An odd swiss initiative

Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Yeah, this was happening here as well in Quebec. Especially when it came to jobs in the fields that have to be done manually or at least somewhat. (Collecting various berries and vegetables).

It wasn't just for the money though, the farmers were simply unable to find willing labor, so they hired Mexican & south american workers.

So government stepped in, they put programs for workers from those country to come work seasonal jobs. In return they are guaranteed wages and conditions that are the same as regular workers that live here.

I won't say there's no abuse since that would be utopic. But I see quite a few of them in my hometown and from speaking with them I'd say they seem quite happy. They have much better wages(5 to 10 times) and conditions than they'd have back home. ( 10.15$ per hour or more …although I'd be surprised if it was more :p or a by weight collected for those who work strawberries and raspberries fields)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
563
Location
Quebec
As long as there's the concept of class and the concept of value that's tied into how many items you possess or could potentially possess - there will be exploitation of the working class.

Just because Denmark is a paradise compared to many other countries around the world, we still manage to hold on to the supreme ignorance of dividing human beings into classes with different values - whether it's done out in the open or not.

That means that lower classes will have less appealing conditions under which to function in society - effectively exploiting them.

It's inevitable, really.
 
It's the natural order of things, DArt. Man does not want genuine equality. Our basic instincts are self-centered and greedy.

Might as well bemoan water being wet.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
It's the natural order of things, DArt. Man does not want genuine equality. Our basic instincts are self-centered and greedy.

Might as well bemoan water being wet.

It has nothing to do with what we want, it has to do with what we know.
 
It has nothing to do with what we want, it has to do with what we know.
Not sure what you mean by that.

If you're wanting people to admit to their baser instincts (knowing that they don't want equality), I think you're going to be disappointed. That level of critical introspection isn't exactly common, doesn't play well in public, and generally gets shut down almost in self-defense.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
Not sure what you mean by that.

If you're wanting people to admit to their baser instincts (knowing that they don't want equality), I think you're going to be disappointed. That level of critical introspection isn't exactly common, doesn't play well in public, and generally gets shut down almost in self-defense.

I'm saying that people don't know the alternative and they don't understand the consequences of being who they are.

People have no inborn instinct dictating that others should suffer - that's bullshit.

They simple can't imagine how you can avoid inequality and yet not miss out - so they don't believe in it.
 
I don't deny that there is a greedy instinct in humans. It's more obvious in the underdeveloped and the very young. It doesn't mean most can rise above it though.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
That means that lower classes will have less appealing conditions under which to function in society - effectively exploiting them.

The problem with any attempt to change social/economic class distinctions and the such is that you will never find consensus to the question of 'what is exploitation'?

As an example, we have an admin at my firm. I doubt she makes 1/3 of what I make in base pay and she probably doesn't get much of anything in bonus. Both of our job functions are critical to our firm no doubt, but her skillset is not that rare, while mine is. Her skillset doesn't even require a college degree, but mine took nearly a decade of school.

So is she being exploited? I would say no, she's being fairly compensated (her compensation is probably in the top quarter for her job function) based on what the market requires. Others would say she is being exploited.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
The problem with any attempt to change social/economic class distinctions and the such is that you will never find consensus to the question of 'what is exploitation'?

As an example, we have an admin at my firm. I doubt she makes 1/3 of what I make in base pay and she probably doesn't get much of anything in bonus. Both of our job functions are critical to our firm no doubt, but her skillset is not that rare, while mine is. Her skillset doesn't even require a college degree, but mine took nearly a decade of school.

So is she being exploited? I would say no, she's being fairly compensated (her compensation is probably in the top quarter for her job function) based on what the market requires. Others would say she is being exploited.

Once you remove pay from the equation - you arrive at problem-solved station.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Yes, it's "high" because people have trouble imagining something as trivially simple as not having money in society.

Sad, but that's how it is.

Creatures of habit - and what's been there for so many years has to be there, right?

Not really.
 
People have no inborn instinct dictating that others should suffer - that's bullshit.
"Suffer" is certainly a relative and subjective term which makes argument nearly pointless. That said, I'm comfy with a generality that people have an inborn instinct to want "more".

The key is that it doesn't really matter what the form of "more" really takes. It's free to be whatever is appropriate for the group being examined. So, in our current cannibal-capitalism paradigm, "more" largely takes the form of a bigger pile of consumer goods and the money used to attain them. If we look at "a simpler world" where money isn't even in the picture, "more" could take the form of an extra apple or a cave to live in that doesn't fill with water every time it rains. Taken to a strictly biological scale, "more" could be multiple or more desirable mates.

Regardless of the chosen context for "more", it entails by definition an inequality and humans want it. And I'll up the ante by further stating that the means for achieving the inequality will involve violence, albeit not necessarily physical.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
"Suffer" is certainly a relative and subjective term which makes argument nearly pointless. That said, I'm comfy with a generality that people have an inborn instinct to want "more".

The key is that it doesn't really matter what the form of "more" really takes. It's free to be whatever is appropriate for the group being examined. So, in our current cannibal-capitalism paradigm, "more" largely takes the form of a bigger pile of consumer goods and the money used to attain them. If we look at "a simpler world" where money isn't even in the picture, "more" could take the form of an extra apple or a cave to live in that doesn't fill with water every time it rains. Taken to a strictly biological scale, "more" could be multiple or more desirable mates.

Regardless of the chosen context for "more", it entails by definition an inequality and humans want it.

No, I don't agree that we want more based on instinct.

Again, we want more based on what we know. If we understood that more doesn't actually mean more - it wouldn't be desirable.

Problem is that we think more is more.
 
No, I don't agree that we want more based on instinct.

Again, we want more based on what we know. If we understood that more doesn't actually mean more - it wouldn't be desirable.

Problem is that we think more is more.
If it were learned behavior, you wouldn't see it in animals. They don't get socially indoctrinated. But some animals are social, right? If it were cognitive social behavior, you wouldn't see it in "dumb" animals like insects. Yet, we do. Instinct.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
DArtagnan is starting to sound like that ChienAboyeur fellow. ;)
Now, now. DArt's vision is actually very coherent, as long as you agree to certain assumptions. That's why the appropriate argument with him involves the validity of his assumptions, rather than the structure he's built. Thus, rather than arguing about a world without monetary drivers being impractical, the better argument revolves around the "why".

Chien's rants don't just involve unconventional foundation assumptions, but he's got serious structural problems to boot.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
Back
Top Bottom