Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: my personal economic meltdown

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 7:27 a.m. EST by desant72 (6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Reader: Please forgive my rampant incoherence: I now work 3 jobs to make ends meet and don't have time to write this but feel I have to communicate what I can, quickly. Having attended one of the best design schools in the world: Parsons NYC and 16 years in the fashion business later, I realized something was changing. The last company I worked for, they hired design graduates from other countries at half the pay of the American design graduates. The company would bring in executives and design professionals from India and China, pay them less and threaten them with Visa non-renewal if they didn't work ludicrous hours and output the productivity of 3 people. So, we think that only manufacturing has been outsourced? That its only the blue-collar worker being threatened? NO! Its the white-collar, college educated that are being replaced by greedy NYC business owners that refuse to pay a fair wage! When we threw out ethics and ethical business practices, we forfeited out future. I wish I could march with you and someday I may have to take a day off to do so. But I pledge to donate money and say my prayers but I have to work with these chains around my neck.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

While it isn't easy, there is a mechanism for fighting this sort of practice. It is called a union.

Get copies of "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, and give them to all your friends. It will educate them on how the worst of the 1% want our lives to be.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

So, have a union. But you'll need more than that. Your union will push up costs that either your company passes onto its customers in worse service or quality or higher prices. If it can't, the company will lose access to capital over time because returns will be less than alternatives. And then it will fail and your union will fail along with it.

So, step two is to restrict freedom. You'll need government to make people buy your product or service, by making rules to restrict the ability for them to choose something else. You can have tariffs or licenses or other processes that restrict choice. Sounds great, huh? And, of course, it won't just be for the product or service you make, it'll be for the things that you want to buy too. So, you'll benefit at your job, but then you'll lose in your own loss of freedom of choice.

Then, when we all have protected companies and protected jobs and protected incomes, we can make shitier and shitier things and all get poorer. Utopia will be at hand.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

The greatest prosperity of the middle class was when unions were strong. And corporations did well, as well. Consumer spending helps drive a vibrant economy. As the middle class has been drained of compensation, first by gradually gutting benefits, and now by stagnant to reduced wages, the economy has stalled.

The money that the middle class had, beyond basic needs, often went into the founding of small businesses, which is where most new jobs are developed.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

That doesn't imply causality. Unions require a way to pass on the pain they deliver. When there's freedom of choice, they can't pass it on and the host company withers. Ever ask yourself why unions exist mostly in government? Because government can pass on the pain. They just take more in taxes and deliver shittier service because they're monopoly providers. If the DMV faced competition, they'd be BLOWN AWAY, and with it, the union.

So, if you want unions, get ready to give up freedom of choice. The government will have to tell you where to buy something. As long as you have options, the union can't function. At least understand what you're asking for.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Unions have continued in the government sector largely because their jobs can't be outsourced to India. Or even to non-union states. Since the vast majority of state jobs are professional, and often highly technical, outsourcing within the state can be complicated. Temp agencies don't exactly have epidemiologists available at a moment's notice.

Secondly, as state legislators get to know state employees, for example, they learn that a lot of what "everybody knows" about public sector employees is totally false. Yes, they can get fired, and they are fired if they have done something seriously wrong or not done their jobs and their supervisors are on the ball. No, they aren't lazy. They are often highly dedicated and impressive in the expertise they develop.

Third, smart unions keep an eye on privatization, and make sure that the high costs and difficulties in maintaining accountability are well documented. When you have privatization, it very often adds another layer of costs. The professional doing the work gets lower pay, but the agency gets more than enough to make up for it. My daughter, for example, gets paid $350-450 a day, but the bill for having her services is $1300-1700 a day. The agency overhead is a whopper. Another example: in the Y2K mess, one agency in my state insisted on having only state employed IT people deal with her computers. They handled it, came in 2 months ahead of time, at lower cost, and her staff did not have the problems with computer glitches that other agencies did.

It is very fashionable to blame state budget deficits on unionization, but the same problems are plaguing non-union states. There are many examples, but Texas and Louisiana are running deficits of 20.5% and 19.4%. They are rabidly non-union, and while I don't know about Texas, Louisiana has a reputation for paying their employees dismally low wages.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/19/news/economy/texas_budget_deficit/index.htm http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Louisiana_state_budget

In my state, the union members voted a concession package that saves the state $1.6 billion dollars. That is already settled. In addition, however, the unions are continuing to work with the governor to locate ways to improve efficiency. The private agencies that have overseen the Medicaid service provision, for example, have done a poor job. Ways of providing the medical care at lower cost but with better outcomes are in discussion, and that is just one area being worked on cooperatively.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Unions exist in government because government can pass through the pain they impose. You have no choice of provider for most government services. If they tell you to fuck off at the DMV, you sit in line and suck it up. If Kinkos did that, they'd fail. As government's costs bloat, they just take more in higher taxes. If Ford's costs bloat, people buy a Toyota and Ford fails.

Government unions also prosper because of corruption. In private companies, unions negotiate across the table from management. In government, unions rig their negotiating partners via elections. They use their role as citizens to pad their roles as employees. Don't think so? Unions are huge money givers and look at Wisconsin. What they can't get at the table, they immediately leap to get at the polls. Even FDR knew better than to unleash that monster.

Concession package? Too funny. Ahh, poor dears, had to take a little less.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Your DMV example is a poor one, as it is privatized in a number of states.

