|
China has a more severe aging cliff than Japan does because China's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) crash was more rapid. (despite popular wisdom, it wasn't the One Child Policy as such; the drop in TFR preceded the start of the policy by a decade. The policy did however exacerbate the problem thereafter) The problem is aggravated by China being much poorer. China's real GDP per capita is not close to where Japan's was twenty years ago (which was about 3x wealthier). Its aging pyramid is, however. A Japan today that is as old but only 1/3 as productive would be in a very strained situation, but that is about where China is projected to be. China will be doing well if it manages to avoid a middle-income slowdown (China today is not rich, although parts of it are. It's a big country! On a per capita basis, however, think Mexico and Thailand, not S Korea). It is already the case that low-income manufacturing is moving to Vietnam and low-income textiles is moving to Bangladesh. Chinese manufacturing employment peaked in the 2010s. None of this is shocking or really surprising - as the East Asian Tigers already experienced themselves once - but the wave is just that much larger in magnitude.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, they have to take on US debt because it has a surplus with the US, it could be called a preference but there is so much history built up, I would say it is structural. They aren't dependent on "hard currency" but they are slowing being pushed into a more and more unsustainable position. Of course it's structural, can't have a trade surplus without buying up foreign debt from the nations you're selling to. You'd just end up with McScrooge bins of their currency at which point you might as well swap them for bonds (which in turn means your trade partner can use the currency buy even more of your goods). It's just a currency exchange fact, if you're racking up a surplus someone else has to rack up a deficit. I think we also have a different view on what constitutes unsustainable. Will things perhaps be icky in the future with a weakened capacity to import goods that Japan wants? Probably. Will this impact the import of goods Japan actually needs to function as a nation-state or economy? No way. Most of industrial Asia is incredibly resilient to foreign currency pressures due to the hoarding of US bonds, which as we can see with Russia is more than what you need to weather storms. It's the difference between stagnation being bad and stagnation being a catastrophe. As you were kinda tangenting the obvious answer (like it is for most developed nations) is immigration, -or non deflationary economic reform but pffff. ronya posted:The problem is aggravated by China being much poorer. China's real GDP per capita is not close to where Japan's was twenty years ago (which was about 3x wealthier). Its aging pyramid is, however. A Japan today that is as old but only 1/3 as productive would be in a very strained situation, but that is about where China is projected to be. Nothing really points towards China stagnating at this juncture though, its economy is still growing like there is no future. This makes sense since it still has many unrealized easy development opportunities within its territories. Demographics are bad for Japan, but they're not the sole (or perhaps, even dominant) reason Japan started stagnating and I think it'd be a mistake to put so much weight to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 09:46
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Nothing really points towards China stagnating at this juncture though, its economy is still growing like there is no future. This makes sense since it still has many unrealized easy development opportunities within its territories. Demographics are bad for Japan, but they're not the sole (or perhaps, even dominant) reason Japan started stagnating and I think it'd be a mistake to put so much weight to it. Yes, but the problem with those unrealized opportunities is that they're hitched to the same national policy considerations that have to also consider the interests of its already-rich regions... (see also: all the other BRICs! All share a phenomenon of deeply unequal internal development, I don't think that's accidental) The PRD wants to spend its thirty-glorious-years on its own domestic consumption, not capital investment in Northern or Western China - https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1311305376348987393 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1311755238748160000 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1311758291060563975 I agree that the extent of the demographic question is unclear but: 1) insofar as we put any weight on it, the headwinds are even stronger for China, and 2) it certainly does seem that Chinese policymakers are taking the point seriously, albeit not so seriously enough that I think any of their policies announced so far will move the TFR needle. e: accidentally a word ronya fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 10:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I wouldn't go too far, it is true that Japan didn't experience a real collapse but at the same type Plaza Accords, the QE of the 1980s and the accompanying property bubble was disastrous for Japanese society and it shows. The reason people stopped having kids (and haven't stopped) is because they couldn't afford them. I mean fertility rates in all the Asian Tigers started dropping in the 70s and never came back, almost a whole generation before the bubbles popped. If anything people should talk about how that trend in the 70s could have been a warning sign 20 years before. Every country had their post boomer slump, but the US then had the millennial small boom of the mid 80s/early 90s of boomers having kids, while much of the rest of the industrialized world didn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 10:25
|
|
|
