A couple of questions

Jesus wrote:

Well they ''Supervise'' the work of normal employees. They manage important parts of the company they work for.

So they're nothing but highly paid workers.

Supervisors should be payed no more then the people they watch over. I made up a system a while back for that. (I wrote it in a notebook I'll see if I find it)

The job of a supervisor is unnecessary. It plays no role in production.

RichardCMongler wrote:

The job of a supervisor is unnecessary. It plays no role in production.

That's right, but this is not the point of the discussion.

A supervisor, just like a worker in an assembly line, is a worker wether his job is needless or not. Unless that supervisor is a shareholder or completely owns the business.

They're nesesarry. They make sure the workers are actually doing their job, and take care of the workers' needs.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

They're nesesarry. They make sure the workers are actually doing their job, and take care of the workers' needs.

If the workers have to meet a determinate goal they're not needed. And I'm yet to see where supervisors do take care of the workers' needs, most often they're just there to enforce policies.

I wouldn't like this discussion to devolve into this, though.

I agree with Tyrong, every one starts too slack off every once in a while an having a supervisor would help get the workers back on track.

What do you mean devolve into this?

Also, well, maybe there, but here they take care of you. I mean, if they're at all good. They walk around, making sure ev eryone's not breaking rules, most of which are there for safety, and are doing their job. Sure they have to meet a goal. But what if something happens and the worker doesn't know how to fix it? Supervisor. THe supervisor fetches someone who knows, or call for help if something goes wrong, or takes care of the problem directly. Once at work, a walkway fell and a girl broke her ankle. Well, every supervisor fomr the surrounding departments were over there quickly, helping her, splinting it and I think carrying her out. Or at least comforting her.

They try to make sure nothing happens, and keep the workers happy. They try to make sure things are going smoothly. Plus think of it liketraining for actual management positions. Can't supervise a small number? You can't manage.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

What do you mean devolve into this?

The discussion ought to be about the questions. So I'd prefer. It's been already too much derailing here.

So I guess I better don't continue with that debate, not here at least.

Quote :

But you acknowledge they have good salaries, which would make you enjoy an above-average economic capability. Right?

(Sorry I made a mistake, I meant 30 000$ But that’s still a a lot) No, I do not enjoy an above-average economic capability for those reasons: First I was raised by a monoparental mother.: She has to pay everything for two children because my father don’t want to give money, Second, we still have to pay the debts (30 000$ and over) so we aren’t living better than anyone else I know, even If my parents have quite good salaries.

-By good salaries, I just mean we are able to live with good food, house, and clothes without problems (counting the debts). We are able to do activities too. WE AREN’T OVER WORKER/MIDDLE CLASS AT ALL -

Quote :

1) Would you be eager to work for a company?

It depends on the salary and the conditions but yes if those are good (considering regulations and the salary proportionally to the education rate I (‘ll) have. If not, I’ll search for something else (another company or something else). When you study a lot, you have the power to choose. When you’re uneducated, offers are rare.

Quote :

2) Why are there so many large enterprises with even hundreads of thousands of workers even millions?

Because most of those people haven’t gone to school so they don’t really have the choice to work in this kind of company. You know Zealot, our job isn’t always our own choice. I’m sure if they really had really decided, they would work somewhere else (I’m principally talking about exploited workers)

Quote :

And how exactly is it a direct way to determine things?

Zealot, did you considered it would be unfair If I had a direct power over decisions? I mean, we all have a word to say about how things are administrated but of course, millions of people cannot be leader of a country. We have to choose somebody that will care about it. Imagine how it would be chaotic if we were all chief of our country I mean, It’s unthinkable. How could you determinate laws and everything? Voting IS the most direct way to determine things equally itself. There’s no other way to be fair. If I’m wrong, tell me because I don’t see other solution than becoming president of Canada myself to have a word to say more directly.

Quote :

So you don't like exploitation but you wouldn't like the status quo to change in Canada. Explain that oxymoron please.

I know there’s exploitation in Canada. It’s true, it’s very sad, I totally agree with you on that point Zealot. You know, in Canada, the worst exploiter is the government, because it takes a lot of money from the middle class. It’s not companies, but this money is used to pay welfare, education and healthcare. Maybe it takes too much money. But if less money was taken, there would be exploitation anyway. You cannot totally suppress exploitation in a capitalist system. Impossible. There’s no magic way! And I don’t want the Canada to become communist (no need to explain myself on that point, I already told you all so I would feel like repeating myself for the 4th time –or more, I’ve stop to count- ).

I also would like to highlight something: NO, THINGS IN CANADA ARE WORKING QUITE WELL BUT IT’S (FAR FAR FAR FAR) FROM BEING PERFECT. Perfection cannot exist anyway. And no, I don’t like exploitation, and that’s precisely why I wouldn’t want things to change, because –keeping in mind we’re only talking about a capitalist system (see upper) - it’s the way, in my views, to have the lowest exploitation rate.

