420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Stirner on labor by Hamilton Grandway - Wed, 02 May 2018 09:41:48 EST ID:EQAAY6X6 No.209163 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1525268508445.jpg -(23124B / 22.58KB, 214x283) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23124
Stirner knows literally nothing about labor or laborers. His ideas are juvenile. He thinks laborers are more powerful than businessmen/entrepreneurs. He’s wrong. The two are essentially equal in power, because the one cannot exist without the other. People like Stirner grossly under-estimate the intelligence of the entrepreneur and grossly over-estimate the simplicity of the laborer. I been in labor my entire life; seen tons of guys spend even 25 years straight happily laboring for good pay, because they’re simple and conservative and are much more focused on getting paid and going home to their families than becoming some sort of businessman or critical-thinker. These conservative family-oriented laborers are literally our backbone, and they always require leaders to guide them.
>>
Hamilton Grandway - Wed, 02 May 2018 09:42:49 EST ID:EQAAY6X6 No.209164 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Under-estimate the simplicity of the laborer*
>>
Reuben Hanningman - Wed, 02 May 2018 12:30:01 EST ID:dSEu+vTS No.209165 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Where you see simple people needing the guidance of a compassionate leader, I see the average person getting exploited by those who know specific rules and social rituals to extract every free drop of capital from thousands of workers so that they can themselves live like kings, all under the guise of doing them a favor.

In short, 'I'm a laborer and we actually WANT exploitation by the ownership class' is a very lazy (and cliche) kind of concern trolling.
>>
Martha Clebberworth - Sun, 06 May 2018 06:23:22 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209176 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209165
You know what the difference is between you and I, friend?
Unlike you I actually know laborers. And yes, people like myself, employers and entrepreneurs, are very much so doing them all a huge favor by giving them jobs. They’re simple folk, they need leadership and guidance, they need people like me making the big important decisions while they do the labor, because they don’t have the capability to properly make the important decisions. If they did, they wouldn’t be laborers. You, my friend, in no way represent the opinions of laborers nor respect their life choices, clearly.
>>
Fanny Picklock - Sun, 06 May 2018 15:24:29 EST ID:zP+9vJ6Y No.209177 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209163
>>equal in power
I think it doesn't have to be about power, more like mutual benefit. the employer offers the employee economy of scale and consistency, employees offer employers value, like refined skills and shit.
>>
William Tillingwater - Mon, 07 May 2018 17:44:56 EST ID:DVb5cen5 No.209178 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209176
>>Unlike you I actually know laborers.
How can you possibly know who I do and don't know? You don't even know who I am?
>> They’re simple folk, they need leadership and guidance
How can you know that? Maybe they are simply people who weren't given the advantages you have? For all you know they might be a lot better in your position if they had been given the same opportunities as you. You seem to think that 'capability' is the only thing that determines where someone falls within the social order, but that's manifestly false. Social mobility in the west is lower than it has been in centuries.

If, as you claim, your role as 'leader' is purely egalitarian, out of desire to properly guide your laborers who are incapable of guiding themselves, I assume you take a salary equal to your lowest paid worker and redistribute all profits back to the laborers as bonuses or dividends, yes? Otherwise, how are you not stealing part of the value they create and using it to benefit yourself over them?
>>
Nicholas Duckwell - Tue, 08 May 2018 12:28:52 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209179 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1525796932955.jpg -(198716B / 194.06KB, 1102x824) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209178
Seems if the general laborer were shown how to use the computer applications and such they would make better decisions concerning what was more efficient and smarter. They have hands-on experience that a manager or supervisor drastically lacks from their perspective almost exclusively in the office looking at numbers. What good work does an owner do? They don't even manage anymore.
>>
Lydia Drublingfudging - Thu, 10 May 2018 06:04:43 EST ID:K9K8Pnvb No.209194 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209178
>How can you know who I do and don't know?
your replies. If you actually knew the minds of laborers, you'd reply with more wisdom and less assumptions. It's clear to me you're not in touch with laborers, and this is because I've been a blue-collar worker my entire life.

>Maybe they weren't given your advantages?
Life ain't fair. But, mind you, my men are all from Mexico, where their labor would go for peanuts where as working with me some of them earn well over $1500 weekly and they can't even speak English. Do you earn $1500 weekly for your labor?

>You assume capability is the only thing determining social position.
You're deflecting. Nothing we talked about was focused on social positioning. We're talking about the minds of the laborers. Don't change the subject.
>Social mobility in the west is lower than it has been in centuries.
That statement is the literal proof that you have essentially no wisdom on the subject. Lol or do you think that a Mexican who can't speak English earning over $1500 a week is 'a lack of social mobility'? My man's Saul has 4 kids and literally all of them are in/going to college without ever taking out a student loan. And you thought I'd agree with your statement that social mobility is just 'so low'.