As for rigging elections - union members are a minority. A governor who looks as though he/she's giving away the store won't get re-elected.

Unions don't have huge money compared to corporations. They had less than 10% of the money corporations had in politics, and that study was done before Citizens United. Money from both sides flowed into Wisconsin, but the vast majority of the money on the pro-union side came from small donors: individuals who were interested in the issue.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

And when it's privatized, service improves and costs fall. But most of what government does is monopoly. So, when the unions push up costs, governments push up taxes and reduce quality. Unions in companies have the ultimate discipline of what customers will put up with.

Government should operate for the benefit of its citizens, not just its employees. But that's not what happens with unions. Here we have citizens using their role as citizen simply to bulk up their take as employees. Management faces them across the negotiating table and at the ballot box. Unions today are relentless advocates for bigger and more costly government, and the tax increases that requires, simply because they work there. It's causing a lot of damage. Chicago and Illinois overall are excellent examples of the crippling effects of what's happened.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

I can't write enough history in this little box to show you how it worked. Good night.

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

You don't know enough about economics to understand the implications.

Unions require restrictions on choice. They need natural monopolies or coercion by other means. Unions push costs that don't create value. The only way their products sell is if people don't have a choice. And wouldn't that be great. Government can tell you what car to buy, what computer to buy, what store to shop in and on and on.

[-] 0 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I would personally suggest "The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone," it offers an interesting perspective on our economic system, and concise ways we can move forward (such as incentivizing employee-owned companies). Plus it contains a large quantity of statistical evidence one can point towards.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I'm in the middle of reading it. So far, it's been real eye opening. The part about the SUV's. I never thought of it like that, but it is so true.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Very interesting book - he gives evidence that inequality weakens the economy and the society.

If you study the period when the middle class made its biggest gains, we had not only a strong economy but a country that was progressing in many ways, which validates the data in this book.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

Welcome to Globalization. You can thank Clinton for the initial nail in the coffin, and thank the Dems and Reps since for continuing to pound it in even deeper.

Lets make sure we thank Clinton for repealing GLass Steagall too, that sure as hell hasnt helped.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I think globalization, like anything, has its ups and downs. Now that globalization has been thrust upon US, we should be thinking like a corporation. When all its components are in harmony, the corporation, like us, will produce and trade like we did in the past. We are one nation, no longer fifty states, but one unit that must work together to efficiently trade and produce. Or continue to fight for the remnants of a once mighty nation.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

The globalists are what are destoying the entire planet dude. This is just the beginning.

And you are seeing what happens when you concentrate power in one isolated place (DC) instead of leaving it to the states.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Well, I've suggested on this forum that we change the way we send our congress men to Washington. Instead of making them the debaters, 'cause they suck at it, we send them to DC with an up or down vote. Make the lobbyists peddle their Ideas to the fifty states, putting money in those state coffers then once the fifty states debate independently, they send their widgets, the congress people, to Washington to vote. This would decentralize power, while weakening DC’s hold on us all. but, i'm starting to get the impression that no one on this forum really wants solutions, but they just want to make arguments and division. IMO

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

I have to say, I am pretty glad to have just read that.

You are right about the arguments and divide, and a lot can be seen in the occuptations, unfortunately.

Any way I can get you to put that into a more concrete, detailed proposal. I'll help you shop it to the other occupations on FB. Ive put together a few things too- one being this- http://www.facebook.com/occupycongressnow

Keep up the good work man.

[-] 2 points by buik2 (66) 12 years ago

you are living the New American Dream: work really fuckin hard and have nothing to show for it.

: p

: )

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

Make sure your "chains" are real.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

In the race to the bottom, unskilled labor was the first to go. Skilled labor is the next. If allowed, Financial Capital will continue to search the globe for people who they feel can be treated worse than those in the markets where they sell.

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

Are they coming on H1b or L1. Save your money and vacation time and find out what type of visas they are traveling on. Then you report them to your Attorney General, FTC, news outlets, and et cetera. And when your done, come here


The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 12 years ago

To be fair, fashion design contributes nothing to the good of society and high fashion is vastly overpriced. Why does a Gucci bag cost thousands of dollars when you can go buy the exact same thing(minus the tag) for a few hundred? The industry sells nothing but image.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 12 years ago

What sort of expenses are you responsible for that you have to work three jobs?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

You're not alone. I quit a "temporary" job at a Fortune 100 company after "temping" for over a year when I found out there were some "temps" there for over 10 years! Imagine working for 10 years with no paid sick days, or paid vacation or pension or health benefits or life insurance, yet being expected to do the same exact work as others getting all of those things? I was lucky enough to be able to quit and realize that most people can't. I actually told them exactly what I thought about their "temping" policy. In the end, the Fair Labor Standards Act is weak and does not exactly address "temporary" workers very clearly. It is a big problem.

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

Same is happening in all professions, even medicine (e.g., teleradiology in India). "The World is Flat" is an unfortunate reality that globalization and free trade, as well as immigration policy and computers have wrought on high-cost countries like the US.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

The same thing is happening with multi-physician practices they too are hiring foreign doctors at a lower rate then American doctors.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

So, what are your plans now? Do you have any time to dream a bit?

