🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work a
normal 40 hour week.  Nearly all of my peers are in the same situation.  We
are always hiring new people and my firm has thousands of job postings that
go largely unanswered.  Is the work as excitement as "game development".
Honestly, no.  But why would someone subject himself to 85 hour work weeks
and asshole management when the only reward at the end is a pink slip?  The
obvious recourse is to quit and work on modestly less interesting business
software until the game shops get desperate and start offering normal work
hours and better management.

People need to abandon this dream of being a "game dev" and wake up to the
reality that the industry is not interesting enough to warrant the hassle
and frankly most of the shipping games are 95% script code (i.e.
uninteresting "kiddie" work) layered on top of a licensed engine (i.e.
Carmack does the interesting stuff, you don't).  Unless those firms shape
up, the programmers should walk and get less interesting but ultimately more
fulfilling (from a "life" perspective) jobs writing financial or other
business SW.

"Dark Basic" <dark...@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:jA2od.122$1t.23@lakeread07...
> "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
> news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
> I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work 
> a
> normal 40 hour week.  Nearly all of my peers are in the same situation. 
> We
> are always hiring new people and my firm has thousands of job postings 
> that
> go largely unanswered.  Is the work as excitement as "game development".
> Honestly, no.  But why would someone subject himself to 85 hour work weeks
> and asshole management when the only reward at the end is a pink slip? 
> The
> obvious recourse is to quit and work on modestly less interesting business
> software until the game shops get desperate and start offering normal work
> hours and better management.
>
> People need to abandon this dream of being a "game dev" and wake up to the
> reality that the industry is not interesting enough to warrant the hassle
> and frankly most of the shipping games are 95% script code (i.e.
> uninteresting "kiddie" work) layered on top of a licensed engine (i.e.
> Carmack does the interesting stuff, you don't).  Unless those firms shape
> up, the programmers should walk and get less interesting but ultimately 
> more
> fulfilling (from a "life" perspective) jobs writing financial or other
> business SW.
>

I optimize assembler and count cycles all day long...now that's boring :)
(not really)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA

Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
laws are what's needed.

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

Just more reasons to play MOHAA: SH. See the server IP's below.

-- 
Visit the [FLOT] servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Mixed Mode/OBJ/TOW: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net 

"Denston Degare" <DD@no.email> wrote in message
news:0ve1q0huhruen177uuokid58nk1ohqoicr@4ax.com...
>
> Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
> but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
> laws are what's needed.


Unfortunately, don't count on George W. Bush to come through.  He's on the
side of the employers before he's on the side of the employees.

"Dark Basic" <dark...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jA2od.122$1t.23@lakeread07...
> "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
> news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> >
> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
> I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work
a
> normal 40 hour week.

Wow you mean to tell me your job hasn't been offshored yet?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:13:52 -0700, "NightSky 421"
<night...@reply-to-group.com> wrote:


>
>Unfortunately, don't count on George W. Bush to come through.  He's on the
>side of the employers before he's on the side of the employees.
>

One thing people can do that may get some action is a letter/email
campaign to EA's headquarters expressing our disgust with their
employee treatment. Shame them into action.

I've had to deal with an employer that refused to pay overtime before
but I was able to force them to pay me the overtime after I quit by
making a complaint to the labor board. Of course that employer tried
to screw me over for that by giving me a bad work reference at my next
job but I proved them wrong on that count too.

Ha! Even Wikipedia has some criticism of EA listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts
Electronic Arts has from time to time been criticised for its
employment policy of requiring employees to work extraordinarily long
hours - up to 85 hours per week - at "crunch" times leading up the the
scheduled releases of products. "The current mandatory hours are 9am
to 10pm -- seven days a week--with the occasional Saturday evening off
for good behavior (at 6:30pm)"[1]
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/). The company, as of late
2004, is facing a class action suit [2]
(http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_6112998.html).

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 

  It's because white-collar workers didn't unionize.  They thought unions
were for the blue-collar slobs beneath them.   I wish I could end with some
kind of punchline, but it eludes me....

