Globalist Slave Labour

[Golden Dragon Shining]

World's richest woman calls for Australians to take a pay cut - 'because African workers are willing to earn just $2 a day'

• Mining boss Gina Rinehart says Australian labour is becoming too costly
• Comments received criticism by PM Julia Gillard who insists cheap labour is 'not the Australian way'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198868/Gina-Rinehart-Worlds-richest-woman-calls-Australian-workers-paid-2-day.html#ixzz4MfUNA11M

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Sionnach

[Golden Dragon Shining]

"We are taxed in our bread and our wine, in our incomes and our investments, on our land and on our property not only for base creatures who do not deserve the name of men, but for foreign nations, complaisant nations who will bow to us and accept our largesse and promise us to assist in the keeping of the peace – these mendicant nations who will destroy us when we show a moment of weakness or our treasury is bare, and surely it is becoming bare! We are taxed to maintain legions on their soil, in the name of law and order and the Pax Romana, a document which will fall into dust when it pleases our allies and our vassals. We keep them in precarious balance only with our gold. Is the heartblood of our nation worth these? Were they bound to us with ties of love, they would not ask our gold. They take our very flesh, and they hate and despise us. And who shall say we are worthy of more?" Marcus Tullius Cicero

Edited October 10, 2016 by Sionnach

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Freedom

Edited October 10, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

Difficult to know where you are.

[Marblehead]

But Sionnach, how else can the wealthy become wealthier if not by reducing the compensation paid to those who actually do the work?

 

That is why most industries have left the USA.  Most workers were unwilling to accept slave wages.

[Jetsun]

I have seen the way this is going the last ten years or so in the UK, the company I used to work for used to give yearly bonus and pay staff lunch and incentives if you do well. Now that's all gone, the government introduced minimum wage but what they don't say is that people under 16 don't have to get it, but they aren't old enough to do many of the duties required legally or physically. Plus 0 hours contracts can be abused. Staff are now searched regularly and given extra responsiblity and more stress each year for less pay, while the woman at the top received a bonus of over £5 million last year.

 

It's becoming more and more like an Orwellian nightmare and the more inhumane the manager is the more likely they are to be promoted

[dust]

"Were they bound to us with ties of love, they would not ask our gold. They take our very flesh, and they hate and despise us. And who shall say we are worthy of more?" Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

Interesting.

Edited October 10, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Jetsun]

[themiddleway]

@Sionnach 

 

In Australia it costs car manufactures twice as much as other countries to make cars, which is why Australia has no car industry anymore.

 

Its a complicated problem because the unions are so inflexible when it comes to the concept of lowering wages to remain competitive. I recall watching a documentary on small to mid size factories in Germany who experienced a down turn post 2008, the workers and managment actually elected to work for less money so they could keep their jobs. 

 

Proposing  an idea like that to Australian mining  workers during and after the mining boom would be a hard sell, where  coal truck drivers were earning $100,000+   How is that sustainable for business? 

 

If Australia is to remain competitive it will have to review salaries, Im not advocating slave labour just a reality check about what some labour is worth. 

[Karl]

But Sionnach, how else can the wealthy become wealthier if not by reducing the compensation paid to those who actually do the work?

 

That is why most industries have left the USA.  Most workers were unwilling to accept slave wages.

It's because they can't be competitive and have had to move factories to where they can survive. The Chinese welcome the opportunity that the US rejects.

 

There is no such thing as 'slave wages'. A slave has no choice, a worker does.

[joeblast]

Gold is the money of kings

Silver is the money of Gentleman

Barter is the money of the plebes

Debt is the money of slaves

 

 

Without the debasement of the currency, we wouldnt have  companies struggling to come up with "new and innovative" ways to "appear profitable" such as using debt to buy back shares in order to goose p/e ratios and thus generate a better yearly bonus for the executives.

 

Globalist slave labor starts out with the big central banks of the world overtaking the issuance of currency everywhere on the planet.

Edited October 10, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

Gold is the money of kings

Silver is the money of Gentleman

Barter is the money of the plebes

Debt is the money of slaves

 

 

Without the debasement of the currency, we wouldnt have  companies struggling to come up with "new and innovative" ways to "appear profitable" such as using debt to buy back shares in order to goose p/e ratios and thus generate a better yearly bonus for the executives.