Do you have anything that you have made here http://www.etsy.com/

What about this place? http://www.kickstarter.com/

[-] 1 points by desant72 (6) 12 years ago

HI! Thank you for the links: I sunk my money in a home out in Jersey and that, unfortunately, was my dream and I've had major medical bills and physical illness to overcome these few years. I have to make some difficult decisions about where to live. But thank you, hopefully I can start something someday, I had my own line for awhile but had to discontinue it. Hope springs eternal!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Well, I'll tell you what, if you decide to start again then perhaps you can let me know.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

Yeah, that's because you moved the pockets on the pants so people couldn't reach them or you took off the pockets and made the pants useless.

The truth is nobody wanted to buy your stuff.

[-] 1 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 12 years ago

Some events are on weekends!! you might join.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

So...open your own business? stop working for others.....then YOU can set what you think is a fair wage....

Working hard does not create an automatic economic windfall, you have to apply intelligence to the mixture....you can dig deep holes with a gravy ladle and then fill them back in, all day....and be paid very little, or nothing for that hard work.

See, this is my largest disagreement with those of you in the "Occupy" movements....you don't want the responsibility of changing things, you don't want to create your own enterprises and try and make them work in the marketplace, you want to ignore the marketplace.... and for others, regardless of the effect, to bend to your demands...

If you think it is a sound, marketable, enterprise...then do it yourself...in the measure which you think is "fair" and run the "greedy" businessmen out of business with your competition.....YOU should be able to recruit the best employees as your wages will be higher....but, it's not EASY, and someone else won't be the one up late at night wondering if they're going to survive and make ends meet...it will be you, and then.....when, because of all the extra hours and effort you put in, you take a dollar more than your employees think you should...YOU"LL be the "greedy" one.

Man Up, Tinkerbelle....life is tough, if you want to make it...you have to be tough too, not "demanding", but RESPONSIBLE....you can make it work, if you stop complaining and blaming

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

I often see posts like the one above, 'create your job' , 'open your own business'...great! Wonderful! Just the thing!

Yet there are expenses involved, expenses for licensing, materials, space to work, among others. This requires capital, capital requires either work with pay, to create savings or debt to obtain said capital.

Then, of course, there is marketing...it doesn't matter if you have created a product, how good that product is, unless you have the ability to market that product. You may be able to market locally, family, friends, within the neighborhood, yet that market isn't large enough to sustain a business let alone allow it to grow...so marketing to broaden the sales base.

Marketing also has cost, which means either work for pay to create savings or debt to obtain the cost.

This person has stated what has happened and what the current circumstances are...you're presumption that this person was not in the process of 'creating savings' or positioning him/herself to be eligible for debt to become able to create a business is contrary to what may be the actual.

Work for pay to create savings, is being responsible, work for pay to position one's self to be eligible for debt is also being responsible.

You have taken the half of the equation that has been presented and worked a solution that is less than correct, placing blame on the presenter for your error.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Yes...there are all of those things....and there is also competition, but...and this is what you miss, and it is MORE than half the equation..

Those who protest, or demand from their employers "gift" in excess of the equitable exchange, need to remember when you are employed, the employer is not addressing your need, or your desire, he is drafting you as a principle in the creation of his desire....and the rules of equitable exchange, and freedom of choice dictate that you enter into that relationship willingly... marketing your skills, abilities and experience against the needs of the objective the employer has in mind....nothing more. Your needs as an employee, or an operator, of another man's enterprise are inconsequential to that relationship, your needs are your responsibility....there is no position in the marketplace for your need, unless you are the employer, and are paying people to meet those needs....need is something you surrender value for...not something you RECEIVE value for..something you are clearly missing, or philosophically incorrect about...

The marketplace demands your potential, ability and your prospects...not your want or distress...that is your burden, not the burden of others.....

All of those things you list that are involved in creating an enterprise have already been borne by enterprises now existing, so to give the uninitiated complainer the benefit of the doubt or define those things as to great a burden is to dismiss the fact that each successful enterprise has already prevailed in the face of equal difficulty.

The presentation was one of business failing to provide (as in "gift") a "fair wage" and accusing "unethical business practices" because the wages available aren't "fair" in the eyes of the poster.....I again say, if you think you can do better, do better, stop complaining, and stop whining that those who have already set up the system, and done the difficult steps required to create the enterprise, now share the results with you, one who has not shouldered the difficulty, or struggle to create the environment in which you demand your reward....

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

I work for myself. There is a reason that 95% of businesses close in five years- its incredibly tough, and most cant do it.

Simply saying open a business is not the best advice.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I would like to edit your statement if I may....."most WON"T do it" by that I mean suffer the failures that lead to the success....

as most successful business owners will witness was the trajectory of their success...a long line of failure

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

Wont/Cant, I hear ya. Im in year number 9 of making my own paychecks (31 yrs old). But its true, Ive seen people that want it bad, want it really bad, and they simply dont have the skills to pull through. Thats life I guess.

And you're right about the failures, Ive taken more shots than a Tyson opponent :)

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Employment is a simple trade, labor or intellect in trade for remuneration. No one expects more or less than the agreed upon terms which may or may not be open to negotiation at some future point.

The response was to 'create your own job or business', it outlined that there are financial needs for this to happen and the choices to meet those needs are but two. Earn funds and save or debt.

[-] 2 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

i have worked personally with a great many of entrepeneurs over the years. many have failed disasterously, and lives and families of exceedingly smart hard-working, RESPONSIBLE people have been ruined. there have been tremendous successes too. it's not as easy or guaranteed as most people are deluded to think. In many of the business books I've read I have realized that many successful people attribute much of their success to luck--including, for example, bill gates.