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nos...@lalaland.com>
wrote:

>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
>news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
>with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
>usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
>of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
>impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
>world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
>you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
>abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
>a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
>occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 
>

So... if you hired someone to mow your lawn, and the guy's doing a
good job, but for whatever reason you don't happen to like his
personality and would prefer not to deal with him... so you decide to
get someone else to mow your lawn.  Keeping in mind that this is
*your* money you're spending, would you appreciate the government
coming in and telling you that you *have* to keep on the first guy and
pay him your hard-earned money?  Probably not.

And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
thinks that side has any rights.

And no, I'm not condoning the behavior of any company... I've worked
for mostly crap companies my whole life.  It's just that, unlike
apparently 3/4th of this world, I recognize that employees do *not*
have *more* rights than the people they work for.  You're allowed to
quit with no excuse, but they can't let you go with no excuse?  That
means you think you have *more* rights than they do, and seem to
forget, it goes both ways.

Sometimes it's easier for them to replace you.  And sometimes it's
easier for you to replace them (with another job).  It's just supply
and demand, like everything else.

Of course, you have a right to complain all you want.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.

<erimess> wrote in message 
news:c7i2q0de866m3uh92e92a8cco29khir8jb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nos...@lalaland.com>
> wrote:
>
> And no, I'm not condoning the behavior of any company... I've worked
> for mostly crap companies my whole life.  It's just that, unlike
> apparently 3/4th of this world, I recognize that employees do *not*
> have *more* rights than the people they work for.  You're allowed to
> quit with no excuse, but they can't let you go with no excuse?  That
> means you think you have *more* rights than they do, and seem to
> forget, it goes both ways.
>

Quiting and being fired have two very different effects on both sides. 
Getting fired, especially with dependants to support, can disrupt someone's 
entire life, while quitting can at worst disrupt a company's profits 
(usually not).  The two are not equivalent. 

"Zaghadka" <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vja3q0tu1c5euh1pl0gjpvo7ftkr7lckmm@4ax.com...
> Unions are powerless in the face of massive off-shoring. Try again.
>

  I agree.  Unions are useless without a "fair trade" policy.   People don't
seem to realize "free trade" is not fair trade when you are dealing with a
counry like China, which is breaking it's WTO treaty obligations and
devaluing its currency to attract business and foreigners to buy its
exports.  It also helps when you have control over the population viz a viz
human rights abuse.  Then you can make sure a labor movement never starts
and that people will continue to work for slave wages.

  And also, as John Kerry said, it's one thing to allow outsourcing.  It's
anothed to aid and abett it through tax codes and favorable regulations.

> The government has to step in now. That will not happen as we are
currently
> ruled by the "First Church of the Free Market." It would take widespread
> violence to get our current leadership (on BOTH sides of the aisle) to
> understand that market forces are not patriotic, or moral, or even
controllable
> without measured economic activism on the part of the government.
>
> If we don't wake up our leadership, we're fucked.

  Here's what I see as the problem.  The current US government's strategy,
and the US government in general, has been to encourage exports and
investments by devauling our currency, keeping wages low, making our country
attractive to businesses.     The problem is they are doing it in a way that
will attract low-paying jobs.   Rather than invest money in infrastructure,
education, social programs, etc., that will make our country attractive to
high-tech and high quality businesses, we are instead not investing in
infrastructure, cutting social programs and cultural capital, and cutting
taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  Rather than focusing on making a quality
finished products or services, the US government is focusing on raw
materials, components, metal etc., and agricultural products.

   We are going in a downward, not upward spiral, a race to see how fast we
can lower wages to attract employment (and already, our employment is one of
the worlds lowest, yet we have one of the highest poverty rates in the world
in relative terms, and in absolute terms we are in the middle... the problem
is not lack of jobs, it's lack of high paying jobs relative to price
inflation and the overall cost of living.  We also, frankly, have a bloated
government with alot of redundancy).   Talk of unemployment during the
campaign was a red herring- the real issues is the quality of the jobs that
are present, the inccrease in poverty, and the price inflation.    The
endgame analysis seems very simple to me:  the government no longer cares
about the American people's welfare.  They just want to keep wages and our
standard of living low, so corporations can reap profits.

   Is it any coincidence that George W. Bush and the Congress is turning a
blind eye to illegal immigration (especially in the failed 9/11 Comission
bill, which left out a provision to tighten illegal immigration?), most of
it from Mexico and South America?  No coincidence, it's called a "Banana
Republic".