 

Globalist slave labor starts out with the big central banks of the world overtaking the issuance of currency everywhere on the planet.

I go along with your second paragraph and the cause being money printing, but what's 'globalist slave labour'. Certainly these asset bubbles have created a mass of low paid labour serving the people closest to the monetary spigots. The usual misallocation has occured and as there are virtually no savings left to speak of, there is nothing to charge the battery of productive investment.

 

Crap jobs though aren't slavery.

[Marblehead]

 

 

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Returning to self-sufficiency, national independence 

Each making their own clothing, growing their own food, producing their own energy etc

Happy in what is true, to enjoy nature, family, friends, development of the mind/spirit and body, ones own creativity

"To the man who was amazed at how modest King Agesilaus and the other Spartans' cloths and meals were, the king replied: 'Freedom is what we reap from this way of life, my friend."

"Modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical. As long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, then we are not even close to what is essential." Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins

Edited October 11, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

The only hope is lassez faire capitalism and the philosophy that underpins it.

[Jetsun]

The way to make everyone slaves these days is to get everyone in financial debt, so now you have huge university fees and huge unaffordable mortgages for life, putting you in debt as soon as you enter adulthood . Loan and debt companies are everywhere. And now it has moved on from individuals being in debt to entire countries including most of the economically advanced ones. Debt is what controls everything now, but who owns the debt? It's hard to say, the Chinese own some of it but most is owned by private institutions.

[Karl]

The way to make everyone slaves these days is to get everyone in financial debt, so now you have huge university fees and huge unaffordable mortgages for life, putting you in debt as soon as you enter adulthood . Loan and debt companies are everywhere. And now it has moved on from individuals being in debt to entire countries including most of the economically advanced ones. Debt is what controls everything now, but who owns the debt? It's hard to say, the Chinese own some of it but most is owned by private institutions.

People choose to take on debt.

They choose Governments with housing, health and education policies which aren't laissez faire free market.

They choose Governments that maintain low interest rates for borrowers so they can consume more stuff now than later.

They choose state controlled capitalism over free markets, wealth distribution over property rights and welfare over self sufficiency.

 

These four things are the root of the problem. All of them create unsustainable bubbles and a distorted economy. It means houses, education and health are far more expensive than they would otherwise be. It means a high cost government that has to borrow and print to sustain the appearance of stability with the consequent massive debt landing on the heads of the tax payer, saver, the prudent, entrepreneur, consumer and employee. It means those who borrow get a free lunch off those who don't. It means those who are less productive eat off the plates of the most productive.

 

There's your debt slaver for you. Quick and easy. The more we want Governments to interfere in markets and provide services, the greater the debt becomes. Of course Governments won't tell you the horrifying truth, this is all coming to an end very soon and those in the Government and using most of the services and redistribution will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

If you were an objectivist the reason becomes very clear. It's a simple moral truth. Don't steal, don't take values you haven't earned, don't lie to yourself that it's fine, don't blame the productive and the succesful for your lack of wealth.

 

Here's the truth you buried deep, if you support this kind of Government welfarism and market interference you are holding your own chains and those of everyone else. You are the slaver by choice. You are morally bankrupt and are dragging the world down with you.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Karl

[Jetsun]

People choose to take on debt.

They choose Governments with housing, health and education policies which aren't laissez faire free market.

They choose Governments that maintain low interest rates for borrowers so they can consume more stuff now than later.

They choose state controlled capitalism over free markets, wealth distribution over property rights and welfare over self sufficiency.

 

These four things are the root of the problem. All of them create unsustainable bubbles and a distorted economy. It means houses, education and health are far more expensive than they would otherwise be. It means a high cost government that has to borrow and print to sustain the appearance of stability with the consequent massive debt landing on the heads of the tax payer, saver, the prudent, entrepreneur, consumer and employee. It means those who borrow get a free lunch off those who don't. It means those who are less productive eat off the plates of the most productive.

 

There's your debt slaver for you. Quick and easy. The more we want Governments to interfere in markets and provide services, the greater the debt becomes. Of course Governments won't tell you the horrifying truth, this is all coming to an end very soon and those in the Government and using most of the services and redistribution will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

If you were an objectivist the reason becomes very clear. It's a simple moral truth. Don't steal, don't take values you haven't earned, don't lie to yourself that it's fine, don't blame the productive and the succesful for your lack of wealth.