In other words, hard work, IQ, responsibility are necessary but ABSOLUTLELY are not sufficient,,, there has to be luck, the right place at the right time, capital, others that believe in your idea,,, etc...

Most new businesses fail, that's why banks are reticent to lend and you need friends and family capital. The banks know the numbers/statistics.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I didn't say anything about guarantee's...there are NO guarantee's in life, despite what the "great society" and "new deal" promised.... effort+results=reward...there is no other formula that works

[-] 1 points by desant72 (6) 12 years ago

Autism epidemic: Slammersworld: What do we do with them? They may not all achieve your standards... hmmmm.... maybe cerebral palsy, maybe Leukemia... geesh! why can't we just round them up and gas them perhaps? http://www.childrens-specialized.org/press/pdf/Star%20LedgerNJshowshighrateofautism.pdf

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

yeah...nice hyperbole...

hardly, but making them "victims" is hardly a solution, nor advocating or encouraging their non-participation, nor is enslaving the rest of society to their care, there are many who can function well enough to create income, and should be expected to....I guess, by your tone, you think they deserve to live lives filed with ease and without struggle, paid for by others without any value being put back into the system for the value it takes to care for them.....how long do you expect such a system to survive...and who is to "provide" all this support? You do know we are broke as a society, and that in the war on poverty, poverty won.....how do YOU propose to fund all this kindness, care, fairness and support? Magic dust and fairy jizz?

and here's the meat of it...it's always kids, the handicapped, the elderly, fire and police with you guys...whenever someone suggests that more people participate, or more people take care of themselves you always go for the hyperbolic emotional argument...

If we had more participation by those who can, but don't....and had more people who paid their own way who could but don't, we might have more funds available for those who truly cannot take care of themselves..but we can't do that...there's nothing we can cut....we can only make a token tax increase, which amounts to statistically NOTHING in the wake of the spending in our government...60+% of which goes to entitlements...

You guys and your stupid arguments, and your foolish insistence on ignoring the facts is the problem...and the massive increase in non, and marginal participation in the productive portion of our system.....not those who create and earn...without them, there's no need for gassing anyone....everyone dies of lack and scarcity...because, save for a few....larger and larger percentages of people cannot and will not take care of themselves...

[-] 1 points by desant72 (6) 12 years ago

"psychopaths are over-represented in positions of power. By their nature psychopaths have no conscience and will fight as dirty as they can get away with fighting." This gives them an enormous edge in competition. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/201107/psychopath-cowboys-sociopath-herds-new-theory-how-evil-happens

[-] 2 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 12 years ago

Are you blind? You really believe someone could start a small business now and be successful? Please have some compassion and try not to sound so condescending when someone tells you how hard they have it right now.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Compassion.....for those who hate success, and want to strip those who've achieved it to the bone, to provide for their own selfish wants and needs? you can forget that...that nonsensical emotional rationalization doesn't work with me...

and, there are people all over the country doing just that...some will be successful, some won't...that's the nature of life, there are no guarantees....and all the guarantees we thought we could provide are failing and crashing down around us, and in Europe....effort+results=reward is the only system that can exist organically...all the rest will fail as participation drops when men realize they can, for a short time, steal from others to exist...

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 12 years ago

That is precicely what we are seeing. A small group of elite stealing from the mouths that were meant to feed. I agree effort +results = reward but this is not happening. The system we have is rigged in favor of the few while the many have little. I do not know what your definition of success is. But this is not it. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

elite...stealing? what exactly are they stealing? you cannot steal from someone who makes no effort, or makes effort not equitable to the compensation they expect to receive....

The system is not largely rigged, the participation level is low, people now have expectations that others will PROVIDE them with everything...education, jobs, support, food, shelter, clothing, recreation, entertainment, etc...these are all things not granted, but earned.

To say that those who struggle and learn, provide great effort, adjust and don't accept temporary defeat to drag them down, are being "stolen from" is a lie, the worst sort of lie, I lie that prevents many from trying at all....

it is not a limited pie, in which one group takes that which should belong to the other group, one group creates more abundance and so receives more reward...do you really think that all the luxuries of western civilization would be available to so many if the outcomes were equalized? please tell me you're not that naive or deluded?

To the creator belong the spoils, not the operators of the enterprises of the creators...they get what their knowledge, education, talents and experience will earn in the marketplace...nothing more, if someone wants more, they must become more valuable by increasing their education or knowledge, or experience BEFORE they are compensated for it...

The creators could live without the operators(employee's), since they have initiative and incentive to create, but not the other way around, as most operators are helpless without the structure created by others. rewarding the underachievers with the blood of the achievers is immoral ...it's that simple

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 12 years ago

If your statement about "if someone wants more, they must become more valuable by increasing their education or knowledge, or experience BEFORE they are compensated for it..." is true. Then why are there so many college students not able to secure a job after graduation? People are trying to get ahead and they find they have no hope. You guys that keep saying all OWS wants is for others to take care of them, better wake up. There are no jobs to be had. How do you take care of yourself when you can't find work. And finally. I would like to see the creators "live without the operators". That statement is completely ignorant. There is NO WAY they could survive without the workforce. If the "creators" workforce all decided to not come to work and "operate" for let's say, a week. The "creator" would be closing his doors. Wake up.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

because simple college training, in a market where large numbers are college trained, isn't enough, the idea that getting a diploma will automatically unlock the door to a job is no longer the case....there is also the student with the nonspecific "novelty" degree, or the one's who learned no life skills (such as communication, courtesy, respect, manners, personal presentation, etc) they have trouble getting jobs too, as does the person with an entitled attitude...

