Whole Foods' Co-Founder John Mackey: "Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism"

[Tate]

Wait hold up...see, this is why Republicans get so pissed.

Why is it my job to account for the fact that not only do you qualify only for MW, but that we have to also account for you having dependents and need additional government assistance?

How much more help do you need?

Theres NO sense of responsibility here.

And I even support shyt like universal child care support...but c'mon fam...

So you're gonna ignore your blatantly wrong "minimum wage has nothing to do with standard of living" argument and go to what makes reactionaries mad?

Ok, republicans like sleeping in their beds without knives at their throats right? They can thank the minimum wage and government programs.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So you're gonna ignore your blatantly wrong "minimum wage has nothing to do with standard of living" argument and go to what makes reactionaries mad?

Ok, republicans like sleeping in their beds without knives at their throats right? They can thank the minimum wage and government programs.

1. MW has nothing to do with standard of living. Thats the point. its the MINIMUM. As in, 16 year olds to retirement age. Hell, i'd even advocate for an age bracketed MW...but no one has even suggested that

2. now can we get back to the fact you want me to fathom raising kids on MW? Cause I don't have kids and I'm not irresponsible enough to be faced with that decision

 

[JahFocus CS]

Revolution? In which theres no incentive to invent since you won't be rewarded for it?

Efficiency. Work less. Recognition & appreciation from others. Creativity. Making social contributions.

Further: Red Innovation | Jacobin

Not to mention, the hundreds of millions or billions of people who would be freed to think and contribute ideas instead of having no time to do any of that and working night and day just to survive.

 

[Tate]

1. MW has nothing to do with standard of living. Thats the point. its the MINIMUM. As in, 16 year olds to retirement age. Hell, i'd even advocate for an age bracketed MW...but no one has even suggested that

2. now can we get back to the fact you want me to fathom raising kids on MW? Cause I don't have kids and I'm not irresponsible enough to be faced with that decision

Minimum standard of living is still a standard of living. Do you not grasp that? That's its purpose. That's why it makes sense to be tied to inflation because when the dollar inflates that same wage you earned yesterday is worth less today. This meaning you can't maintain that same standard of living on that same wage.

 

[Micky Mikey]

Excellent company to work for. The pay is decent for what it is and the culture is welcoming. Lots of room for advancement as well. Would have stayed if never got my degree

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

This is precisely why the working class needs to move from constituting, as Marx noted, a class "in itself" (i.e., just people who share common grievances against capitalists), to understanding itself as a class "for itself" (i.e., a distinct social class with interests diametrically opposed to those of the bourgeoisie - this also implies a different set of values for how people relate to each other, I would argue).

It is 2015. No one has to go hungry, be homeless, etc. As a class, the working class can determine that given our level of material development, there's no need to be working 40+ hours a week for 50+ years of your life.

Yet what we observe is that the more productive the working class is, the more that is produced, the longer and harder people have to work...

Do u have any ideas of your own?

And I think its a bit dishonest to talk about how productive workers are, without acknowledging how much of that productivity boost was enabled by equipment paid for and invented by people who are NOT the workers using them Would a fast food worker be as productive with one of those old mechanical typewriter registers that go "ding" whenever the drawer opens? How much have workers invested in the tools that enable us to be more productive?

Collectivists love to speak in binary deterministic terms in which things can only change by one way. Workers can never better their station. Workers are workers, capitalists are capitalists and there is no movement or codependency between groups. Incentives, profit, capital are evil unless they are wholly given to workers (which begs the question of what business and commerce look like, if they even exist, in the collectivist's fantasy). Any accumulated wealth is evil. Etc. etc. Its no wonder collectivism has proved so successful in practice

Capitalism, like any pure economic theory, is rife with problems, which is the problem with collectivism. You guys dont look at problems and think of how to solve them. You see the world and try and logjam Marxism into every facet whether or not his theories even make sense in the context of what's going on. Get your head out of the books and enter the real world.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Minimum standard of living is still a standard of living.

Says who? Can you post a link to this official definition?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Exactly. That's why I spent twenty pages in this thread only discussing things I believe with likeminded individuals.

No, what you have done is logjam or deflect with Marxism. Let me ask you 2 simple questions. 1, I agree that income/wealth inequality are problems, but in your opinion, WHY are they problems? And two, are you or @JahFocus CS out of school yet?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Minimum standard of living is still a standard of living.

No. Its the minimum amount to be earned in exchange for labor. That does not mean you're supposed to live a life of comfort. Its merely a standard of transaction for work done. Nothing more.

Do you not grasp that? That's its purpose.

Nope.

That's why it makes sense to be tied to inflation because when the dollar inflates that same wage you earned yesterday is worth less today.

Except your calculation does not respect the value of said work done universally in the US.

This meaning you can't maintain that same standard of living on that same wage.

The initial peg does not mean it has to keep track with that peg positive or negatively.

I'm saying the fundamental assertion itself was never defined.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Efficiency. Work less. Recognition & appreciation from others. Creativity. Making social contributions.

Further: Red Innovation | Jacobin

Not to mention, the hundreds of millions or billions of people who would be freed to think and contribute ideas instead of having no time to do any of that and working night and day just to survive.

The US already rewards those "dreamers" willing to take the risk of innovation...what are you talking about?

You make it seem like the US isn't already the easiest place to take a leap of faith.

 

[Tate]

Says who? Can you post a link to this official definition?

Do you know how retarded this sounds as a question? Just from a linguistic point of view. I don't know if I can find links saying dark red is still red.

No, what you have done is logjam or deflect with Marxism. Let me ask you 2 simple questions. 1, I agree that income/wealth inequality are problems, but in your opinion, WHY are they problems? And two, are you or @JahFocus CS out of school yet?

It took you two hours to think of this response? Maybe you should go back to school

Show me an example of me log jamming or deflecting with Marxism. Although how one would deflect with a philosophy i don't know.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

logjam .

such a good word

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Do you know how retarded this sounds as a question? Just from a linguistic point of view. I don't know if I can find links saying dark red is still red.



It took you two hours to think of this response? Maybe you should go back to school

Show me an example of me log jamming or deflecting with Marxism. Although how one would deflect with a philosophy i don't know.

Why is income inequality bad? Lets start there.

 

[Tate]

No. Its the minimum amount to be earned in exchange for labor. That does not mean you're supposed to live a life of comfort. Its merely a standard of transaction for work done. Nothing more.

Nope. Except your calculation does not respect the value of said work done universally in the US.

The initial peg does not mean it has to keep track with that peg positive or negatively.

I'm saying the fundamental assertion itself was never defined.

Who is living a life of comfort on $10 an hour? A single person in a rural community maybe? Although you could always roll out some Fox News stats on how 98% of minimum wage earners have access to a refrigerator, lucky fukkers.

So that link to an Ivy League law school saying minimum wage was passed to grant a minimum standard of living doesn't do anything for you? Just gonna say no that's not what it means with no scholarly back up or even your own reasoning? Ok.

My calculation doesn't respect the value of such work done today. That's actually right. If we were taking efficiency into account minimum wage would be much higher.

Well I guess it doesn't, certainly would make sense though wouldn't it?

Why is income inequality bad? Lets start there.

Income inequality at grotesque levels is bad because it empowers the few at a grotesque level over the many. It's bad because it leads to alienation and further stratifies society.