"Zaghadka" <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:usa3q01574jid7dn955qn6vbhc616mdu8m@4ax.com...
> We need a protectionist economy and we need it now before the damage is
> irreversable. Ever hear the phrase "The wealthy remain so at the
sufference of
> the poor?" If these trends continue for another 40 years there will be
> bloodshed that will make the Union busting efforts of the early 20th C
look
> like a picnic.
>

  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".  I
think we can trade fairly with Europe.  We cannot trade fairly with China,
because the government has too much control over the economy, down to the
suppression of human rights.   With India, it just depends on how fast they
can build up their own economy internally- I have my doubts that's going to
be an easy task in a country with rampant poverty, huge internal language
barriers and high illiteracy.

  Another thing that is hurting the US is the military spending. Other
countries don't spend so much on their militaries, and those that do
inevitably have alot of problems.  One reason the Soviet union and Russia
have so many problems is because of their large military.  Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was also hobbled economicly by military spending (not to mention Saddam
Hussein's palaces).   Most countries have small militaries and don't pursue
an aggressive foreign policy anymore.  It's just not worth it to them.

   Of course, the US needs the big military because we pursue a very
interventionist foreign policy, and we are also very dependent on foreign
oil- two things that inevitably conflict.  Intervention in the Israeli-Arab
conflicts starting in the 1940's, and allying ourself with the Israeli cause
to a great degree (as oppossed to just supporting the UN mandate), is
probably the single most costly decisions the US has ever made, and I can
really see little economic or political benefit from the relationship of
supporting a country with an economy in continual recession that antagonizes
its neighbors - many of whom are powerful, have alot of oil, and can make
life unpleasant for the US.  But try telling that to the average America.
1/4 of our country believes that support of Israel is necessary by a
religious mandate.  So politicians become whores while the rest of the world
looks on in shame (remember when Clinton said he was ready to "die for
Israel"?)

Denston Degare <DD@no.email> wrote in message
0ve1q0huhruen177uuokid58nk1ohqoicr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
> wrote:
>
> >Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
> but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
> laws are what's needed.

And unions (or better unions). Even some socialists would be useful,
maybe...

Alfredo

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:40:38 -0600, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure a
>solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector must receive
>such high pay relative to the rest of the world.

Quite easy:  require US minimum wage to be paid to people who make
products imported into the US.

In message <6to4q0lfrhsbeeq9l...@4ax.com>, drocket 
<dro...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:40:38 -0600, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure a
>>solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector 
>>must receive
>>such high pay relative to the rest of the world.
>
>Quite easy:  require US minimum wage to be paid to people who make
>products imported into the US.
Translation - quadruple the prices of half the goods in Wal-Mart. 
That'll go down well with the voters.
-- 
John Secker

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:39:31 +0000, John Secker
<jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Translation - quadruple the prices of half the goods in Wal-Mart. 
>That'll go down well with the voters.

I know.  That's why America will continue right on down the path that
its on, losing more and more high-paying jobs, which will only be
replaced with minimum-wage service-industry jobs.  They better
appreciate the cheap, shoddy Walmart goods, because its the only thing
they'll be able to afford.

erimess wrote:

>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>thinks that side has any rights.

Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
lunacy.

Joe

"magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
>crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".  

Well said, good post Magnulus. I'm all for open trade, including
outsourcing jobs, to any and all countries that have equivalent human
rights and employee protection standards. We can compete with anyone
on the planet on a level field (one that respects human rights and
dignity).

Joe

>
>"Dark Basic" <dark...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:jA2od.122$1t.23@lakeread07...
>> "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
>> news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>> >
>> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>> >
>> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>>
>> I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work
>a
>> normal 40 hour week.
>


Awful story, but as the writer points out the practice is illegal so
shoudln't she or her spouse and his collegues report them to the
relevent labour authority, maybe even consult a labour attorney?

LYnley

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:24:06 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it>
wrote:

>
>Denston Degare <DD@no.email> wrote in message
>0ve1q0huhruen177uuokid58nk1ohqoicr@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
>> but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
>> laws are what's needed.
>
>And unions (or better unions).

Unions don't work well in an industry with a high turnover rate.  

On the other hand, a large-scale IT guild might work in the same way it
works for Lawyers and other similar professions...