In the recessions of both the early eighties and the early nineties, people didn't wait for "jobs to be had" they created their own jobs, they started simple small businesses of a single employee, and they also did jobs that modern job seekers thought beneath them....I worked in the transportation industry, and knew several persons with advanced degree's including professional degree's that became commercial truck drivers for a time, till other opportunities opened up for them...I once dated a girl who is now third from the top in a legal department in my state...she took a retail job at the limited for a bit over a year until she found an opportunity, there are jobs....just perhaps not the type people think they "deserve' and THAT attitude is EXACTLY the problem....

You missed my point in the last statement of your comment...sure an enterprise needs operators...but, the creator can assume the job of an operator, but the operators will most likely, because of their beliefs, cannot assume the job of creator or director(they are actually just as suitable as any to create, but they don't believe it, so they never try, and by there own behavior BECOME unable) ...the easiest thing in an enterprise to replace is an employee/operator, good employee's are harder (as they are more rare) but not as difficult as effective managers and organizers, which are very rare...

I managed 147 employee's in my first supervisory job, before that, AS an employee, I felt much like many of those on this board feel, underpaid, overworked, etc...when the opportunity arose for me to move up, I took it thinking it would be a cake walk compared to being a "worker".....boy did I get a wake up call....my regular weeks became 80-100 hour weeks, and I heard more excuses, more whining, more complaining than I had ever heard in my entire life up to that point....I discovered that some workers are almost a hinderance, or obstacle to completing the task, and the best workers were carrying the weight of the worst, but the worst were the most demanding and first to make a grievance if the better workers made them look inadequate, and they WERE inadequate..it was almost as if they were angry that the better workers made up for their deficiency, and that they had some wish of destruction for the enterprise in general, the one that actually provided them with there living...that was the most unusual aspect. It was like they wanted to destroy the business...

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

You are a horribly misguided person. Do you actually believe this shit?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I am not misguided at all....I'm not going to get into my personal history, but I've lived poor, and semi-wealthy....all based on my own effort, wealthy is better, and there is a difference in behavior and philosophy that made the difference....

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

Do you realize that western civilization and its fortunes were originally built by slaves and expendable immigrants? Most of the wealth that was created over the last 5 centuries came from stealing. All the gold and silver and other precious metals, all the necessary minerals, the oil....

That wealth didn't just disappear when our faux democracy was established. People have been inheriting it for centuries. A small minority of humans have such incredible amounts of capital they can shape the world to fit their liking. Advantage begets further advantage.

What are you going to do when the masses rise up and demand an end to this charade? Will you hire thugs to suppress them so you can protect your 'philosophy'?

You don't know what value is so you are most certainly misguided.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

most of the fortunes of western society was not built by slaves...that is a false statement....slave labor was mostly agricultural in nature, and your assertion to "stealing" is also false, unless you count "discovery" and conquering as stealing...

We aren't a democracy, we are a republic....

there is not "small minority" inheriting for centuries....take a look at the forbes 400...you'll find no centuries old fortunes there, and most of the mega rich on that list are first generation rich that are self-made, no inheritance, no special favors, no "head-start"...so try again with that BS

I know exactly what "value" is...although you seem to be a little short on that understanding....and the understanding of a lot of things...

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

If you think that slaves only worked cotton fields for a few decades in the 19th century than you don't know history for shit. They have been here since the early 16th century and were used for all types of labor. The massive fortunes they created by slaving and all the abundance enabled the renaissance movement in Europe.

If I spend 100 hours digging in a hole to acquire an ounce of gold that ounce of gold has the value of 100 hours of my time. That is what value is. If you force a slave to dig in a hole to get an ounce of gold then you are stealing that value from that person. It is called exploitation. That is what has created all the original fortunes. The original fortunes have slowly been sucked dry from governments, lawyers, merchants, anyone that can get their hands on it. Do you really think laws are designed to protect people? They are not. They are designed to create a job that was not there previously. So someone can come in and get a slice of that wealth. In modern times yes you are right most people who are at the top are not related or deeply associated with the original wealth. That doesn't legitimize it. There are more slaves in the world creating wealth for the minority than ever before only now 97% of the world economy is complete bullshit speculation and derivatives.

And faux is french for false. As in a false democracy. A private republic masquerading so people don't rise up and squash it.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

what does the renaissance have to do with capitalism? why don't you tell me about egyptian slavery and try to link that to capitalism, or the slavery that still exists in sub-saharan Africa today and try and paint that as capitalism, don't try and link the two, you are attempting a bridge too far, slavery has nothing to do with free market capitalism...NOTHING, the two cannot exist simultaneously in the same system....the engine of the American economy didn't take off until very close to the turn of the 19th century, and that has nothing to do with slavery...