>Commie bullshit about my salary and stealing their labor.
You know what you commies don't understand? Not that you're a commie lol, just busting your balls. But seriously, you people don't understand the role of 'manager' and 'owner'.

It's EASY to own a company! All you have to do is take out a significant loan in your name, go into debt, risk your own financial future, create an entire business from the ground up which requires not only knowing your market intimately but also knowing how to create and run a business whether its selling a product or service, and then you have to constantly risk your financial future as you endure the failures you inevitably face while your laborers literally risk nothing and get paid a heft sum to do some of the work you, yourself, put together.

>>209179
Do you know how hard it is to teach a laborer to use technology that isn't a phone?
>What good work does an owner do?
Well, we make decisions that are far above the level of knowlege our laborers have. Or do you ACTUALLY believe that my laborers know how to write legally-binding contracts, make lucrative deals, market successfully, and comply with all necessary paperwork and legal standards?
No, they don't know how to do any of that and they don't want to know. They've got kids and wives/husbands, and that's where their mind is when it's not on labor.
>>
Lydia Drublingfudging - Thu, 10 May 2018 06:08:26 EST ID:K9K8Pnvb No.209195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Tl;Dr
honestly if you don't have kids or a spouse, or own a home, or have debts form investments such as mortgages, you can't understand how the common laborer thinks, literally.

If you don't have any stake in the game, you will never, ever, understand the game.
>>
Fucking Barringsedging - Thu, 10 May 2018 10:53:33 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209196 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1525964013261.jpg -(26253B / 25.64KB, 450x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209194
Your entire argument is based on the idea that you know the minds of these people so well you would know what they would think and do even if their life circumstances were totally different. Did you ever stop to think that what you imagine to be their minds is a self serving fantasy that YOUR mind created?

You're also really blustery and vitriolic. Why are you so agitated by the suggestion that your laborers might be just as capable as you and merely have different luck? Is it because that suggestion undermines your entire world view where you are justified in behaving this way? (I think it might!)

>>your replies. If you actually knew the minds of laborers, you'd reply with more wisdom and less assumptions.
It's you who are full of assumptions. You're basically assuming that your individual case applies to all cases and that your perception of the 'goodness' of what you do for your laborers is shared equally by your laborers and all laborers. This is how I know you are full of shit, or either very bad at detecting people lying to your face. Again, you don't know me, or what I have done, you don't know my relation to labor at all, and the fact that you IMMEDIATELY go to an ad hominem route shows me what kind of intellectual level you are at. (read: I can tell you are just as dumb as about 50% of the laborers I know, which is why I know you didn't ascend to your position because you are simply smarter than them.)

>>Life ain't fair
I say you are unfairly advantaging yourself over your workers, and your immediate reply is 'life ain't fair?' So you're saying 'because other people take advantage of my workers, I am also at liberty to take advantage of my workers, but this isn't really taking advantage of them because 'life ain't fair.'' I can't believe you actually have so simplistic a thought process.

>>You're deflecting. Nothing we talked about was focused on social positioning.
It's not deflecting at all mate. Whether or not you end up being a laborer or an owner of the means of production is 100% related to social positioning. Your claim is that everyone who is a laborer is a laborer because they have a mind of a laborer. I claim that's false because social mobility is low (which is apparently a concept you don't understand the meaning of, I will explain after the next yellowtext) most people who are laborers are laborers because their parents were laborers, because they come from regions where labor is the only viable form of work, or were unable to afford the educational opportunities that would move them out of their position and into your position of being an owner. Except for rich people who think going and picking berries in the scorching sun is like a vacation, any sensible laborer should want a desk job over a manual job. So there must be some explanation for how they ended up where they are, and it's not 'they all just want to be laborers so it's ok to do whatever you want to them!'
In short if your argument rests solely on 'I know the minds of laborers and so anything I say is right and what everyone else says is wrong' you aren't really having a philosophical debate, you aren't even forming a cogent argument, you're just reiterating an anecdotal story.

