Slaves In Revolt WorldWide … s-10th-day

I see two guys walking hand in hand next to some boxes that had food in them recently.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as chaos in Europe.

More than 2 million of 16 million dutch people signed a petition (within a week no less) in favor of keeping ‘zwarte Piet’ (black Pete) as a national folks-fest icon.

If they are protesting pay cuts, that means 2 things:

1.) They are being paid, and
2.) Nobody is crucifying them for refusing to work.

So they aren’t slaves, QED.

  1. You assume people that are payed money can’t be slaves yet upon more acquiring this is not true.

  2. The sanitation workers are probably well payed being unionized or a part of the state’s workforce, but the reason I post this example is that it shows economic austerity measures being utilized to screw over all kinds of workers worldwide.

 There is a lot of confusion/dissatisfaction which admittedly causing workers to use slavery as a way to try to make sense of. Their anger and dissatisfaction.

 Here is an example:  unionized check out clerks (cashiers) at safeway or von's get X2+ the pay per hour then say the same worker doing the same job at Wallmart's.  This unbalances the overall way these people view the fairness issue on payscales.

Slavery is only an over affected reaction to underpayment. The same goes for fast food workers, who have recently contemplated forming a union so that they can also be lifted out of the minimum wage bracket.

The power blocks will never negotiate with the working classes.

This is why a violent outcome is inevitable.

obe:There is a lot of confusion/dissatisfaction which admittedly causing workers to use slavery as a way to try to make sense of. Their anger and dissatisfaction.

 Here is an example:  unionized check out clerks (cashiers) at safeway or von's get X2+ the pay per hour then say the same worker doing the same job at Wallmart's.  This unbalances the overall way these people view the fairness issue on payscales.

K: as a safeway cashier, I can assure you, it is not that simple. I started out at 8.65 an hour and it took a few years to get
to anything near it being worthwhile, (over 12 an hour) after 6+ years I am finally making some money. The new contract
which decides everything has seriously screwed any new hire. No sunday extra pay, no holiday pay and every contract has
lowered the top end of the pay scale, so I am basically at the end of any pay raises and those on the new contract will be
lower than my top pay scale and every contract gets worse. We are now
paying for our health benefits on top of the union dues which are outrageous. The monthly dues are 53 a month and you have
a one time payment of almost 500 to join the union so basically you are working for the union for the first three or four months.
My daughter wanted to work in safeway and I told it was a waste of her time and effort.
Our union is for shit and they are truly useless. they basically are there to protect long time union people, say over 12 years.


I'm more interested in how you used the word 'slaves'. I'm wondering if you can defend that assertion. So far all you've offered is that just because somebody doesn't fit all the classic hallmarks of being a slave, that doesn't mean they aren't one. Is that it?

I guess I’m thinking of people who are actually slaves- unpaid captive workers, blood diamonds, the underage sex trade, all that good stuff. And I’m thinking that if you asked one of those people, they probably wouldn’t agree with you that a garbage man in spain is a slave.


It’s just a rhetoric device to conjur up a few emotions in our dear reader.

I think there’s absolute slavery, where you’re literally owned by another person to do work for them and your compensation is sustenance or something along those lines. Then there’s not being a slave to anything or anyone…that’s where I imagine you’re smart enough and in command of enough resources to just follow your whims without consequence.

I think most people who are working should think of slavery, for their practical purposes, in terms of degrees. I mean…all of them are in some sense slaves at least a little bit, so it’s simple to just look at one or another of them and say, “this guy is being slaved harder than this other slave over here”. It’s like a matter of degree. A guy who’s framing houses for 10 an hour because he’s a felon or because he has to be paid cash to avoid a garnishment and make his rent…that guy is more of a slave than say a kid working in a fast food restaurant wanting to be a manager, not realizing that even the manager job is insufficient to ever cover a human being’s living expenses in America if that human being is to have any dignity at all. That kid’s just a slave to his own ignorance. And the consequences aren’t as hard on his spine, so he’s less of a slave.

Bottom line is, when someone “invests”, they’re basically saying, “hey, I"m gonna pay some money up front and get back a little bit out of each sandwich that’s sold at my new restaurant until I’ve got my money back and then some”. But the problem is that he wants all his money back really fast, and that he wants to make millions and millions of dollars off sandwiches. So he can’t just make sandwiches and sell em…he’s gotta sell a whole shit ton of em and he’s gotta make a big margin, so he puts shitty processed poisonous meat and cheese on there to make it cheaper. Then…he keeps hiring and firing people until he finds the most downtrodden, needy people he can get his hands on and who can make the most sandwiches in the least amount of time…because he’s going to be paying them by the hour. And…it’s not going to be anything even remotely close to what he’s making off the sandwiches they produce. Not even close. He’s probably going to pay them…you guessed it…minimum wage. That’s the least amount of money he is allowed to pay someone under the law. He’ll actually pay the waiters 2 bucks or so an hour and use the tip credit thing to say they all make min wage, and if a kid doesn’t get enough tips…and they say they’re not even making min wage…he’ll fire them before he actually cuts that check and pays em up to the 7 bucks or whatever min wage is now.