It was our system that dispensed with slavery as the rule in economic systems...our system created more, in wealth and cultural advancement, in shorter span of time than ALL slavery based systems the world has ever known.

and spending a 100 hours digging gold does not value that gold at 100 hours, the value is based on the lowest exchange rate in the system..so if a man invents a machine that can extract the gold in an hour that ounce of gold is worth an hour of a mans time, regardless of how long it takes YOU to extract it...and your slave reference ignored (because it's foolish and false) if you hire a man to dig for gold, provide him with the tools, shelter, food, clothing, etc...the gold doesn't belong to him, as he has already received his immediate compensation, the delayed compensation no longer belongs to him as he contracted his time and effort to another...

97% of the world economy is complete bullshit.....hahaha...you are an idiot, what do you think gives value to those instruments of exchange? Value is not arbitrary, perhaps it appears so to the casual observer, or the fool (such as yourself) but value has a basis, and that basis is still the result of the efforts of man, to deny that is beyond stupidity....any system of exchange must have a basis of exchange, without it...it collapses, the laborer will not labor for a device with no value, if he cannot then exchange the device with others for what he needs he will not continue to labor, except by force...and transfer by force is an immoral act..

I know what faux means...thanks...I was correcting your invalid point, it's not a faux democracy....it never was, it IS a Republic, based on private freedom and private property...not collective "need"...as "need" has no value and cannot be equitably exchanged or marketed...ours is a system of base equality.....everyone has the same rights, right's being something not granted by men, or provided by men, but those that exist independent of other men....and retains those rights unless they surrender them voluntarily...

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

I admit I was bridging many broad things without providing adequate information to back them up but I just don't have the patience for this. We disagree on everything more than probably anyone else on here and it is resulting in miscommunication and arguing over semantics. Good luck with your philosophy and such.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

and to you, as well....

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

The marketplace is set up to benefit those with the most power.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

here is the crux of it....and it is fairly simple to explain...the inferior man, as in rank, effort and results, always projects outwardly the causes and conditions of his situation, and even existence....it's "the system", or "them" or the situation, or the circumstances....the flaw always exists outside...

The superior person (earned superiority, by effort and results) always projects inwardly, what did "I" do, what could "I" have done better, how could "I" have adjusted to the situation/circumstances.....see, you can't change the external, be it the system, circumstance of situation, you can only demand that someone else change it for you, demand that others provide YOU with your needs....and need is not a value, it is the absence of value and cannot be equitably exchanged, only given to, as in charity, or forced upon, as in extortion, as I have posted previously...

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

It is not so black and white, no matter however you want to make it out to be, but let me use your own logic against you.

We will assume for a paragraph that what you say is true in every situation ever. The superior HAVE 'demanded that someone else changes it for them, demands that others provide THEM with their wants.' Maybe they didn't use words (something that we each equally have the ability to do) but instead they have used money and positions of power, to bend the system more in their own favor.

In a way you can argue that OWS are superior because we are using our voices to do the exact thing that many superior people did in order to get to where they are.

"what did "I" do, what could "I" have done better?" Band with people who believe as I do, and make sure my voice is heard.

"how could "I" have adjusted to the situation/circumstances?" Change the political power situation back to something more fair and equitable.

Using your argument, OWS is made of superior people, or at least are attempting to follow the same pattern that the superior did.

I know I am taking great liberties here, but what you propose ultimately winds up being: Those with more money have more influence and power, and they should. Those with less means should just have to live with it. If you do indeed agree with that outcome then all I can say is we are not on the same page, and leave it at that.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

You are making two errors...you are assuming that the cronies capitalists are in the group I call "superior" which is not true...they also seek inequitable exchange by alignment with the force of government...they are no better than the leeches who demand that all their "needs" be provided for....

second, you assume demand to be effort...demand is expectation, not effort, you say OWS wants to "change" the system...which is incorrect, they want the system to BE changed, by others...and many of the changes include plunder of those who are more successful, to provide "free things" which don't exist....for them....

that is not the same as "doing"...in fact it is the opposite...one is action, one is inaction dependent upon the action of others...

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

making your voice heard is action

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

ok whatever floats your boat buddy. we disagree on this, and many other things

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

No, that's an excuse....the marketplace is set up to benefit those who will not surrender to failure

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

and that is why we are here. We are here because we will not surrender to failure of the politicians to make the market fair


[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Fair? in what manner do you expect the market to be fair...please elaborate?

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

I do not have a full solution but I have a start. Only private US citizens may contribute campaign money to a candidate, there is a limit and it is low, and citizens can only contribute to candidates that they can vote for. Money cannot be moved between candidates. Candidates cannot use their own money... in short, get the big money out of politics so that candidates will actually listen to voters.

Maybe then will politicians learn that they cannot pander to big business instead of the voters in their election and re-election bids.

This is an indirect way to influence the market but the only thing that matters at this point. Politicians have been pandering to business interests more and more ever since the floodgates of corporate contributions have been opened. No more special treatment for big business that is "too big to fail."

The banks that gamble with our money should be regulated (and be able to fail) by the free market and the government should not be bailing them out with our money, only to not have them bail out our homeowners. Corporations should not be able to influence politicians to pass legislation (or to block regulation) that allows them to legally rip off citizens.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

Only private US citizens CAN contribute to a candidate, and party organizations...

the idea that candidates "pander" to big business is an oft quoted one...and I'm not denying that it does happen, but...in a situations where a candidate is pro-business, runs his campaign on a pro-business platform, and votes for pro-business legislation that effects all business (like tax reform, or regulatory reform) equally...you cannot call that pandering...if YOU disagree with it, and vote for his opponent and lose..that is the nature of the contest of idea's, in a democratic election.