>>Lol or do you think that a Mexican who can't speak English earning over $1500 a week is 'a lack of social mobility'?
Uh, yeah man. Do you know what social mobility is? You seem to think that social mobility means just being able to survive at your current level (he can send his kids to school! What a plutocrat!) it means being able to ascend from one social class to another, and it's a myth that's propagated by capitalist ideologues ever since Horatio Alger, and we can measure for how few people it actually works (spoiler: almost no one can ascend class barriers. That's how the 1% became the one percent, if the bootstraps to big time myth was true they wouldn't remain so.) The fact that you know one dude who did one thing is in no way evidence against massive society wide changes that we can measure statistically. Is all your evidence purely anecdotal?
Ok, think about it this way. Let's say we found all the jerks like you who are employing a bunch of laborers, and wrote down how much money they make. Then we keep checking up on them every couple of decades, we notice how big of raises they have gotten over the years. We average these numbers across how many people we talked to, and compare them to the government defined numbers for different socioeconomic classes. When we do that and find, lo and behold, most people stay in the same economic class their whole life (and for generations) that's what we mean when we say 'low social mobility.' Do you understand now?

>>It's EASY to own a company!
Oh man, this section is rich. You're so full of self-ignorance it is coming out of all the holes in your face.
>>All you have to do is take out a significant loan in your name
Do you think the bank would give you a significant loan if you're a Mexican laborer who no speaka english? Did you ever think that maybe the reason the bank was willing to give you a loan is because you are educated, had some capital to secure the loan with, and...let me guess...are white?
>>risk your own financial future
Which means you had a financial future to risk to begin with. You clearly started from a position of greater advantage than your Mexican laborer. If not, why didn't he just walk into the bank and hire his own buddies? Oh right, because he has 'the mind of a laborer' which somehow isn't a self serving doublespeak for 'everyone assumed he had the mind of a laborer and so that's all he could make a living as.'
>>
Fucking Barringsedging - Thu, 10 May 2018 10:54:12 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209197 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209196
>>create an entire business from the ground up which requires not only knowing your market intimately but also knowing how to create and run a business whether its selling a product or service
And how did you know all that stuff, friend? Were you maybe educated at some kind of institution? Did you maybe have some friends and social networks that were able to clue you in to this information? Can you not see how that kind of social capital directly translates to financial capital, and that you didn't get it because you are somehow better, purer, or smarter, but simply more lucky?
>>then you have to constantly risk your financial future as you endure the failures you inevitably face while your laborers literally risk nothing
Again, how could they risk anything? They have no financial assets, no capital power, in the first place, no capital power. (They of course are risking the lives of their dependent family and themselves by living hand to mouth, dependent on gracious owners like you to let the crumbs fall from their table, but let's ignore that for now.) The very fact that you did have something to risk over them, and could continue to risk things in the ups and downs of owning a business demonstrates that your position as their gentle leader came about not because of your guile and gumption but because you happened to win the social lottery.
>>get paid a heft sum to do some of the work you, yourself, put together.
And you get paid more. You are literally whining about your workers doing the work you assign them to do. I guess in your mind they should work for nothing and you should get all the money because, after all, they have the 'mind of a laborer' and couldn't even if tell you were shafting them, right?

>>Do you know how hard it is to teach a laborer to use technology that isn't a phone?
This is where I think you don't actually know any laborers at all and what you really mean is 'do you know how hard it is to teach an undocumented immigrant who doesn't speak english how to use technology?' A lot of labor today uses very advanced technology. Much of the labor that's done world wide is in the service of creating advanced technology, and I guarantee many of those laborers know intimately how to use technical systems that you would be baffled by at first. Let me try to get this through your skull: you aren't inherently smarter than the people who are lower than you in the social order. We have measured the IQ of people across all classes, and when you correct for socioeconomic factors, it's the same. A laborer has just as high of a chance of being a genius as you (actually, a lot better, cause I would say your chance of being a genius is 0%) and an 1%er, medically speaking, has an equal chance of being a babbling retard as the lowest shudra.
>>believe that my laborers know how to write legally-binding contracts, make lucrative deals, market successfully, and comply with all necessary paperwork and legal standards?
No they don't know how numbnuts. That's the point! But it's not that they don't know because they can't or are some kind of mental defectives. They don't know because they were never taught, because they were never given the social conditions that would have enabled them to learn. That's the difference. You're trying to push this essentialist narrative where you have the right to rule because you are naturally smarter, and that's why you have to do everything to discredit the evidence that your position in the order was created not by your mind and what you think, but by what you already had and who you know.
>>They've got kids and wives/husbands, and that's where their mind is when it's not on labor.
Zuckcuck has a wife and kids, and I bet he thinks about them when he's not working. Are you saying you are some kind of machine with no need or desire for human interaction? Are you saying the fact that laborers have families means they are undeserving of fair treatment? (cause what else could you be saying, really?)