"drocket" <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6to4q0lfrhsbeeq9l13q41j9ik3q14s1pn@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:40:38 -0600, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure
a
> >solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector must
receive
> >such high pay relative to the rest of the world.
>
> Quite easy:  require US minimum wage to be paid to people who make
> products imported into the US.

That means that countries that import US goods would require that US workers
earn the same wage as their workers.   So if US "Company X" tried to sell a
product in India, then the US worker would only receive $.45/hr (assuming
that's the standard wage in India).

We're living in a global economy.

"Joe62" <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rem5q05dfe7pqunmq78iut8tm34ticvt5f@4ax.com...
> "magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
> >crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".
>
> Well said, good post Magnulus. I'm all for open trade, including
> outsourcing jobs, to any and all countries that have equivalent human
> rights and employee protection standards. We can compete with anyone
> on the planet on a level field (one that respects human rights and
> dignity).
>
> Joe

My sister worked for a US shoe company for several years.   The plant
manager came in and told the workers that the plant was closing and going
overseas.   It cost them $24 to a make a shoe in the US.   They could make
the shoe overseas for under $10.

While min wage is part of the cost, Health care for the employees is a big
factor too.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:37:22 GMT, "OldDog" <Old...@citypound.com>
wrote:

>That means that countries that import US goods would require that US workers
>earn the same wage as their workers.   So if US "Company X" tried to sell a
>product in India, then the US worker would only receive $.45/hr (assuming
>that's the standard wage in India).

No, because it would simply be a minimum.  If they want to pay their
workers more, they can certainly feel free to.  It wouldn't override
any local laws (unless some country has a 'maximum wage' law, though
I'm not aware of any...)  Its ultimately no different from applying US
safety laws to imported products.

drocket <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6347q0l0igt2ihu5b...@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:37:22 GMT, "OldDog" <Old...@citypound.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >That means that countries that import US goods would require that US workers
> >earn the same wage as their workers.   So if US "Company X" tried to sell a
> >product in India, then the US worker would only receive $.45/hr (assuming
> >that's the standard wage in India).
> 
> No, because it would simply be a minimum.  If they want to pay their
> workers more, they can certainly feel free to.  It wouldn't override
> any local laws (unless some country has a 'maximum wage' law, though
> I'm not aware of any...)  Its ultimately no different from applying US
> safety laws to imported products.

Since the annual average income in China is $316, which is way below
the amount earned if paid with minimum wages, even earning minimum
wages will be extremely attractive in certain industries. The problem
is, the companies will then find it is completely infeasible to invest
overseas and therefore employ local instead.

It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
(which is not what everyone wants), the oversea trade market has died
off because they can hardly afford the products, and therefore, the
production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
nations like European countries and Japan. As for the poorer Third
World, they form their own little economic circle and strives on Linux
instead of Windows. Microsoft increases software price to offset the
reduction in demand. Sames goes with many other industries which
derives part of their income from export. Many rich people are upset
because they have to pay more to their employees and has a smaller
market than before. Many goods increase in price because the labor
cost has increased.

Is this really a solution? Economy is a big circle in which when you
change one thing, you change everything. Sure, globalization as it is
now is making richer man in rich country become richer and poorer man
in rich country become poorer. But just setting a global minimum wage
does seem to cause a whole lot more problems than it tries to solve.

On 24 Nov 2004 18:42:30 -0800, infer...@my-deja.com (inferno2000)
wrote:

>It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
>(which is not what everyone wants), the oversea trade market has died
>off because they can hardly afford the products, and therefore, the
>production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
>nations like European countries and Japan. As for the poorer Third
>World, they form their own little economic circle and strives on Linux
>instead of Windows. Microsoft increases software price to offset the
>reduction in demand. Sames goes with many other industries which
>derives part of their income from export. Many rich people are upset
>because they have to pay more to their employees and has a smaller
>market than before. Many goods increase in price because the labor
>cost has increased.

I call BS on your entire argument (except the rich people being mad,
part.  F*** the rich people.)  To start with (simply because its the
easist part), pretty much no-one outside of the US, Canada and parts
of Europe is buying Microsoft products anyway.  What little software
is sold in South America, Africa and Asia is pretty much 100% pirated.
When you're making $300 per year, $100+ for a copy of XP just isn't
going to happen.  Microsoft isn't going to lose any sales.  If
anything, the additional money being paid to the people who are
currently being paid slave wages, will create an additional market for
MS's (and other company's) products.