I would say the one child policy almost certainly had such an effect on labor markets. It is obviously still an issue but I don’t think but Japan/the Tigers is an Apple to Oranges comparison all things consider. Also, 2019 was in the middle of a trade war which is going to affect growth. From the demographic data on hand it does seem central government policy is influencing birth rates, so it very well may that the PRC simply has a different growth pattern with a “longer tail" than other Asian economies. I believe China is still only 60-65% urbanized which still leaves plenty of headroom for future growth even if that trajectory is more shallow. (Also, I don't know how useful those graphs are considering to, income growth on the very low end is probably going to be constrained because you are talking about people still in rural areas.) Also the situation in Japan is very much about how a specific set of policies caused so much of a severe decline in a specific period. They were already facing lower population throw rates and higher labor costs, but the circumstances of the Yen surge and the resulting property bubble (and its affect on trade) clearly had a long-term negative effect. (As for Japan, having that much debt is going to create a buffer but there is also a question of getting in such a squeeze that there are realistic limits of what is possible. ) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 11:36
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:I mean fertility rates in all the Asian Tigers started dropping in the 70s and never came back, almost a whole generation before the bubbles popped. If anything people should talk about how that trend in the 70s could have been a warning sign 20 years before. Every country had their post boomer slump, but the US then had the millennial small boom of the mid 80s/early 90s of boomers having kids, while much of the rest of the industrialized world didn't. I wonder why countries such as Japan, Korea, and China struggle so much with immigration? Why would people much rather go to United States, U.K., Singapore, or even South Africa compared to say Japan, Korea, or China?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
It's not about where people want to go, it's about where they're able.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Immigration policies and language are usually a driver, English being more or less a global language makes it a English speaking country will be the first destination of someone. Those Asian countries could do like a lot of central European companies and some Government departments and make their internal language English to help attract foreign talent. In Germany case it helped a lot of companies
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I wonder why countries such as Japan, Korea, and China struggle so much with immigration? Why would people much rather go to United States, U.K., Singapore, or even South Africa compared to say Japan, Korea, or China? Imo: Japan is very strict with immigration. They are fierce defendants of their culture and like uniformity (everyone dressing the same way, hair and hair color). Where immigration kinds of brings the oposite values. Cosmopolitanism is about everyone having their own way to do things, and respecting that, getting joy from that even. China language is very hard, and the written form even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 11:37
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I wonder why countries such as Japan, Korea, and China struggle so much with immigration? Why would people much rather go to United States, U.K., Singapore, or even South Africa compared to say Japan, Korea, or China? This is a complex question, especially with the US’s hosed up and complex immigration laws, but a big reason people choose (and continue to choose) to immigrate to the US compared to others on the list is. 1) Jobs. There are lots of entry level / jobs that require little or no education still available in the US (if you are skilled it’s comparatively easier for a US based company to sponsor you) 2) cost of living in the US is still comparatively cheap in many areas. It’s why places like Texas or Arizona have seen such a large recent increase in immigrants 3) Family ties - many immigrants have at least a family member or several already in the US 4) Location- this applies to those in central and South America, but the US is just easier to get too for obvious reasons 5) I can’t speak for China, but if it is anything like Korea/Japan then their immigration / work laws are even more strict than the US. Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
The U.S. also has a lot of well-established and thriving immigrant communities—even if we treat most of them like poo poo. Which means people can integrate without completely abandoning their cultural roots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:The U.S. also has a lot of well-established and thriving immigrant communities—even if we treat most of them like poo poo. Which means people can integrate without completely abandoning their cultural roots. I would say my anecdotal experience with Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese expats has been the opposite - people don't treat them like poo poo generally, or at least compared to what they would have expected with some of the above options. Particularly given there are large immigrant communities around the US that ease the transition - I have relatives who have been here for most of a decade and speak very limited English because they settled in a community that just doesn't require it. With the examples given it's also much easier to legally immigrate to the US in a way that allows for long term habitation or eventual citizenship - China/Japan for example are great for temporary skilled work kinda deals but very hard to actually settle down in. With the US you get married, you're in. You get a work Visa, you're in. Kids you have during your stay - also in. For those with some money - you get into a cheaper University graduate program and you're in so long as you keep adding more semesters (this is a surprisingly common option for families who want their kids to avoid the pressure cooker education systems or pollution - mom goes to forever school in the US with the kids while dad stays back home making $$$). On the less legal side it's also comparatively easy to skip out on your Visa (or illegally work on the side with a Visa that doesn't allow for it) and make a decent living under the table without Big Brother coming after you. The only consistent complaint I've heard is that US healthcare is absurd due to the insane prices. I know plenty of Koreans who hold onto Korean citizenship where "I can pay to fly around the planet and still get more reasonably priced healthcare options" factored in heavily. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Sep 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:China/Japan for example are great for temporary skilled work kinda deals but very hard to actually settle down in. With the US you get married, you're in. You get a work Visa, you're in. Japan is actually quite easy to settle permanently in. Kids don’t get auto citizenship, but Japan is incredibly easy to move to permanently as a skilled worker (really anyone with a uni degree that can get a job, or gets married). You can also apply for citizenship in 5 years flat with no quotas et al, PR min requirement can be long at 10 years of you’re unmarried, but if you’re highly educated/paid, or married you can apply after 1 year and it’s far less hassle and expense than a US green card. Japan’s immigration is tough for non-skilled workers and refugees, and hilariously easy for anyone considered a skilled or educated worker, including getting various permanent status. It just de facto requires Japanese language skills and in general doesnt have the allure to a lot of people of the US/EU, and lacks as many large ethnic enclaves to ease transition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
IIRC the requirements for Permament Residency are quite steep in terms of your profession. Like need to be a neurosurgeon based on some examples I've seen. While Citizenship is a lot easier and mainly "Are you in good standing? Yes/No?" Unless its changed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:IIRC the requirements for Permament Residency are quite steep in terms of your profession. Like need to be a neurosurgeon based on some examples I've seen. While Citizenship is a lot easier and mainly "Are you in good standing? Yes/No?" Unless its changed. This has never been the case. Basic Japan PR application requirements are basically: Generally regardless of anything else - 10 years of residency, 5 of which need to be under a status of residence that allows work Accelerated PR based on the Highly Skilled Foreign Professional (HSFP) point system - depending on points accelerated to either 3 years or 1 year. Points are heavily weighed towards being young and well paid, so anyone in their 20s or early 30s working in finance or a software engineer or in general a bit well paid (not at all exec only stuff) has a good chance of qualifying for at least 3 year accelerated. You also get bonus points for having gotten a degree in Japan and having JLPT (language test) levels, along with other things. So basically anyone who went to a Japanese uni and has a normal salary is liable to qualify for accelerated, for example. Marriage - something like 3 years of marriage to a citizen (don’t need to be living in Japan) and 1 year of residence. There’s other special circumstances where they grant it quicker, and have for a long time, but that’s mostly been replaces with the above HSFP point system which is much more clear and specific that it was before it was enacted (I think in 2014?) Basically there’s a bunch of ways to get PR quickly and I know any number of people who came to Japan, applied after a year, and got PR 4-6 months after application, taking way less work than it would, for example, in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 09:26
|
|
|
Well first, by "Neuro surgeon" that isn't literal, that's a reference to how the Gaijin Smash guy described the process on his blog who went through that process himself and his blog dates back to at least 2006, I'm not sure off hand at what point he went and got his PR, but it seems to me its entirely possible its before when that process you're referring to is and probably around 2010. It would be interesting to check how exactly he described it but the search feature doesn't bring anything up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 09:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Well first, by "Neuro surgeon" that isn't literal, that's a reference to how the Gaijin Smash guy described the process on his blog who went through that process himself and his blog dates back to at least 2006, I'm not sure off hand at what point he went and got his PR, but it seems to me its entirely possible its before when that process you're referring to is and probably around 2010. It would be interesting to check how exactly he described it but the search feature doesn't bring anything up. Gaijin Smash guy is kind of a dumbass and has hosed up various really basic “adulting in Japan” stuff then gone to Reddit to whine about it, so, this may surprise you, but you should 1) take what he says with a grain of salt, 2) know that things can change over a literal decade, 3) realize that if you want to verify anything I’ve summarized here you’re free to check it with many of the dozens of immigration lawyers’ websites or the direct Japanese govt info
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Gaijin Smash guy is kind of a dumbass and has hosed up various really basic “adulting in Japan” stuff then gone to Reddit to whine about it, so, this may surprise you, but you should 1) take what he says with a grain of salt, 2) know that things can change over a literal decade, 3) realize that if you want to verify anything I’ve summarized here you’re free to check it with many of the dozens of immigration lawyers’ websites or the direct Japanese govt info I don't doubt anything you said is true, or that information from someone's personal blog should be taken with a grain of salt, I did say, "IIRC it used to be harder" I don't think there's really any disagreement here. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 10:24
|
|
|
.
Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Sep 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 07:18
|
|
|
Authoritarian China. https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1436029367394652164
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 04:58
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:
I am a union steward. This is a really REALLY wrong headed comparison. You're operating on this idea that well management isn't making the big executive dollars so they are just like works but this isn't really how it works. Their jobs necessitate loyalty to the companies interest over interest of the workers. In the case of ethnicity the argument is we are all workers in the case of management it's trying to organize the prison guard with the prisons labor force. Are they exploited by capitalism? Absolutely. The problem with managers is a major component of their job is to exploit others under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
Some are. Some aren't. It depends wholly on the industry being discussed, which is the point I and every other poster was trying to get across to that one poser. There are many industries where things like 'manager' and 'executive' are empty window dressings, and they are just like any other employee. And there are many industries where they are not, and the managers are nasty little kapos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:There are many industries where things like 'manager' and 'executive' are empty window dressings, and they are just like any other employee. For instance...? I'm struggling to think of any industry where the manager isn't under explicit pressure to extract as much as possible out of employees while giving as little as possible in return. Retail, logistics, manufacturing, marketing, tech...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:For instance...? I think confusion comes from what qualifies as a manager in one industry doesn't equate so easily in another. In IT for instance managers are not paid much more (if at all) more than employees - their only job is to be a point of escalation and help distribute work. Actual decisions regarding hiring/firing personnel, pay, benefits, time off, etc are all handled by executives or upper-level management in the IT field. For instance I had a friend who was an IT Service Desk Manager and oversaw a team of 4. His only "power" was to delegate work between the four employees, with him being the ultimate point of escalation for issues. When the contractor he work for was bought out, him and his entire team were unceremoniously let go. So in some fields, trying to do a neat separation between "worker" and "management" is fruitless, and counter productive. Especially if the end goal is trying to organize workers. Instead of this focus on titles, the idea should be to organize workers against those who actually hold the power of capital. In my opinion, that is Owners and C-suite Executives. Now other fields are entirely different, especially blue collar, and I cannot speak to them. I can only speak to the field I am familiar with (IT). Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:For instance...? Banks for one, almost everyone is a "Vice-President" but their role and responsibility is entirely sales related. Again using tech as an example, "Games Operations Manager" doesn't mean you actually manage people at best you manage operations regarding the game, but hold no real responsibilities over individuals. You're basically just a software engineer with a fancy title and extra access to critical infrastructure. You're at best talking about people who actually do manage employees, but the majority of the thread was responding to Cpt_Obvious ironic inability to understand the obvious: that the literal titles of the people he was saying didn't deserve labour protections from the Worker's State don't actually mean anything. So again to repeat, the core contention is that someone with the job title of Manager is often not actually a Manager of people. From a Marxist perspective its well explained as being a way capitalism erodes the status of people in the bourgeoisie; because often it comes with additional work but no compensation or only illusory compensation. This isn't to say people who actually are managers don't deserve protections, they do, but that's a really separate conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Having been in sales and marketing, I can definitely attest that there are a bunch of people with "executive" in their job title in my industry who have no discretionary power over anyone at all. It's been trendy for years now in B2B sales to call what we would have once called sales representatives "sales executives" instead, purely so they come off as more impressive to potential customers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
We literally hashed all this out last time. If OP wants examples, they can pull their thumb out of their arse and try reading the thread. This discussion was stupid and exhausting last time and it'll be just as stupid and exhausting this time. If OP really cares that much, they can click the "?" under my username to get all my posts I've made in this thread, scroll down to where this bullshit started last time then read them and pretend I still give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