Now I’m all about profit, and I"m all about using money to make money. BUT…I think that the situation that I just described gives a nice view into the kind of ethics that are behind so, so, so, so much of the business that we’re dealing with these days. You see none of those things that these assholes are doing serves innovation. None of it’s competitive. None of it allows for the best to rise to the top. It’s all just theft via leverage because all the laws are geared toward making sure that these guys get what they want.

You know in my state…the Dept of Labor doesn’t enforce violations on businesses grossing less than 1.5 mil a year? I know a guy who runs 18 dominos pizzas and he’s got em all under a bunch of different LLCs so that none of the companies gross more than 1.5 mil a year. That way he can systematically violate the rights of laborers and they have no recourse. Think about that for a minute guys.

Like building a factory and hiring a bunch of workers to do all the shitty work and wear out their backs so that you can become filthy rich and in the end leave every single one of them dirt poor just seems a lot like buying a plantation and getting a bunch of slaves. I dunno man.


Yeah that sucked, 100 years ago in the U.S. or in third world countries today. In the civilized world, you aren’t describing a thing that happens anymore. The idea of somebody taking the only job they can get even though it’s terrible and working for the rest of their lives hasn’t been an accurate picture of anything in the developed world since what, the 70’s?
Leftist views of economics mostly suck because they don’t deal in reality. They assume that a person’s happiness is determined by their economics, they assume that a person’s economic class is something that they are born into and stuck with for their entire lives, instead of recognizing the fact that people in the highest and lowest income brackets almost never stay there for more than 10 years. Even speaking strictly of economics, they mistakenly suppose that a person’s true wealth and access is best measured by how many dollars they have compared to how many dollars somebody else has.
But most of all, they paint emotional pictures and try to draw economic conclusions based on them. Economics is math, not poetry. Stop crying.

Case you didn’t notice, today’s United States is fast on track becoming a third world. The middle and upper classes haven’t taken noticed yet but sometime in the near future not even they will be able to ignore it.

Civilized world? Wow, you really are delusional.

Really? Where the fuck do you live at?

Translation: Only my conservative aristocratic views are correct.

That’s exactly what it is. A person’s economic mobility or lack of determines a individual’s whole existence.

Some people are forced in the lower class their entire lives. Once you’re there it is very hard to get out and almost impossible.

What text book are you reading from? The guide on how to be a upstanding young conservative American? :laughing:

It does because money and income decides everything these days. What rock have you been living under?

Translation: Fuck all of you people! Get down and embrace the tyranny bitches!

This is not a real life view. Even in the US, large portions of the population spend their entire lives doing menial work for shit money, and always have. Capitalism, for all it’s perks depends on that.

And what about everyone in between, which is most people? The people that hit the very bottom and the very top don’t stay there for long, but so what? It’s not like people go from homelessness to millionaire-dom all the time. Rather they go from homelessness to working poor. And it’s not like people often start out as billionaires and end up living in destitution, rather they fluctuate up and down within the confines of the upper economic rungs. For most people in the lower classes upward mobility of the rags to riches sort is a nice carrot to chase, and some people even manage to pull it off, but it’s rare, and not something that is realistic to expect of all people who aren’t well off.

Of course that’s not true. It’s more nuanced than that, but a person’s economic wealth can in fact be measured by their material conditions. It’s nice to point out that wealth is not simply a measure of how much cash one has on hand, but it obscures the truth, which is that poor people tend more often than not to stay that way.

More empiricism, less grandstanding please. If we end up a third word country, it will be because Marxesque policies drove us there. 
 The United States, where the average person changes jobs half a dozen times and income brackets 3-4 times over the course of their lives.  That's just reality, I'm sorry if you didn't know it, but it's not reason to get mad.  Incidentally, the job-changing income-bracket changing trend is even more prevalent among the poor than the middle class in case you were wondering.  If somebody is working the same job for multiple decades, it's most likely because [i]they like it[/i].  People working shit jobs change them. Look up the turn-over statistics for any shit job that comes to mind. Fast food, call centers, etc have a turn-over rate of over 100% per year. 
That's right, I think my views are correct, and that views that conflict with them are incorrect.  Do you find that scandalous or something?  Are you one of those types that thinks everybody can be correct in their own special way, or that it's a sin to tell anybody they are wrong?  You don't come off that way. 