– And by the way, I wanted to remind you I’m deep into the worker/middle class, which is the most exploited one (obviously)-

Lilith wrote:

-By good salaries, I just mean we are able to live with good food, house, and clothes without problems (counting the debts). We are able to do activities too. WE AREN’T OVER WORKER/MIDDLE CLASS AT ALL -

Millions of persons around the world can't even afford that.

Also, Lilith, unless you own a business it is impossible for you to work and stop being part of the worker class. Nonetheless, you personally are a petitburgeoise since you offer your babysitting services.

Lilith wrote:

It depends on the salary and the conditions but yes if those are good (considering regulations and the salary proportionally to the education rate I (‘ll) have. If not, I’ll search for something else (another company or something else). When you study a lot, you have the power to choose. When you’re uneducated, offers are rare.

So, are you arguing that so long as you study a lot the laboural market has on influence upon you?

Lilith wrote:

Because most of those people haven’t gone to school so they don’t really have the choice to work in this kind of company. You know Zealot, our job isn’t always our own choice. I’m sure if they really had really decided, they would work somewhere else (I’m principally talking about exploited workers)

So you are you arguing that if everyone was well educated no one would perform those tasks? I mean, tasks they don't like.

And, every worker is exploited: A woker adds up value to a product or service of which owner will profit from, always, at the expense of workers.

lilith wrote:

Zealot, did you considered it would be unfair If I had a direct power over decisions?

Why would it be unfair? The decisions of others affect you and everyone else, so why would it be unfair if everyone could have a say?

Plus, dear, that's not what I asked. You said you have a direct way to determine things but now you digress with what you say.

Lilith wrote:

I mean, we all have a word to say about how things are administrated but of course, millions of people cannot be leader of a country.

Why? Are all people too stupid to rule over their lives over how things should work?

Lilith wrote:

We have to choose somebody that will care about it.

Why?

Lilith wrote:

Imagine how it would be chaotic if we were all chief of our country I mean, It’s unthinkable.

I don't see how would it be necesarily chaotic. And it's not unthinkable. Plus it has already happened without chaos and it worked smoothly until the Wermacht, the Italian army and the Franquists decided to fuck it up and destroy it.

Lilith wrote:

How could you determinate laws and everything?

By argumentation?

Lilith wrote:

Voting IS the most direct way to determine things equally itself. There’s no other way to be fair.

So how is it fair to put on hands of a single or a little group of individuals the fate of millions?

Lilith wrote:

If I’m wrong, tell me because I don’t see other solution than becoming president of Canada myself to have a word to say more directly.

Become a succesful capitalist. Wait, that's nearly as if not more out of reach. Unless you got awesome luck.

The solution is simple: socialism.

Lilith wrote:

I know there’s exploitation in Canada. It’s true, it’s very sad, I totally agree with you on that point Zealot. You know, in Canada, the worst exploiter is the government, because it takes a lot of money from the middle class. It’s not companies, but this money is used to pay welfare, education and healthcare. Maybe it takes too much money.

So the government is the worst exploiter just because it takes money and partialy redistributes it. How is that more or a worst extent of exploitation than profiting at the worker's expense?

Lilith wrote:

But if less money was taken, there would be exploitation anyway. You cannot totally suppress exploitation in a capitalist system. Impossible. There’s no magic way!

Exactly, because Capitalism relies on exploitation. As simple as that. So if you prefer this system over a system that counts with no exploitation even though you know that other system doesn't have it. It means that, either you like exploitation or consider it the only option possible in which case you have no option but to accept and even learn to like it.

Lilith wrote:

And I don’t want the Canada to become communist (no need to explain myself on that point, I already told you all so I would feel like repeating myself for the 4th time –or more, I’ve stop to count- ).

The problem in regards to our personal conversations, dear, is that absolutely every characteristic you've told me you don't like about communism is actually not a characteristic of communism. So your arguements are nil.

Lilith wrote:

I also would like to highlight something: NO, THINGS IN CANADA ARE WORKING QUITE WELL BUT IT’S (FAR FAR FAR FAR) FROM BEING PERFECT. Perfection cannot exist anyway. And no, I don’t like exploitation, and that’s precisely why I wouldn’t want things to change, because –keeping in mind we’re only talking about a capitalist system (see upper) - it’s the way, in my views, to have the lowest exploitation rate.

Perfection is subjective therefore it can actually exist, but no one is arguing or asking about perfection here. It's about objective questions and answers.

If you don't like exploitation, one would suppose that you would like it to end. But, if you like capitalism, even though you know its implications and alternatives to it, it means that in the end either exploitation is not relevant to you whatsoever or you actually like it.