It blows my mind how people don't understand why the workforce needs foremen or a pointman on staff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
So the distinction is "Manager who actually manages" vs. "Person whose job title does not reflect the work they actually do"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:It blows my mind how people don't understand why the workforce needs foremen or a pointman on staff. Usually just means a lack of experience or very limited bad experience in the workplace. Maybe just the good ol' Dunning-Kruger effect convincing them everyone else's job is easy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:For instance...? In some of my retail jobs, I've dealt with managers whose entire job was basically running the front desk. Taking calls, handling lottery tickets returns. 'Floor Managers' or 'Floor Supervisors' they were called. They really didn't issue orders and instead just relayed them from the Store Managers who are more akin to what one thinks when you hear the word 'manager'. Also, I was paid more than all of them, despite just taking care of the outside of the store. In fact outside I had more power than they did and would manage them if something big needed to be done outside. My title? "Courtesy clerk".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:For instance...? The person you’re quoting is just talking about the usage of the term “manager” in job titles, not making a statement about people with supervisory duties. Hence the quotation marks. Please do not start this pedantic derail again lol Edit: oh god
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Starks posted:The person you’re quoting is just talking about the usage of the term “manager” in job titles, not making a statement about people with supervisory duties. Hence the quotation marks. Please do not start this pedantic derail again lol TOO LATE! I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:Some are. Some aren't. Then you've kind of stumbled on why using a analogy based on ethnicity is kind of silly. If you're trying to build a union in some white collar office or IT field that uses funny titles go wild no clue how you're going to do that since a good chunk of the office is bullshit jobs but I have no experience organizing in that environment. But in nearly every place that has a union a manager is indeed a job and not a window dressing title. Hence why comparing it to ethnicity is wrong headed especially since you stated most managers are not capital enforcers which I don't believe is correct. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Sep 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Then you've kind of stumbled on why using a analogy based on ethnicity is kind of silly. If you're trying to build a union in some white collar office or IT field that uses funny titles go wild no clue how you're going to do that since a good chunk of the office is bullshit jobs but I have no experience organizing in that environment. There are several things that are weird here. 1. Why does a job being "bullshit" means it doesn't or shouldn't get protections? If you're being asked to work 70 hours a week looking like you're working you can still benefit from a union! 2. Shouldn't all workplaces have a union regardless of management? 3. No one is saying management doesn't exist; but that there exists many fields where manager in the title, or executive, or President, blah blah doesn't actually mean you are a Manager. As an outsider, it is merely more difficult to figure out where responsibility lays, this is partially deliberate, to make it harder for organization or media scrutiny or outside accountability to occur. Like the best example here is to look at Salarymen/women as represented by Japanese anime; like in Kengan Ashura or others, you have dudes who are given fancy titles, but their actual authority wholly depends on their bosses; but their still run ragged by them and burned out for the hopes of promotion. In our example of Kengan Ashura, our guy manages a single person and then Magoo's his way up from there as the only person that person trusts and the only person trusted to manage that one Very Important Person; the actual person his bosses value. Our salaryman is only valuable insofar as he's useful for talking to the guy he manages. Before that not sure what he did, filed expense reports? Pushed some numbers around in Excel? Who knows! I bet he'd benefit a lot from a union, he probably would still have his marriage and his kid wouldn't hate him from having to work an ungodly number of hours in a week because of workplace culture in a Japanese office. PMCs are people too, I have never known a lovely manager in the vast majority of the places I've worked, only lovely bosses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There are several things that are weird here. 1. Please directly quote the part of that post that says bullshit jobs shouldn't have a union. 2. Please directly quote the part of that post where I implied or stated workplace unions should be based on management. 