessitate employment.
Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.   

Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.  
Lay claim how exactly? Sorry it seems like you are oversimplifying here.
If we stop accounting for more valuable resources then is necessary for survival then we've forfeited responsibility for our own well being. 
What is more valuable than survival? And what about keeping an account of it becomes impossible without the concept of employment? What about value is undermined if we do not acknowledge the right of some boss to control the means of production and exploit our labor?
#8
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
That's right unemployment is not a bug of capitalism but a feature. Without a steady supply of unemployed workers to draw on the work force might be able to negotiate from a position of strength. These scab workers are necessary to keep the wealthy in power
  I believe this is what marx called the reserve army of labor. Its an advantage businesses have in the struggle with the workers over the definition of a subsistence wage. 
Topic's author
#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
  I believe this is what marx called the reserve army of labor. Its an advantage businesses have in the struggle with the workers over the definition of a subsistence wage. 
Well stated. Corperations hardly need more of an advantage considering the advantages their wealth grants them.
#10
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
People need to be employed because they don't have land, or because they've only developed a specialized skillset for which they cannot survive of their own accord and nobody claims them as a dependent.
This seem like a non sequitur. All this means is that humans must cooperate in order to survive. That alone doesn't necessitate employment.
You asked why people need to be employed and I explained why so I don't understand how that's a non-sequitur. 

I haven't really claimed that humans must cooperate in order to survive.  Seeing that you're interested enough to bring it up anyway, I do believe this to be the case in terms of raising a family.  



Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.   

Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.  
Lay claim how exactly? Sorry it seems like you are oversimplifying here.
You just claim that you are in the right to work the land.  It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.
Topic's author
#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Conway
You asked why people need to be employed and I explained why so I don't understand how that's a non-sequitur. 
Yes but you did not justify employment only mediums of exchange. One does not necessitate the other.
You just claim that you are in the right to work the land.  It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.
Sorry but I don't understand what is to keep your claim from being challenged. 
#12
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin

You asked why people need to be employed and I explained why so I don't understand how that's a non-sequitur. 
Yes but you did not justify employment only mediums of exchange. One does not necessitate the other.
That's probably because I was answering a question as to why people need to be employed, not trying to justify employment.  
You just claim that you are in the right to work the land.  It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.
Sorry but I don't understand what is to keep your claim from being challenged. 
Well a claim might be challenged by another claim or it might not.  It seems obvious that challenging a claim is a matter of discretion.  
Topic's author
#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
That's probably because I was answering a question as to why people need to be employed, not trying to justify employment.  
What's the difference? If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary. On what grounds do you engage in this hair splitting?
Well a claim might be challenged by another claim or it might not.  It seems obvious that challenging a claim is a matter of discretion.  
How is the dispute settled then? Might makes right?
#14
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Spoken like a true Marxist, an obvious critic of capitalism, but who never ran a lemonade stand's worth of effort to know more than that there's an offer of a sandwich for pay. Who designed the sandwich? From whence came the raw materials, and who purchased them? Who developed the marketing plan to offer the sandwich to attract a consumer's appeal? Who produced the sandwich? Who is selling the sandwich? Who is coordinating payment? Who is guaranteeing the sandwich's satisfaction? Who will follow-up on the customer's reaction? Who is paying all those who contributed to the sandwich's design through payroll efforts? If you're bored by your job, create a new job. What, can't think that far ahead? Not my problem, my friend.

Marx thinks all there is to capitalism is selling and buying. 

He, and you, entirely miss the point. I am supposed to be surprised?
Topic's author
#15
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
He, and you, entirely miss the point. 
I welcome you to elaborate.

#16
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
You're welcome.