Good, at least you OWN that Marxesque bullshit, so people who know it’s a load of crap don’t have to go hunting for the holes in your position.

Oh, ‘some’ is it? Not ‘many’ or ‘most’ but ‘some’? So if there’s even one guy like that, you get to be right? Meh. ‘Some’ doesn’t motivate me. Some people set themselves on fire, let’s ban gasoline. Anyway, statistically you’re wrong about it being almost impossible to get out of the lower class once you get there.
What do you mean by ‘lower class’, by the way? If you mean people that happen to have a low income at some point in time, then you’re obviously wrong since the vast majority of these are students living off somebody else who get out of that position as they find careers. If you are defining ‘lower class’ by their economic mobility, then you’re just right by definition- yeah, people who can’t move from one income class to the next have a hard time moving from one income class to the next. Mmm.

Ah, are you just assuming I'm wrong because it disagrees with your paradigm, or do you actually have a fact to cite? Come on now, how long do YOU think the typical person stays below the poverty line?  [ ... s/?id=1920](   Mobility is over 50% at all income brackets over 10 years. 
What's up with these pointless insults, by the way?  Do you understand that when I say perfectly well-known truths (or at the very least, perfectly well-known if debated positions) and you react with OMFG HOW COULD ANYBODY POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT!?!! you're just demonstrating that you aren't very well read on the subjects you choose to discuss, right?  I haven't said a single solitary thing that's outlandish or extreme in this thread, and you are perpetually flabbergasted for some reason. 
Anyway, money and income dictates a lot, but even within the realm of things determined by economics, less money doesn't mean less wealth/prosperity. Thanks to things like the internet, entertainment, cheap basic health care, and nutritional knowledge, poor people enjoy more comfortable lives with each passing decade.  The rich may have more dollars then poor people, and that gap may be widening, but the gap between the luxury and access the rich and poor enjoy is narrowing.  

Case in point. You’re ranting and raving as though it constitutes an argument. Your “translations” are just an attempt to make me look like a villain because I have a different ideology than you do, because frankly, demonizing people you disagree with is all you’ve got.

How many? Less than half the people living in poverty in 1996 were still there in 2005.

So what? So it means that the myth of the 1% that are this group of villains oppressing everybody is just that, a myth. The people living that large stay there for a little while then come down again.  It means the people in desperate poverty for the most part [i]get out of it on their own[/i] without the need for whatever it is some given leftist thinks needs to be changed.  "Everybody in between" means people who aren't poor enough to suffer from their income, so yeah, [i]what about them?[/i]
 There aren't enough riches for 'rags to riches' to be a reasonable standard to measure anything by.  Yes, most poor people don't become millionaires. But "Millionaire" is only an interesting data point, in fact it pretty much only exists as a word because it's synonymous with "An amount of wealth the vast majority of people will never achieve".   No economic system is going to make us all millionaires without just printing a bunch of worthless money. But most poor people DO end up getting out of poverty, in this capitalist society. It would seem to me that poor people getting out of poverty is what we're primarily concerned with, if we're trying to alleviate suffering and not jealousy. 
Statistically, they don't, unless you're expanding 'poor' to mean something other than below the poverty line, which is itself already an inflated number including tons of people that don't actually need our help, and aren't actually suffering from their lack of income.  But anyway, my point when I brought up material wealth vs. dollars was to say that in the past few decades, poor people have gained access to greater world travel and education, better food, better entertainment and better health care all thanks to a substantially free market.  To say that there is a widening economic gap can only possibly true if you're considering dollars (and perhaps real estate for all I know) and not considering what a dollar buys.

To bring it back to the OP, equating people with government jobs in Western Europe as being ‘slaves’ demonstrating the horrors of poverty insults the legacy of slaves and the plight of actual poor people.

Will printing and dumping trillions of dollars into national economies, as debt, save these economies? Austerity is the pound of flesh due the devil. He ain’t gonna indebt you this much without some collateral (he wants to make sure your economies don’t crash too soon, before he gets his return on investment).

It seems reasonable to assume that in 50 years a world map will look a lot different than it does today.

As for “slaves”, the definition is somewhat subjective, when you consider the many kinds of freedom, and that alot of people are satisfied with a good deal less freedom so long as there’s a steady paycheck in it.

And it isnt like you care whose signing your checks, maybe the impoverished citizens of tomorrow, your own kids and grandkids. So what, you say. Cash spends the same no matter from whose wallet you’re grabbing.