How do you suppose that campaigns will pay staff, run ads, set up fundraisers, public events, speeches, pay for travel, etc? those things cost money...more and more money each year...or are you one that will force people and industries to surrender, for free, the means to conduct political campaigns?

Should the media, the travel companies, local communities, and taxpayers be on-the-hook for the expenses of running political campaigns?

I think a simple accounting of who, and how much, a candidate receives from donors is enough, and exact accounting...published for all voters to see....including the staff and owners of PAC's who contribute...let's get an actual public record from who and what a candidate receives during a campaign...and if they win, and make specific legislation, or regulation to help those who contributed, or hurt those who did not...let's use that info to begin hearings into legal ramifications for that action...

But, again...legislation that helps an entire sector of business, and/or business in general, rather than a single specific benefactor is not any sort of corrupt behavior...

There is no "floodgate of corporate contributions" have you fallen for the lie that a corporation can contribute directly to a candidate? It's not true...has someone, or a chorus of someone's led you to believe that "citizens united" gave corporations "personhood" and the right to directly contribute to candidates...it's not true.

As for banks, the change in Glass Steagall that allowed financial sectors to contaminate one another, dropping the boundaries that separated them, while maintaining the safety net of the FDIC, was perhaps...the single most stupid piece of legislation to pass congress and be signed by a president in the last 50 years (although the Social Security Act of 1965 gives it a run for its money)...My solution, either reinstitute the clear divisions between financial entities, or remove the FDIC and make it CLEAR to people the risk they are assuming when they deposit their funds in an institution...I didn't agree with the first bailout...or ANY of the stimulus's As for regulation, though....the banks are among the most highly regulated businesses that exist, nothing they do is not without the heavy hand of the government controlling it...so if you want to place blame for the outcome of the banking industry...turn to washington... not wall street....and the idea of "our money"...it's only your money if you are a depositor, or a majority tax payer....and something that gets left out of the discussion of "our money" and "taxpayer funds" especially when discussed by those at the bottom of the earning spectrum (I am not saying that is where YOU are) is that it is NOT....THIER money...most of the taxes, and yes ALL of the taxes, including sales, and payroll, are paid by the top income earners...so, in effect they gave themselves a "bailout" (and it wasn't a "bailout" another common misconception...I should say lie, but I'm feeling generous after a few days in Florida...it was specific LOANS that were authorized by congress in 2008, and those authorized were paid back, with interest, and though there is till some small outstanding debt to banks, the program is in the black in authorized expenditures vs repayment...however, GM being the example NOT authorized by the legislation, but included by executive fiat by the Obama administration, has NOT paid back it's obligations)

The facts are CLEAR on who pays taxes, and no amount of doublespeak by pundits, or false assertions made by talking heads can change facts....if anyone bailed anyone out, it was the highest income earners footing the bill...

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

Also I want to see you refute this WASHINGTON POST article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866.html

WASHINGTON POST: Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns

By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 22, 2010 A divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept aside decades of legislative restrictions on the role of corporations in political campaigns, ruling that companies can dip into their treasuries to spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates.

The decision shakes the foundation of corporate limitations on federal and state elections that stretch back a century, and prompted sharp partisan reaction. Republican leaders, still celebrating Tuesday's Senate upset in Massachusetts, cheered the ruling as a victory for free speech and predicted a surge in corporate support for GOP candidates in November's midterm elections.

President Obama sharply criticized the ruling, however, calling it "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money," and vowed to "develop a forceful response" with congressional leaders from both parties. The court's decision was handed down on the same morning that Obama riled Wall Street by proposing tough new restrictions on the nation's largest banks.

"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," the president said in a statement.

In a 5 to 4 decision, the majority cast its ruling as a spirited defense of the First Amendment, concluding that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. Corporations had been banned since 1947 from using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates, a restriction that the justices ruled unconstitutional.

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the ruling will "protect the Constitution's First Amendment rights of free speech and association."

there is more to the article...

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

The spending allowed by corporations is independent of the candidate....no direct contributions are allowed....I find it interesting that you feel it's ok that candidates can make any claims about an industry, a business, or business in general in their campaign (and there are no laws concerning the validity of political speech) and yet you seek to disallow the enterprises from refuting those claims and/or defending themselves....you want to swing the pendulum against business in this country...out of what? envy?

It IS censorship to allow one side of the story but not the other...to allow a propagandist like Michael Moore to release a movie which paints a candidate in a bad light whenever he likes, but to infringe the right of speech of those who own commercial enterprises (I love the argument that corporations aren't people...who do you think owns and runs them...groups of people, and those people have as much right as any other to make their voices heard) is inequitable.....you think that if a politician is going to sell out, that some law, or donation limit is going to prevent that.....the problem isn't the money...money is required, to pay staff, travel, maintain facilities, run advertisements, etc...who do you suppose should pay for those things? taxpayers?....no thanks...we pay for plenty, as-is.....

You want to assume that because business can run issue ads that they are somehow in collusion with candidates...and in some cases, you may be right...but you limit your displeasure to "corporations"...unions and environmental groups have the same rights under current law, and would also lose those rights if the laws were changed...

Corporations have been given the same right to equal protection under the law...and that is not a recent development..the first SCOTUS decision regarding this was in 1886....