I offer you a prime rib sandwich, but you'll take the bozone baloney, thanks. Your choice. Or, blame the universe again. Sorry about the taste quality of your universe. I'll take my prime rib. 
Topic's author
#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Who designed the sandwich? 
Topic's author
#18
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Who designed the sandwich?
From whence came the raw materials,
The workers. 
Who developed the marketing plan
Everyone needs sandwiches. You don't have to convince anyone who cares about themselves to eat a sandwich. 
Who produced the sandwich?
The workers
Who is selling the sandwich? Who is coordinating payment? Who is guaranteeing the sandwich's satisfaction? Who will follow-up on the customer's reaction? 
The workers
The workers 
The workers
Who is paying all those who contributed to the sandwich's design through payroll efforts? 
The customers most of whom are workers. They even pay the owners, CEOs etc.
If you're bored by your job, 
This is not the fundamental issue. 
Topic's author
#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
I offer you a prime rib sandwich, but you'll take the bozone baloney, thanks. Your choice. Or, blame the universe again. Sorry about the taste quality of your universe. I'll take my prime rib. 
This more or less ignores the actual issue which I am addressing here which is that the system of employer/employee is an unnecessary system which does not prioritize human wellbeing and compels many people to work long hours doing dirty, difficult, unnecessary and or unfulfilling jobs. Whether any of these states applies to you or I is immaterial. It is still a real problem. The problem of threatening not to give someone a sandwich at all and to let them instead starve to death watching you eat your prime rib because they are unwilling or unable to play along with the system of consumerism demanded by our corporate overlords is a seperate issue.
#20
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
That fails to answer the specific question you highlighted; one of fully nine questions I posed. This answers who funded, and supposes that the government paid all funding, [not cited as the case] but the party who funds is not necessarily the party who designs, and it is certainly not true that the government designed the sandwich, which is pre-existent to the U.S. Further, your source, Stacker.com, cites a source, CDC.gov., which designates 1942, not 1945. Come on; really? So, you're 10 for 10 failed rebuttals.

#21
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
From whence came the raw materials,
The workers. 

No, The supplier of raw materials is a contracted supply chain, not the workers of your sandwich enterprise. See, you do suck the Marx tit, and it isn't giving your milk. Design failure? No, just sucking at the wrong sex. By your thinking, the baby produces its own milk. Nope. Sorry. I'll wager Marx is just as clueless. You're 2 down.

Who developed the marketing plan
Everyone needs sandwiches. You don't have to convince anyone who cares about themselves to eat a sandwich. 
Again, no. Customers are the recipients of a marketing plan, not the producer. And, again, Marx fails because he does not even account for marketing in his business plan. 0 for 3.

Who produced the sandwich?
The workers
Well, you got one right, but, you're still wrong elsewise [from another thread] because of all the people involved in the sandwich enterprise, the workers take the highest percentage of the profit; upward of 30%. You cannot split 100% into nine equal disbursements of 30%  [and that's not all the pieces of the pie], can you? I give you 1/2 point. 0.5 for 4.

Who is selling the sandwich? Who is coordinating payment? Who is guaranteeing the sandwich's satisfaction? Who will follow-up on the customer's reaction? 
The workers
The workers 
The workers
Workers, ie, direct labor, i.e., the proletariate, do not fill any of those functions, they are indirect labor. Marx ignored them, too. 0.5 for 7 Got to know you enterprise functions and the proper work designations. You apparently do not.

Who is paying all those who contributed to the sandwich's design through payroll efforts? 
The customers most of whom are workers. They even pay the owners, CEOs etc.
Wrong, again. That one was a trick question. Pay is paid by the payroll department, another indirect labor. Yes, the funds come from gross profit, which, by reason, is no longer owned by the customer, who has product, a sandwich, in trade for their cost for the sandwich. Marx ignored that department, too,  by oversimplification. 0.5 for 8.

You missed "Who is coordinating payment?" The last trick question, and It is not the same people who actually meet the payroll. It's actually either finance, or human resources in most enterprises. 0.5 for 9, or 5%. That's a Fail, by the way. Go back to school, and this time, give Marx the boot. He is not even a proper teacher, let alone a lemonade entrepreneur. As for sandwiches, a more complicated product than lemonade, is completely beyond him. But you call him a relevant critic of capitalism. Pardon my laughing. Hell, he doesn't even describe socialism as its practiced today.