Now, the, addressing different parts seperately...

>It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
>(which is not what everyone wants)
Who exactly doesn't want this?  Oh, you mean the company owners who
are forcing 10 year olds to work 12 hour shifts making shoes for
barely enough money to avoid starving to death?  Yeah, I suppose they
probably wouldn't be terribly happy about it.  Fuck 'em.  Hope they
die.

Other than that, though, I suspect most people would be pretty happy
to earn enough to survive.

>the oversea trade market has died
>off because they can hardly afford the products
Partially, true, I suppose, though only because we didn't do this
already 20 years ago.  Better late than never, though:  things aren't
going to get any better as long as we continue to ship all our
high-paying jobs overseas so Walmart can make another percentage point
of profit.

Unless you're talking about the overseas markets not being able to
afford US products?  Its hard to say - you're not being particularly
clear.  If that is what you mean, what exactly makes you think that
they can afford US products already?  Again, you're not going to be
buying a copy of Windows XP for $100 when you're barely making enough
to buy rice.  If anything, raising wages overseas will create a new
market for US products.

>and therefore, the
>production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
>nations like European countries and Japan.
Ok, then...  You ARE talking about US-produced goods?  Maybe?  If so,
then it doesn't matter:  Japan and Europe are, for the most part,
already making US-minimum wage, and won't be affected in any
meaningful way.  

>Many goods increase in price because the labor
>cost has increased.
So what you're arguing is that slavery and starvation wages are good,
as long as it leads to cheap shoes?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:21:36 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote:

>erimess wrote:
>
>>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>>thinks that side has any rights.
>
>Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
>assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
>lunacy.

Yes, I realize this is old, but I've had some personal things going on
and haven't been on here.  I'm only answering this, because this
attitude is starting to *really* tick me off, so I'm going to have my
say about it.

First of all, NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!  I am SOOOOO
sick of hearing this.  Corporations are in the minority.  And a good
many of those are small, closely held corporations.  I'm tired of
everyone acting like every issue that is related to employment is
somehow related to the "big, bad corporation."  This is just total
bull.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships are owned *directly* by people.
They OWN those companies.  It's their property.  It's their
investment.  Just like your house.  This is also true of the small
closely held corporations.

As for the the minority of companies that happen to be bigger,
publicly traded companies, they ARE owned by people.  They're called
stockholders.  Yes, I realize most people also interpret stockholders
as "bad people."  But it's their money.  They invested in that company
and have a stake in that company.  If you invest your money into
something, are you saying you have no interest in what happens to your
money?  You have no say in the matter?  The employees have their
rights, but you as a stockholder would also be a PERSON and have
rights.  Do the employees have MORE rights?  NO!!

So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
stockholders as we do to people.  Huh?  Stockholders ARE people.  So
you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
do to OTHER people?  They're all people.

I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
it's because you're not getting the analogy.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:19:29 -0500, erimess wrote:

>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>stockholders as we do to people.  

>Stockholders ARE people.  So
>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.

Nope, I'm saying coporations should not have the same rights as
people. Stockholders have their own rights as humans. But because they
choose to invest some of their money into a corporate *system*, that
system should therefore have the same rights as living breathing
people? It's absurd to speak of corporate "rights" at all, the very
concept is illogical. A corporation is a system of manmade rules.
Nothing more nothing less. It is neither good nor bad; it is by
definition amoral.

quit whining , let it rest, and being the newsgroup back to the game.

Jim

"Joe62" <jmcgin...@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message 
news:msbcr0dsebbvoh7qra97d7b65m1e4b6f9r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:19:29 -0500, erimess wrote:
>
>>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>>stockholders as we do to people.
>
>>Stockholders ARE people.  So
>>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
> Nope, I'm saying coporations should not have the same rights as
> people. Stockholders have their own rights as humans. But because they
> choose to invest some of their money into a corporate *system*, that
> system should therefore have the same rights as living breathing
> people? It's absurd to speak of corporate "rights" at all, the very
> concept is illogical. A corporation is a system of manmade rules.
> Nothing more nothing less. It is neither good nor bad; it is by
> definition amoral. 