 

Here's the truth you buried deep, if you support this kind of Government welfarism and market interference you are holding your own chains and those of everyone else. You are the slaver by choice. You are morally bankrupt and are dragging the world down with you.

 

You think people chose the environment they are born in, chose the economic and political climate they grow up in and enter into as adults. Get real

 

I guess if everyone was an objectivist and saw the world just like you everything would be fine, yeah right.. like you hold all the answers 

 

The fact is if you want a higher education, at least in the UK, you enter adult life with a minimum of £30,000 debt, probably a lot more in the USA, then if you want your own home it is almost impossible in the current climate no matter how thrifty you are without a lot of help and huge mortgage. This is the climate people inherit not one they have created. 

 

Then you get Tories who inherit most of their wealth and opportunity and have never done a proper job in their entire lives and take what they can from the state telling people that they should work hard for their wealth to earn your keep, get on your bike, that the poorest are "scroungers". One even came out yesterday that the solution to housing is for grandparents to hand over all their houses to their grandchildren. Its beyond a joke

Edited October 11, 2016 by Jetsun

[blackstar212]

You think people chose the environment they are born in, chose the economic and political climate they grow up in and enter into as adults. Get real

 

I guess if everyone was an objectivist and saw the world just like you everything would be fine, yeah right.. like you hold all the answers 

 

The fact is if you want a higher education, at least in the UK, you enter adult life with a minimum of £30,000 debt, probably a lot more in the USA, then if you want your own home it is almost impossible in the current climate no matter how thrifty you are without a lot of help and huge mortgage. This is the climate people inherit not one they have created. 

 

Then you get Tories who inherit most of their wealth and opportunity and have never done a proper job in their entire lives and take what they can from the state telling people that they should work hard for their wealth to earn your keep, get on your bike, that the poorest are "scroungers". One even came out yesterday that the solution to housing is for grandparents to hand over all their houses to their grandchildren. Its beyond a joke

This is part of the falsehood of objectivism. You choose to not be in debt and you can work at McDonalads or Walmarts etc. They create laws that make them wealthier and the poor poorer.

Edited October 11, 2016 by blackstar212

[Karl]

This is part of the falsehood of objectivism. You choose to not be in debt and you can work at McDonalads or Walmarts etc. They create laws that make them wealthier and the poor poorer.

Yes, unbelievably you can choose to live within your means. It may come as a massive shock to you but this is how we lived prior to credit expansion of the 1980s. Those that could buy houses rented them, they didn't fill their homes with brand new furniture, buy cars they couldn't afford. Instead we saved what we could, got ourselves more experience/ skills, found better jobs or started businesses if we were so inclined, then, when we could afford it we bought a house in the form of a savings scheme which guaranteed a healthy return when the mortgage was paid off.

 

 

You think people chose the environment they are born in, chose the economic and political climate they grow up in and enter into as adults. Get real

 

I guess if everyone was an objectivist and saw the world just like you everything would be fine, yeah right.. like you hold all the answers 

 

The fact is if you want a higher education, at least in the UK, you enter adult life with a minimum of £30,000 debt, probably a lot more in the USA, then if you want your own home it is almost impossible in the current climate no matter how thrifty you are without a lot of help and huge mortgage. This is the climate people inherit not one they have created. 

 

Then you get Tories who inherit most of their wealth and opportunity and have never done a proper job in their entire lives and take what they can from the state telling people that they should work hard for their wealth to earn your keep, get on your bike, that the poorest are "scroungers". One even came out yesterday that the solution to housing is for grandparents to hand over all their houses to their grandchildren. Its beyond a joke

I told you it's your choice. That we are born into certain circumstances which involve a massive state machine is not choice, but our support for it is by choice. How many say tax is theft, or that we must look after the poor, we must have free education and a wide ranging welfare system ? Few to none. You are doing it now. It is simply evasion and unless you are able to see that you are supporting an immoral system we will plow ever on until we hit the iceberg and sink. I can only sound a warning, if you can't hear, or won't hear I am powerless to do anything else.