If you're bored by your job, 
This is not the fundamental issue. 


This has resulted in useless jobs and unnecessary components of jobs being common place and also to a necessary amount of unemployed individuals. 
Seems its a hot button for you. Just sayin' 
Topic's author
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
That fails to answer the specific question 
The government is responsible for creating spaceflight computers and plastics. In general corperations don't invent products they only think of new applications which is not a sevice without value but it certainly isn't a billion dollar value. 
The supplier of raw materials is a contracted supply chain,
Who do you think runs and maintains the supply chain? Have you ever seen a CEO working as a deckhand? A pilot? A forklift operator? No the workers maintain the supply chain. If the CEO doesn't show up to work today the supply lines keep going if the workers don't show up everything stops. 
Workers, ie, direct labor, i.e., the proletariate, do not fill any of those functions, they are indirect labor. 
Who does indirect labor if not the workers? You seem to be making a distinction with no difference. Please justify your hairsplitting.
Pay is paid by the payroll department,
I hate to be a stickler but where does the money come from that payroll distributes? If you answered from the customers you are correct. On a side not payroll departments are run by workers too.
This has resulted in useless jobs and unnecessary components of jobs being common place and also to a necessary amount of unemployed individuals. 
Seems its a hot button for you. Just sayin' 
It should be a hot button for everyone including the one percent. This waste of labor and potential is detrimental to society as a whole. If this is the best capitalism cam do I remain unimpressed. 
#23
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I assume you have a solution worked out for when nobody wants to pump septic tanks.
Topic's author
#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I assume you have a solution worked out for when nobody wants to pump septic tanks.
I'm not suggesting that all work end and I'm not sure why everyone assumes that is what I mean. Work is necessary to our survival. It is employment that is unnecessary. It is employment that makes work like a sandwich.
#25
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I wasn't suggesting work would end. I was addressing the issue of who does the undesirable work. Waste disposal is a necessary part of any society (septic, trash, etc.), and I doubt there are very many people who are passionate enough about it to volunteer. So what happens when no one wants to do it?
Topic's author
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So what happens when no one wants to do it?
What happens at your house when no one feels like doing dishes? Cooking? Mowing the lawn? Cleaning the bathroom? Do these things simply go undone because they are unpleasant and no one is being paid to do it?
#27
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,227
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
If I offered you a bite of a sandwich you might say "thank you I love sandwiches!" but if I offer you five dollars to take a bite of a sandwich you will probably think "well what's wrong with the sandwich?"
In this analogy, you don't know the contents of your sandwich.  However, with jobs, people know what a job entails much more than they know whether or not a sandwich is poisoned so they pick the hard jobs to get paid the most.

If someone offers you $5 to eat one of your sandwiches, you have an incentive to make more sandwiches, feeding more people, and getting yourself rich in the process.
#28
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
What happens at your house when no one feels like doing dishes? Cooking? Mowing the lawn? Cleaning the bathroom? Do these things simply go undone because they are unpleasant and no one is being paid to do it?
When I was a bachelor, the answer would be yes. I would let many tasks go undone for far too long. And there are many households where this is the case because nobody wants to do it. Are you suggesting these things get done in every household on a regular basis?
Topic's author
#29
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
When I was a bachelor, the answer would be yes. I would let many tasks go undone for far too long. And there are many households where this is the case because nobody wants to do it. Are you suggesting these things get done in every household on a regular basis?
I'm suggesting that they should be and that in a well organized house they are. We must simply see the nation as our home and other Citizens as family and organize our home in order to care for our family. 
#30
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
And what happens when no one wants to volunteer to pick up trash and clean up sewage? We can't pay anyone to do it so...