erimess wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:21:36 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>erimess wrote:
>>
>>>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>>>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>>>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>>>thinks that side has any rights.
>>
>>Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
>>assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
>>lunacy.
>
>Yes, I realize this is old, but I've had some personal things going on
>and haven't been on here.  I'm only answering this, because this
>attitude is starting to *really* tick me off, so I'm going to have my
>say about it.
>
>First of all, NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!  I am SOOOOO
>sick of hearing this.  Corporations are in the minority.  And a good
>many of those are small, closely held corporations.  I'm tired of
>everyone acting like every issue that is related to employment is
>somehow related to the "big, bad corporation."  This is just total
>bull.
>
>Sole proprietorships and partnerships are owned *directly* by people.
>They OWN those companies.  It's their property.  It's their
>investment.  Just like your house.  This is also true of the small
>closely held corporations.
>
>As for the the minority of companies that happen to be bigger,
>publicly traded companies, they ARE owned by people.  They're called
>stockholders.  Yes, I realize most people also interpret stockholders
>as "bad people."  But it's their money.  They invested in that company
>and have a stake in that company.  If you invest your money into
>something, are you saying you have no interest in what happens to your
>money?  You have no say in the matter?  The employees have their
>rights, but you as a stockholder would also be a PERSON and have
>rights.  Do the employees have MORE rights?  NO!!
>
>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>stockholders as we do to people.  Huh?  Stockholders ARE people.  So
>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
>I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>it's because you're not getting the analogy.

So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
people?

erimess wrote in news:68ear0hj8bl005...@4ax.com:

> I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
> everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
> back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
> customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
> people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
> you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
> it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
> Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
> do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
> government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
> can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
> it's because you're not getting the analogy.

The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
wealth. Money is power, and those in power invariably work to gain more 
power. Redistribution of wealth towards common defense, the common 
resources (environment, etc.), and the welfare of our weaker citizens are 
the central reasons we created our democracy. We didn't create it to 
protect the right of the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 
Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 
Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation? So that they can be 
free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing? Don't 
say it wouldn't happen becuase it would. They give corporate officers 
millions of dollars to make the corporation profitable NO MATTER WHAT. They 
will do anything they can get away with, and often even do things they 
can't get away with and try to cover it up and try to get away with it 
anyway. If you don't see that happening in the news then you have blinders 
on.

-- 
FMLB

FatManLittleBoy wrote:
> erimess wrote in news:68ear0hj8bl005...@4ax.com:
> 
> 
>>I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>>everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>>back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>>customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>>people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>>you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>>it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>>Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>>do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>>government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>>can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>>it's because you're not getting the analogy.
> 
> 
> The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
> wealth. Money is power, and those in power invariably work to gain more 
> power. Redistribution of wealth towards common defense, the common 
> resources (environment, etc.), and the welfare of our weaker citizens are 
> the central reasons we created our democracy. We didn't create it to 
> protect the right of the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 
> Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 
> Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation? So that they can be 
> free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing? Don't 
> say it wouldn't happen becuase it would. They give corporate officers 
> millions of dollars to make the corporation profitable NO MATTER WHAT. They 
> will do anything they can get away with, and often even do things they 
> can't get away with and try to cover it up and try to get away with it 
> anyway. If you don't see that happening in the news then you have blinders 
> on.
> 

I get periodic proxy mailings from some stocks my parents
bought for me. You're supposed to vote on things to do
with how the company is run. The proxies come with a
pamphlet to give you some idea of what you're voting on.
One thing I've noticed is that recently an awful lot
of these proxies have been asking stockholders to vote
yes on giving the company permission to do things without
shareholder approval. They never used to do this.
Makes you wonder.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:23 GMT, nospam <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>I get periodic proxy mailings from some stocks my parents
>bought for me. You're supposed to vote on things to do
>with how the company is run. The proxies come with a
>pamphlet to give you some idea of what you're voting on.
>One thing I've noticed is that recently an awful lot
>of these proxies have been asking stockholders to vote
>yes on giving the company permission to do things without
>shareholder approval. They never used to do this.
>Makes you wonder.

Then perhaps it's the job of the stockholders to get ticked off and do
something about it.  Or, to choose to put their money elsewhere.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:34:14 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
wrote:


>
>So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
>people?