 

It's not necessary to go to unversity and spend thousands on an education, it's a choice. Prior to the student loan scam we didn't pay anything, but the numbers able to go to university was low and selective. Only those capable of academic success went to university, where today any old dross get in and take pointless courses for which there is virtually no demand from employers. It's called ROR. Rate of return. You buy a car, or take a degree because you calculate that it will improve your chances of improving your life. However, you have to apply your mind to the reality of the situation, suss out the opportunities, weigh up the costs and only take the plunge if you definitely know there is an opportunity. No one is guaranteed success and this has of course led to these student loans having to be backed by the poor old over burdened tax payer once again. The terms of the loan virtually guarantee moral hazard and have created a massive boom in students who are neither suited to academia, or who have a clue as to whether their qualification will get them a job.

 

I don't know what this has to do with the Tories. As I said, I don't vote, I don't support Government welfare or interventionism. I'm stuck with it, but I actively don't support it and will do whatever I can to smash it to bits. If your looking to Government to help you, then you are looking at your neighbours wallet with a view to forcing him to hand over 40% of his earnings because you 'need' it. This is the only reason that anyone can give, that someone 'needs' it and need trumps everything regardless of anyone ever being able to show why it should.

[blackstar212]

Yes, unbelievably you can choose to live within your means. It may come as a massive shock to you but this is how we lived prior to credit expansion of the 1980s. Those that could buy houses rented them, they didn't fill their homes with brand new furniture, buy cars they couldn't afford. Instead we saved what we could, got ourselves more experience/ skills, found better jobs or started businesses if we were so inclined, then, when we could afford it we bought a house in the form of a savings scheme which guaranteed a healthy return when the mortgage was paid off.

and here is the play on words. In order to get better skills you have to go to college now which puts you in debt. Unless of course you are exceptional and can get a full scholarships.

[Karl]

and here is the play on words. In order to get better skills you have to go to college now which puts you in debt. Unless of course you are exceptional and can get a full scholarships.

No you don't have to go to college to get better skills, you go to get a paper passport that might get you into a job, or not. I've been employee, employer and business owner. I look for talent and experience, the bit of paper is a very basic guide. Experience comes with working. Just turning up on time ready to go, acting politely, getting on with the work is vital to an employer. I would take someone with experience over qualification and I would take a self improver over a one off graduate. You can educate yourself without any college course, the world is your oyster, sure you won't get a bit of paper, but you won't get a debt either. At interview I only need to know that you know what you are talking about and are a steady person I can depend on. That's what I ask myself in any interview- can I work with this person, are they grounded, competent, reliable and will fit into the role intended.

 

Look, I have had several jobs which demanded a degree, I don't have one, I don't ever intend to get one, I make that clear to the interviewer and then I sell my skills, knowledge, enthusiasm and every virtue I have. The employer throws aside the need for paper qualifications and I'm hired.

 

Has no one explained this to you ? I don't know how old you are, or at what stage in your career, but there seems to be a disconnect with what you think you need and what you actually need. Scrub that advice if you want a professional career in law, medicine or accountancy and some engineering by the way. If you are in that camp you can't get those skills the old fashioned way- I doubt anyone is going to let you cut up their cat, or do some minor skin surgery to gain them :-)

Edited October 11, 2016 by Karl

[Golden Dragon Shining]

[Golden Dragon Shining]

[dawei]

No you don't have to go to college to get better skills, you go to get a paper passport that might get you into a job, or not. I've been employee, employer and business owner. I look for talent and experience, the bit of paper is a very basic guide. Experience comes with working. Just turning up on time ready to go, acting politely, getting on with the work is vital to an employer. I would take someone with experience over qualification and I would take a self improver over a one off graduate. You can educate yourself without any college course, the world is your oyster, sure you won't get a bit of paper, but you won't get a debt either. At interview I only need to know that you know what you are talking about and are a steady person I can depend on. That's what I ask myself in any interview- can I work with this person, are they grounded, competent, reliable and will fit into the role intended.

 

Look, I have had several jobs which demanded a degree, I don't have one, I don't ever intend to get one, I make that clear to the interviewer and then I sell my skills, knowledge, enthusiasm and every virtue I have. The employer throws aside the need for paper qualifications and I'm hired.

