Einstein on Socialism

[Minor Axis]

I don't know.........I know this wasn't a debate re are Unions good or not, but I have mixed feelings about them too....I've seen Companies where the Union is all about the UNION OFFICIALS, but not the Union members and they end up sticking it to a company not to HELP members. I even had a union official tell me (a quasi-management person) that he didn't care about the person he was representing he just wanted to screw the gvmt.

Then I have seen practices like Wal-mart and the shitty way they treat their employees and I think they Need a union there.

Sorry to digress, this line of thought just popped into my head.

You are right, unions are only as good as those people who run them, which also applies to governments and corporations.

 

[Accountable]

Hiring based on race or sex, and firing people on a whim, is just bad business. It's stupid, and any idiot that wants to do business like that nowadays should be allowed to ... and the competition will eat their lunch with more highly skilled, better paid, and more highly motivated teams of employees. Good employees naturally gravitate to good employers. If people believe a co-op is the business model they prefer, nothing is stopping them from giving that a go. Capitalism allows all these things. The conflict comes when a person wants an ideal job from a less-than-ideal employer, when leaving a bad boss is usually the better way to go.

I have a similar view about women who glom onto a man long after she's discovered he's a son of a bitch, and keeps pounding away trying to "fix" him.

 

[hart]

Hiring based on race or sex, and firing people on a whim, is just bad business. It's stupid, and any idiot that wants to do business like that nowadays should be allowed to ... and the competition will eat their lunch with more highly skilled, better paid, and more highly motivated teams of employees. Good employees naturally gravitate to good employers. If people believe a co-op is the business model they prefer, nothing is stopping them from giving that a go. Capitalism allows all these things. The conflict comes when a person wants an ideal job from a less-than-ideal employer, when leaving a bad boss is usually the better way to go.

I have a similar view about women who glom onto a man long after she's discovered he's a son of a bitch, and keeps pounding away trying to "fix" him.

I don't quite understand ur last point of view hon.....what is ur view exactly about a woman OR MAN, it really does work both ways, who keeps with their spouse when they r not able to fix them?

Do u not take into account a person's faith, belief, rose-colored glasses......

 

[Accountable]

I don't quite understand ur last point of view hon.....what is ur view exactly about a woman OR MAN, it really does work both ways, who keeps with their spouse when they r not able to fix them?

Do u not take into account a person's faith, belief, rose-colored glasses......

It of course applies to both men and women, but I haven't ever met a man who speaks of his girlfriend/fiancee/wife saying things like "She's a good woman deep inside. You just don't see it," "Yes she cheated once or twice, but she said she's sorry and promised she'll never do it again," or shows up to work with a black eye "It was really my fault. She was drinking and I should have remembered how easily she gets angry when she drinks."

The examples don't parallel how people feel about their jobs, but it baffles me why someone would rather stay in a bad relationship - romantic or business - and try to force it into a good one, than to put their good efforts and hard work toward someone who appreciates them.

 

[Minor Axis]

For the sake of intelligent discussion, allow me to imagine a socialistic system. Now lets presume that society has tight control over corruption and it's non-existant. No one person gains excessive wealth in comparison to others. Energy is spent to improve society not enrich ones self. What exactly is so bad about this?

My point: I believe that humans can be inspired and motivated by things other than amassing great personal physical wealth. While I believe in personal freedoms, at what point does individualism become a detriment to a functional balanced society?

Socialism at its best?

• You work for productivity points. Jobs are rewarded based on intelligence, motivation, and physical suitability. The harder you work, the more benefits you get, and the stronger your society becomes.
• Freedom to innovate with basic oversight.
• Ownership- you own what you acquire, with the ability to trade, barter, and sell.
• A prestigious productivity council- the smartest participate with levels of participation up and down the spectrum of society.
• You have a minimum living standard, lets say if you are non to minimally productive you get a 1000 square foot condo, if you skilled laborer you get 2500 sf condo/single family dwelling, and if you classified as highly talented, you get 4000sf. Productivity is based on a variety of measurements from physical to mental.
• Everyone gets a minimum clothing and food allowance. Productivity food points can be used to get fancy "eats".
• Based on your productivity, points are rewarded to be applied towards gadgets and conveniences that people desire, cars, stereos, large screen tvs. Non-productive types can sign up on a waiting list for goodies they don't want to work for.
• Medical 100% no productivity requirements.
• Education opportunities, equal across the board. Higher levels of learning based on motivation and intelligence, opening doors for more productivity points.
• Commercial Travel Allowance- minimum standard enhanced by productivity.
• At the retirement age, you can coast in whatever status you achieved as a worker.
• Natural resources and output are the only limiting factor of societies wealth.