Dude I don't know if you're just a troll or what but you need to step up your game if you actually want to have a debate on these topics like you claimed to in the OP. All this ad hominem shit and endlessly repeating 'I know their minds because I know them so I'm right because I know I'm right' is just fucking useless.
>>
Fucking Woffingmare - Fri, 11 May 2018 18:58:07 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209206 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526079487561.jpg -(265764B / 259.54KB, 1193x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209194 >>209196
I think the capability to do managerial tasks and to do general labor is within most people's reach if they have the opportunity to learn. Coworkers point out bad decisions by management amidst comments about their life and their other interests. At my current job there are younger coworkers who are more capable at using technology than the older supervisors and managers, and faster at it. For awhile a fellow coworker was helping with scheduling before he got fired for not being serious enough, and he was better at scheduling than any of the supervisors currently (after he learned how). We got a new manager recently who was hired from outside the company and they've made tons of mistakes concerning scheduling. Because of their inexperience (but better credentials and a degree) they've made it much more difficult for us laborers, who have to work harder because there are fewer people to work the line on a busy day, and by scheduling too many people on slow days they lose money for the company, or keep the place open when we should have closed (or vice-versa).

There's alot of small changes that could be done to improve how things work.. at work, but since the supervisors and managers rarely step in and do the actual work, they're not aware of the potential changes, and often aren't open to input from the laborers who do have the direct experience. No, all they know is what they see when they are around for a short-while, and what the numbers on spreadsheets and pie-charts say. That kind of information could easily be made available to the general worker, many of whom would draw similar or better conclusions about the correct course of actions. Its like abstract theory versus practical action, when instead the process should be reciprocally informing each other, theory informing action and action informing theory. As is there is a division of labor along pretty much class lines when managerial and laborer tasks could be shared.

There's probably a different level of involvement by owners of small-businesses compared to corporations and such. It seems owners of larger-businesses are left to speculation on the stock market and hire someone else to manage the business for them.

With that said, some anecdotal stuff from me here: my family's social mobility is downwards. We went from solid middle class to poor and somewhat getting by. There's one exception, my grandmother came from poverty, wearing broken shoes as a child, and ended her life comfortably in a historical home. We went from my Great Great Grandfather owning a candy store, to influential engineer and advertising positions held by my Grandfather and Grandma, shitty labor jobs held by my Dad (even with a degree) and Uncle, until getting laid off en masse with his coworkers (because their wages were high and alot were about to retire), to all of us "kids" working construction, social work, the service industry, and retail work. Only one of my little sisters makes lots of money in advertising, working at home. She does alot of computer work, networking and analysis, but its really not that intensive, albeit it is time-consuming and she has to be reachable even when she's off work.

Most people I know are worse off financially, not better. Few people are financially secure and many are in debt. Perhaps this is due to a huge increase in cost-of-living in relation to a low increase in wages. So I think Barringsedging has a point about the position you're born into and the capital you have available to be able to start a business, to get a Bachelors or Masters degree. By the time my siblings and I were born my family was unable to afford to put us through college unless we performed well enough to get scholarships, but we made just barely too much to qualify for affordable loans through FAFSA.

Talking about risk, most wealthy owners aren't risking their financial future, they have plenty of cushion to fall back on in case things go wrong. That may not be the case for you Drublingfudging, but it seems you're the exception and not the rule. A laborer living from paycheck to paycheck (or close to it) on the other hand, risks losing their home and many things they own, becoming houseless, if they lose their job. There's no room for taking risks, its survival mode.

Oddly there is a trend of rich people working more hours than poor people. That's due to the job market in which employers have moved away from full-time positions with benefits and incentives to remain a part of that company for a long time (like it was for our grandparents) to part-time and seasonal positions without benefits, so laborers have to get multiple jobs, and have little job security. There's fewer protections for "temporary" workers. The trend was already going this way, but the shift was dramatic right after the Great Recession of '08. It was at this same time that tons of people lost ownership of their homes and now depend on rich landlords (individuals or companies) who are raising rents according to demand and sometimes kicking whole complexes of people out to renovate and raise rent.

This precarious position that many poor people are in right now obviously doesn't encourage innovation and they have significantly more at stake than a rich person. I'm curious where this will lead us as a society as the division of wealth and labor becomes more extreme. Its from leisure that innovation originated.
>>
Walter Peddledudge - Tue, 15 May 2018 17:37:12 EST ID:Q0mLuuoM No.209212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209163
Op can i see dtudies on how the laborer is literally our backbone. Nb gor shitpost i vould not resist.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.