As far as I'm concerned, you're just feeding my argument.  A house
can't do anything.  It can't cause anything to happen.  If a
corporation is simply an entity, then it can't do anything either, can
it?  If it's just an entity, it can't fire anyone.  It can't hire
anyone either.  It can't care.  It really can't do anything.  It is,
after all, just a set of buildings and machinery and furniture and
files, and really, just a legal document.

Only PEOPLE can do those things.  And those people have rights, just
like everyone else.

So what you're saying is... a set of buildings and machinery and
furniture can actually fire someone?

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:40:28 GMT, Joe62
<jmcgin...@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:19:29 -0500, erimess wrote:
>
>>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>>stockholders as we do to people.  
>
>>Stockholders ARE people.  So
>>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
>Nope, I'm saying coporations should not have the same rights as
>people. Stockholders have their own rights as humans. But because they
>choose to invest some of their money into a corporate *system*, that
>system should therefore have the same rights as living breathing
>people? It's absurd to speak of corporate "rights" at all, the very
>concept is illogical. A corporation is a system of manmade rules.
>Nothing more nothing less. It is neither good nor bad; it is by
>definition amoral.

Show me where I said the *corporation* itself had the rights of a
human being.  The concept *is* illogical.  You have all missed the
point of my entire argument.  See post to Bateau.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.

erimess wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:34:14 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
>wrote:
>>So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
>>people?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you're just feeding my argument.

What argument is that anyway?

>A house
>can't do anything.  It can't cause anything to happen.  If a
>corporation is simply an entity, then it can't do anything either, can
>it?  If it's just an entity, it can't fire anyone.  It can't hire
>anyone either.  It can't care.  It really can't do anything.  It is,
>after all, just a set of buildings and machinery and furniture and
>files, and really, just a legal document.
>
>Only PEOPLE can do those things.  And those people have rights, just
>like everyone else.
>
>So what you're saying is... a set of buildings and machinery and
>furniture can actually fire someone?
>
>---
>erimess
>
>My therapist told me a way to achieve 
>inner peace was to finish things I had 
>started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
>chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
>and a small box of chocolate candy. 
>I feel better already.
>

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:35:07 -0500, erimess wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:34:14 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
>>people?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you're just feeding my argument.  A house
>can't do anything.  It can't cause anything to happen.  If a
>corporation is simply an entity, then it can't do anything either, can
>it?  

A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.  

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:05:15 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.  

I'm not sure which side you're arguring for, but...

The people can do things.  The corporation itself is merely some
scraps of paper that say it exists.  The idea that a corporation
'acts' is a lie that corporation owners and workers tell others to
avoid legal responsibilities, and tell themselves to avoid feeling
guilty about their actions.  "Oh now, I'M not paying third-world
workers barely enough to avoid starvation, that's the corporation
that's doing that.  Its the CORPORATION'S fault that those people are
so underpaid that they're forced to sell their children into
indentured servitude making shoes, not mine.  I just work there."  Its
a fiction that helps rich people sleep at night, unburdened by the
guilt over the fact that they're destroying people's lives so they can
afford another vacation beach house.  Its the corporation that's doing
those horrible things, not them.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:35:46 GMT, drocket <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:05:15 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.  
>
>I'm not sure which side you're arguring for, but...
>
>The people can do things.  The corporation itself is merely some
>scraps of paper that say it exists.  The idea that a corporation
>'acts' is a lie that corporation owners and workers tell others to
>avoid legal responsibilities, and tell themselves to avoid feeling
>guilty about their actions.  "Oh now, I'M not paying third-world
>workers barely enough to avoid starvation, that's the corporation
>that's doing that.  Its the CORPORATION'S fault that those people are
>so underpaid that they're forced to sell their children into
>indentured servitude making shoes, not mine.  I just work there."  Its
>a fiction that helps rich people sleep at night, unburdened by the
>guilt over the fact that they're destroying people's lives so they can
>afford another vacation beach house.  I

Oh please.  They aren't "destroying people's lives" by hiring them.  

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:44:11 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>Oh please.  They aren't "destroying people's lives" by hiring them.  

Hiring them?  No.  But that's far from what most of these corporations
do in countries like China.  They quite literally chain people to
workbenches in small windowless rooms and force them to work 12 hours
per day.  Of course, the 'nice' companies merely keep the employees in
perpetual debt via the good old-fashioned 'company store', thereby
preventing them from ever quitting because if they do so, they
immediately go to jail.  