3. Megillah Gorilla used a wrongheaded analogy in the post I had quoted. I explained why it was wrongheaded. I stated specifically in the post you are quoting that most jobs that have unions (in his example he was bringing up union posters so using unionized labor is pretty relavent managers are not window dressing titles and fullfil a very specific anti worker role. I infact specifically mention that this does not apply to window dressing titles just that those circles are not usually union based ones. I'm not going to really go into the rest of the post because it's about an anime that I haven't watched have never heard of and am completely baffled about how you think a fictional character is the best example for unionizing bullshit jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I'm not going to really go into the rest of the post because it's about an anime that I haven't watched have never heard of and am completely baffled about how you think a fictional character is the best example for unionizing bullshit jobs. Not sure why you're baffled. Analogizing things to fiction like that is pretty typical for Raenir Salazar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:1. Please directly quote the part of that post that says bullshit jobs shouldn't have a union. quote:no clue how you're going to do that since a good chunk of the office is bullshit jobs quote:2. Please directly quote the part of that post where I implied or stated workplace unions should be based on management. quote:But in nearly every place that has a union a manager is indeed a job and not a window dressing title. quote:3. Megillah Gorilla used a wrongheaded analogy in the post I had quoted. I explained why it was wrongheaded. Where does Megillah Gorilla in that quote refer to ethnicity? I literally don't see it anywhere. This post right? quote:Some are. Some aren't. I don't see anything about ethnicity here. quote:I stated specifically in the post you are quoting that most jobs that have unions (in his example he was bringing up union posters so using unionized labor is pretty relavent managers are not window dressing titles and fullfil a very specific anti worker role. I infact specifically mention that this does not apply to window dressing titles just that those circles are not usually union based ones. But no one here is talking about non-window dressing management; the entire conversation was because of Cpt_Obvious misinterpreting the roles of some people who work in China. Its of course questionable that management is automatically anti-worker; the Manager of Worker Safety is management but clearly their role is to make sure everyone is safe and up to code and has the equipment they need. quote:I'm not going to really go into the rest of the post because it's about an anime that I haven't watched have never heard of and am completely baffled about how you think a fictional character is the best example for unionizing bullshit jobs. Its to point out that the majority of management likely would also benefit from unions and solidarity with the workers because they are also workers because they go to work. Because the people who have the real power aren't managers or the ficticious "PMCs".
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Neither of those things you quoted say bullshit jobs shouldn't have unions. So still waiting on that request Raenir Salazar posted:Where does Megillah Gorilla in that quote refer to ethnicity? I literally don't see it anywhere. You are responding to a conversation I literally walked you through how the conversation went. quote:EDIT: Does anyone have that old union poster of a capitalists going amongst his workers pitting the Irish against the Catholic against the Black man then laughing with his friends at how stupid those drat proles are. This is what I was responding to. Silver2195 posted:Not sure why you're baffled. Analogizing things to fiction like that is pretty typical for Raenir Salazar. If someone told me the best example of needed unions were Santa clause's elves and they were being dead serious I'd be pretty confused at why that was a better example than a real example. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Sep 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Yeah my bad I should've scrolled up more, I thought by "the post you quoted" you meant the post you quoted in your most immediate post. Now if that's not what you meant, great, I am just observer that in the way you wrote it it sounded weird, that can happen! Afterall this is a casual conversation and peoples language might not be clearly conveyed to others. If we're both in agreement that all jobs should have unions then perfect. Sedisp posted:If someone told me the best example of needed unions were Santa clause's elves and they were being dead serious I'd be pretty confused at why that was a better example than a real example. Because "real examples" depend on incomplete information, and often result in "Well that's just an exception, it doesn't mean anything"; while fiction according to Jungian symbolism is universal in its applicability. In short, more people generally emphasize with whats on screen than with who is next to them. And real life examples of workplace abuse requires considerably more research to provide a complete picture, usually is buried under court documents, testimonies, discovery, and whatever that pre-trial meeting is called. edit: Deposition. to summarize again, its about pathos; fiction provides pathos, cold summaries from court documents or news paper articles with a neutral dispassionate voice do not provide pathos and do not convey their point as well in an argument; and arguments rely on ethos, logos and also pathos to be convincing and so you need pathos for making an argument. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Sep 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 01:34
|
|