 

Has no one explained this to you ? I don't know how old you are, or at what stage in your career, but there seems to be a disconnect with what you think you need and what you actually need. Scrub that advice if you want a professional career in law, medicine or accountancy and some engineering by the way. If you are in that camp you can't get those skills the old fashioned way- I doubt anyone is going to let you cut up their cat, or do some minor skin surgery to gain them :-)

 

 

I'm not going to argue your wrong as I know this can work... for some... maybe like for me and you as I've had a similar path and saw the same issues at some point.   The problem is that it is not the normative experience and may likely never be and I have two thoughts on it now:

1. The 'skills-work cycle' gets moved along by various influences and interests but it tends to affect most everyone in its wake.  Sure someone can even find cheaper tuition by staying in state or now at this point even going abroad but the high stakes of tuition costs are not deterring folks from going to expensive universities nor the universities from trying to attract professors at higher incomes.  And for some companies, that paper may be the reason they allowed the interview.   Sometimes I wonder what really separates these universities as it is not the textbook nor the professor, IMO... likely it is simply the demands they put on the student.   I Once heard a saying that Harvard is near impossible to get in but not as difficult to finish; MIT is not as hard to get in but very difficult to finish.  

 

Now, I'm not against variation in schools, costs, etc.  There is variation in everything.  I do sometimes question what is truly making these variations appear to have more or less value in real terms.  

 

2. Most of the people affected by this are entering college out of high school, so no, no one explained this to them.  They didn't get the memo because their parents tend to steer their understanding and decisions about college.   They jumping into the rat race and influencing the cycle.   I think in the past, a majority tended to look local (stay within their state) but as this cycle has picked up speed over the decades, many want to not 'miss out' on a certain college (and that paper).

 

I think what you share is more applicable to later life folks who have experience, confidence and an understanding that not all requirements are what they say they are.  But for these types of folks, going back to university just doesn't make that much sense as I think you would agree: their life-experience in many ways is actually better than any piece of paper (for most jobs).  But this group doesn't really like to change and it normally takes some life-changes to push them in a new direction rather than being motivated to improve their lot.   

 

FWIW, I also don't like the term 'slave labor' and as you say about crap jobs... But I get the use of the word.  This is part of variation and it will exist.   But I think there is a dynamic among people that also helps to define the problem and for the US I think it is complacency.   If we compare China where there is a major group of migrant workers, this seems driven by more desperation, while in India (just as populous) it seems more driven by opportunity.  Maybe our [uS] population and short history just doesn't reveal either of those yet but when it does, I think the idea of 'choice' will suddenly have a much deeper root.

I'm not going to argue your wrong as I know this can work... for some... maybe like for me and you as I've had a similar path and saw the same issues at some point.   The problem is that it is not the normative experience and may likely never be and I have two thoughts on it now:

1. The 'skills-work cycle' gets moved along by various influences and interests but it tends to affect most everyone in its wake.  Sure someone can even find cheaper tuition by staying in state or now at this point even going abroad but the high stakes of tuition costs are not deterring folks from going to expensive universities nor the universities from trying to attract professors at higher incomes.  And for some companies, that paper may be the reason they allowed the interview.   Sometimes I wonder what really separates these universities as it is not the textbook nor the professor, IMO... likely it is simply the demands they put on the student.   I Once heard a saying that Harvard is near impossible to get in but not as difficult to finish; MIT is not as hard to get in but very difficult to finish.  

 

Now, I'm not against variation in schools, costs, etc.  There is variation in everything.  I do sometimes question what is truly making these variations appear to have more or less value in real terms.  

 

2. Most of the people affected by this are entering college out of high school, so no, no one explained this to them.  They didn't get the memo because their parents tend to steer their understanding and decisions about college.   They jumping into the rat race and influencing the cycle.   I think in the past, a majority tended to look local (stay within their state) but as this cycle has picked up speed over the decades, many want to not 'miss out' on a certain college (and that paper).

 

I think what you share is more applicable to later life folks who have experience, confidence and an understanding that not all requirements are what they say they are.  But for these types of folks, going back to university just doesn't make that much sense as I think you would agree: their life-experience in many ways is actually better than any piece of paper (for most jobs).  But this group doesn't really like to change and it normally takes some life-changes to push them in a new direction rather than being motivated to improve their lot.