But please, feel free to continue with your fantasy that forcing 12
year olds to work 14 hours per day making Nike shoes is a 'good'
thing.

drocket <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
t8spr05bg16bj7lmp199mnivq5htfitu24@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:05:15 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
> >A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.
>
> I'm not sure which side you're arguring for, but...
>
> The people can do things.  The corporation itself is merely some
> scraps of paper that say it exists.  The idea that a corporation
> 'acts' is a lie that corporation owners and workers tell others to
> avoid legal responsibilities, and tell themselves to avoid feeling
> guilty about their actions.  "Oh now, I'M not paying third-world
> workers barely enough to avoid starvation, that's the corporation
> that's doing that.  Its the CORPORATION'S fault that those people are
> so underpaid that they're forced to sell their children into
> indentured servitude making shoes, not mine.  I just work there."  Its
> a fiction that helps rich people sleep at night, unburdened by the
> guilt over the fact that they're destroying people's lives so they can
> afford another vacation beach house.  Its the corporation that's doing
> those horrible things, not them.
>

"We know that - all that. It's not us, it's the bank. A bank ain't like a
man. An owner with fifty thousan acres, he's not like a man either. That's
the monster.
Sure, cried the tenant men, but it's our land. We measured it and broke it
up. We were born on it, and we were killed on it, died on it. Even if it's
no good, it's still ours. That's what make it ours - being born on it,
working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on
it.
We're are sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man.
Yes, but the bank is only made of men.
No, you're wrong there - quite wrong there. The bank is something else than
men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet
the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the
monster. Men made it but they can't control it."
                                        from "The Grapes of Wrath" - by John
Steinbeck

I wonder, though: do you Americans still read great your great American
writers?

- or, to put it in a nutshell: how does a person's right to make more money
by investing his money compare with the right of another person to make a
(reasonable) living by working (normally)?

Alfredo

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:39:45 -0500, erimess wrote:

>Show me where I said the *corporation* itself had the rights of a
>human being.  

"So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as
we do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights
to stockholders as we do to people"

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:50:23 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
<powe...@libero.it> wrote:

>I wonder, though: do you Americans still read great your great American
>writers?

Rarely.  There's usually far more important things to worry about.
The new season of American Idol, for instance.

"Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in
news:z8ovd.25618$Zk.4...@twister2.libero.it: 

> "We know that - all that. It's not us, it's the bank. A bank ain't
> like a man. An owner with fifty thousan acres, he's not like a man
> either. That's the monster.
> Sure, cried the tenant men, but it's our land. We measured it and
> broke it up. We were born on it, and we were killed on it, died on it.
> Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what make it ours -
> being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a
> paper with numbers on it.
> We're are sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a
> man. Yes, but the bank is only made of men.
> No, you're wrong there - quite wrong there. The bank is something else
> than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank
> does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I
> tell you. It's the monster. Men made it but they can't control it."
>                                         from "The Grapes of Wrath" -
>                               by John 
> Steinbeck
>
> Alfredo
 
Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".

-- 
FMLB

In article <rskqr09k41tjlvb07...@4ax.com>, 
dro...@hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:44:11 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
> 
> >Oh please.  They aren't "destroying people's lives" by hiring them.  
> 
> Hiring them?  No.  But that's far from what most of these corporations
> do in countries like China.  They quite literally chain people to
> workbenches in small windowless rooms and force them to work 12 hours
> per day.  Of course, the 'nice' companies merely keep the employees in
> perpetual debt via the good old-fashioned 'company store', thereby
> preventing them from ever quitting because if they do so, they
> immediately go to jail.  

And this applies to EA programmers, how?

- Gerry Quinn

 < cut >

> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>
Thank < apologetic shrug>

Alfredo

 < cut >

> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>
Thank < apologetic shrug>

Alfredo

 < cut >

> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>
Thank < apologetic shrug>

Alfredo

"Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in news:A52wd.28728$Zk.509058
@twister2.libero.it:

>  < cut >
> 
>> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>>
> Thank < apologetic shrug>
> 
> Alfredo
> 
> 
> 

w00t! three times now! this is a red letter day for post duping!