Explain, how is capitalism the way through which we can have the lowest exploitation rate?

Lilith wrote:

– And by the way, I wanted to remind you I’m deep into the worker/middle class, which is the most exploited one (obviously)-

As I explained you, you personally are a petit-burgeoise due to your babysitting services. However, you're economically dependant on your mother's work as a worker.

Now, the most exploited class, to see it this way, are the worker/lower class which many capitalist countries (commercial empires) have succesfully created the illusion that it doesn't exist within their countries because they have effectively managed to drop that burden on foreign workers. Now that I think it, it's not much of an illusion though.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Lilith wrote:

-By good salaries, I just mean we are able to live with good food, house, and clothes without problems (counting the debts). We are able to do activities too. WE AREN’T OVER WORKER/MIDDLE CLASS AT ALL -

Millions of persons around the world can't even afford that.

I think she meanth the Western line of middle-class.

And we got good food,car,house and all that sh!t to.
Just the regular on Western base.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

1. Are you rich or at least enjoy of above-average economic capabilities?

2. Do you or your family own a business?

3. Do you or your family have workers working for you?

4. If the answers to all previous questions are negative, and you work, do you like working your at a rate imposed by someone who claims ownership over the place where you work, the tools and overall means employed by you to work in order to produce or assist in the production and/or provision of a product and/or service so you can get paid a fraction of that product/service value providing thus the owner of that product with the possibility to get rich at your expense?

5. If answer to question 3 is negative but answer to question 2 is possitive and answer to question 1 is negative, do you like to engage in an increasingly intense competition against both those in a similar condition to yours and those with even better conditions than yours knowing that the sucess of your business and thus your economical integrity depend essentially on luck? A luck that without doubt ought to be much better for those with easier access to resources. (Luck here is to be defined as all the factors not determined by you which nonetheless influde in your activities i.e the conditions since your birth, weather, the environment in which you develop your business, competitors' behaviour and overall social behaviour, legal and economic frameworks). In case answer 1 is possitive consider just the competition and luck factor from your perspective.

6. If questions 1, 2 and 3 were answered possitively, a)do you like to exploit workforce thriving at their expense? b)Do you consider that you are providing them with a benefit even though essentially you and others of your kind determine their economic conditions and thus have an overtly relevant influence over their lives, probably to the extent that you actually determine their living conditions? c) do you consider that you deserve to enjoy better living conditions than those working for you? d) do you consider you are superior to those working for you? e) in case a and b were answered possitively, 1)do you think that workers are aware of these conditions, that they can change them and just decided to willingly accept them and that they agree with you? If so, 2) how is that? 3) Are you aware that it just takes workers to realize they can change these conditions in order to deprive you from those priviledges? 4) Can you explain how, even though you and those of your kind literally determine the living conditions of all workers thus depriving them from the posibility to rule their own lives (at least not outside a framework delimited by you) you provide them with a benefit? f) in case c and/or d were answered possitively, can you sustain your claim(s) with arguements?

7. Do you directly have a say on the way economy and society work?

8. If question 7 was answered negatively, do you like that condition even though it implies that so long as you keep within said social framework your freedom is limited and thus decided by others? 2) Do you think that a majority of people fall within this category? And if so and you answered negatively to the first question, 3) do you think this condition is legitimate?

9. If you answered possitively to question 7, how?

10. Would you like the status quo to change? If so, into what?

----

My answers:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. - Although I don't like the idea of working for a boss.
5. - In case I had answered possitively to question 2 then no.
6. a) no b) no c) no d) no
7. No.
8. 1) no. 2) yes. 3) no.
9. -
10. Yes. Into socialism.

1. Used to.
2. The situation's about to change within the month.
3. Used to.
4. -
5. No.
6. -
7. No.
8. a) No. b) Yes. c) No.
9. -
10. Yes, into socialism.

Supervisors are there to ensure that workers do they're job. When employees reach 40% of they're goal they get whipped.

CoolKidX wrote:

I think she meanth the Western line of middle-class.

And we got good food,car,house and all that sh!t to.
Just the regular on Western base.

I asked in a general sense for it would be impossible for that "regular western base" to exist without putting some stress to non-western workforces.

Jesus wrote:

Supervisors are there to ensure that workers do they're job. When employees reach 40% of they're goal they get whipped

*their

Seems like blatant trolling. If serious, though, your parents should be ashamed of themselves.

I think he meant whipped as in tired, not a bull whip.

No zealot, i did something called, a Joke, but Yes, Supervisors are there to ensure workers do what they are paid for.

Jesus wrote:

No zealot, i did something called, a Joke, but Yes, Supervisors are there to ensure workers do what they are paid for.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the topic.