J. Stiglitz: The American Dream has become a myth

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And if it abuses people like discussed here, that is not a problem, and a shame anyway...?

Yes it is a problem, it is a shame, it is wrong. That being the case then why don't the majority i.e the Workers tell the minority i.e the Rich people what they want and if they don't get it they would do something like go on strike, or better yet bring the problems to the attention of a person and/or group that is pro workers rights, since striking could lead to them getting fired from that job and also losing their welfare or whatever source of income in the process.

And before you said "But if its the only job I had would I want to risk pissing off the boss and getting fired?", and in general you gave the impression earlier that treating people like sh!t and sending them home with a symbolic pocket money after a 14 hours shift is nothing you worry too much form that it does not violate a person's dignity. You really refuse to see the relation? When you depend on a slave job to get along by th eend of the month, and cannto defend yourself against that due to no other jobs available, then you are a slave to the situation and the employer. And like a slave you swallow what he is throwing at you, since you have no other alternative. And despite all your formalistic hair-splitting - that I call slavery, abuse, exploitation.

Either you missunderstood or misinterpreted what I ment. I DON'T repeat DON'T think its right to treat a worker like they are dirt or as you put it "sh!t". And I do understand what your getting at but I think you don't get what I'm trying to get at. If its so wrong than why isn't there some law that would fix it? I'll tell you why, the laws have been and will be more benifical toward the rich while appering to be benifical toward the working class. There for the "system" if one could call it that is rigged, fixed, whatever so the rich make the maximum amount of profit while paying the minimum amount of wages.

To 1. in the situation you have desribed yourself, you are capturede in it and cannot escape. To 2., slaves get payed, though not in money. They are kept alive and what is needed to keep them alive. That is what a low wage job does, too. It keeps you alive for the monet. Not more. As I said, in ancient era slaves could even win their freedom, and often were more a member of the household than a slave in the later underdstanding of blacks in North America.

We can split hairs until all heaven falls.

Agreed.

And again: that is okay? Terms like "human capital" and "processing mass" to describe employees ready to work are no degrardation of humans?

For the perspective of the working man no, it is not okay. For the perspective of the CEO, it is okay. Plain and simple.

And that is not violating to their dignity as human beings? Thats is not unfair? Ethically criminal, and maybe also criminal according to the laws? Again that simple question: that is okay?

Again simple answer, no it is not okay. Is it unfair? Yes it is unfair. It is corruption which is in my mind is quite criminal. But in responce to the question of human dignity I respond with the following.
1. Are the workers called by numbers and not names?
2. Are they forced to work against their will?
3. If they do a bad job in the eyes of their boss, supervisor, ect are they beaten to a bloody pulp? Are the familiys of the workers threatened?
These are examples of violation of human rights in the eyes of the law in most cases.

He is not alone. All globalization of Western economies was about shifting jobs into countries were the people are so poor and depending on jobs that they could not afford not to accept being underpayed and treated badly. Globalization was avoiding regular payment obligations at home. Different to all their other claims and announcement of international cooperation, balance and helping other countries to get on their feet, cost reduction was the driving motivation behind it.

But on their feet they got. And now they eat us in quite some branches: computer electronics, textiles and clothes, steel... Gotta love globalization.

Its not just cost reduction its greed, its all about how much more money an already rich person can make. Also think about this for a moment: India was a "third world" nation with extreme levels of poverty. Now India is slowly becoming a global super power, it will take a long time but it is the result of globalization. Will poverty in any form go away though? It could happen but it is doubtful.

I cannot escape the impression - here and at earlier situations - that the mere observation of that capitalist economy management at the same time serves as an excuse not to adress it's excesses were it violates human rights and human dignity. Now you say one should do it. And ask at the same time wether one should really do it. Well, what shall it be now for you? Is exploitation of the weak laborforce and the intentional increasing of low wages jobs for regular jobs something that is ethically acceptable or not? Should it be attacked, or not? I also would like to hint out that "low wage work force" not automatically means "proletariat" where social low class meets a family tradition of being simple workers (in factories, mines, docks etc). We see - statistically proven - a higher - and growing - number of academics loosing their jobs and falling down the social ladder. Mid-class families. And by far not all of them were in exotic subjects, at least as long physics and mathematics, teachers and chemists are not seen as exotic nowadays. People with specialised job trainings, and university diplomas. "Low wage" and "low qualification", as well as "low status in social hierarchy" and "family origin in social hierarchy" should not be taken as synonymous. It is by far no longer only the social low class being effected. Which makes it all even more threatening for society, since it erodes the very vital basis of its existence, and strips the state off tax income.

I am not, nor in anyway suggesting that someone should run a company at the expence of human rights or human dignity. In fact I was doing what I do best: look at an arguement from both sides, i.e in this case looking at it from the perspective of the worker and of the CEO. Your agrument though be it a very good one, is also very one sided. I have found that it is always better to look at such a thing from more then one side.

P.S.
Statistically, females get for the same work they do or the same job, posting, office, seat they hold, on average 20-30% less payment than males - from blue collar workers to seats ion the board of directors. That is sexual discrimination, and and of course a violation of human dignity. I am not for all that gender engineering madness going on, and I oppose the new insurance tarrifs in the EU that sees women and men having different different health risks and different life expectancies, but now both paying the same for health and life insurances. That is absurd and a denial of biological realities (but what do I wonder - all gender engineering is a denial of biological and psychological and social realities). But paying women less for the same work because they are female - that is not acceptable. And a 25% difference is far beyond any random fluctuation. Difference seems to be the higher the more upwards the job is seated, so in parts it can be explained by psychological differences - women may negotiate their directors wages differently and less "pushing" than males. But in ordinary jobs where wages are not negotiated individually, but are prefixed, the difference between male and female behavior cannot explain or excuse such differences.

Now this is something that I need no reminding of, in fact I've been reminded of it on a constant basis by my mother, who experianced exactly what you're talking about and I quote, "I was a supervisor with five employees under my supervision. A new male employee under my supervision was earning more then I was." And yet again I do agree that paying a women less becuase she is a women, while a male counterpart makes more because he is a male is just plain wrong, it is also very stupid. I belive that a women should have equal pay for doing the same work as a man does.

@August your post is something I really agree with.