The anti-business climate of the current bureaucratic regulatory body (not subject to elections...) is something that requires those being targeted to have a voice in the choice of elected officials.....written clearly in that story that you linked to was the statement:

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign.... So it was individuals who listed GS as there employer...NOT Goldman Sachs, who made the donations....and the PAC's are limited in the amount they can give to candidates.....and corps are limited from giving ANYTHING to candidates directly....I am not sure what your problem is...

I know you think "corporations" are this horrible alien entity and that they all function together to enslave and oppress people....it makes sense that an enterprise that only exists because of the willing expenditures of consumers would want to limit the amount that consumers are able to earn and spend...that makes perfect sense in liberal-world, I guess...but it's a stupid and ignorant idea...that an entity would seek to reduce it's own customer base, and in-turn, damage it's own bottom line...where do you guys get these idea's?

What will it take before you declare elections "fair".....when only collectivist, anti-business candidates win elections? I am interested in what YOU think is a "fair" system......

But, as an aside....you are aware it was Wall Street money that financed FDR, and Smith against Hoover in 1928...right, you do know that? I guess maybe donations do not always result in payola...and when they do, it's not the system, but the candidate at fault.....you can't have a system without corruption if human beings are involved...

I personally think we should eliminate all donation rules, except for one....full disclosure....every penny, from every source made available to the public....other than that, left whomever (from inside the USA) and whatever, donate whatever amount they wish....

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

I am not going to talk about glass steagall at the moment because this is already going to be a long post. Actually I had this huge response typed out but their is just one part of your response that is ridiculous.Let's just cut right to the core of what you are saying to refute what I said.

You: "There is no "floodgate of corporate contributions" have you fallen for the lie that a corporation can contribute directly to a candidate? It's not true...has someone, or a chorus of someone's led you to believe that "citizens united" gave corporations "personhood" and the right to directly contribute to candidates...it's not true."

Me: OK I call bullshit. Lets see if you can refute the following: Read this article from THE WASHINGTON POST. Pay attention especially to the paragraph that starts out "Beyond personal giving..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/law-firms-dominating-campaign-contributions-to-obama/2011/11/14/gIQALCo1eN_story.html

Here is another article from CNN... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS

Now in this article is does say..."Federal law prohibits a company from directly giving money to an electoral campaign." I am going to venture a guess that you are going to see that and say 'see, you have nothing to worry about' but 2 things, you are missing the key word... DIRECTLY. What I want to see is that all companies cannot also INDIRECTLY contribute either, so that person citizens votes stand alone as being the most important thing that a candidate go after, not overwhelmingly organizations that have the most money. Hell in the paragraph just before it says "Only the PAC and employees of the University of California, which donated more than $1.5 million, topped Goldman Sachs." What this means in practical terms is that their are certain companies and political groups who have figured out how to concentrate their influence and power as to unduly influence who gets chosen, and in return for that many of these organizations expect to see a payback in the government that serves them in some way. This means that the companies have found a way to circumvent this important rule. If it was not important then why did they institute it in the first place, If the instituted it and it doesn't work then they need to reinforce it.

It would be better if we could write that sentence in the future to say "Federal law prohibits a company from giving money AT ALL to an electoral campaign. Money can only come from private individuals, and there is a limit. Companies may influence those who they employ by distributing information to them on company property. Companies may not broadcast or distribute materials to other than their own employees and on other then their property. Companies may not keep track of or even ask their employees about their voting record." This should be the absolute limit of power that companies can do in order to further their own agenda. It is very indirect.

I strongly disagree with about 99% of your post, but that's opinion, so lets get the underlying facts straight before we go there. Also I am not going to argue semantics with you. I am going to argue results, and all you have to do is read the results in those 2 articles and see that there is a problem... Those with more money have more influence over the political process as a whole (and the reason that this is a problem is because through that influence they have more sway over the rules of the game.) If you can't refute this info and you cannot see where I am coming from then lets just agree to disagree. Your post has not convince me of a single thing (but getting the practical facts right would be a start) and it looks like my post is not going to go anywhere with you.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

yeah. hell, I wear pants and a shirt every day. I don't need much anything else to wear. Why do I want to pay a lot of money because you want a lot of money to move the pockets around on a goddam pair of pants? Hell man. Why would you go to school to move pockets on pants anyways, for four years? That's just plain dumb.

[-] 1 points by BTKcongress (149) 12 years ago

for some reason i really like this comment. so true of the fashion industry.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 12 years ago

Boy your name is very fitting. "Simple". So so fitting.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

You are not incoherent at all, quite the contrary.

THANK YOU for sharing your story with us and good luck!

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 12 years ago

I wasn't even aware fashion design was even a major.

"fair" is subjective and is only defined in economics as where buyer and seller meet on a price for a quantity of a good or service. I'm not a person that believes working three jobs is good for you but to be honest, as long as you agree to be paid a depressed wage, that's fair.

[-] 0 points by darkhound (66) 12 years ago

So your complaint is that other people are willing to work harder than you?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Working 3 jobs actually is working hard.



[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 12 years ago

I feel your pain. Don't feel so guilty and unable to contribute. You just did. There are so many of us out here. This is the age of reinvention. I am 55 and unemployed. I was self employed so I get NO benefits of any kind other than the ones that come from a loving mate and charitable family. We will have to find a way. I say my prayers for you knowing I will not contribute a dime to OWS or anyone else because we gotta feed the kids first.

[-] 0 points by financeguy (4) 12 years ago

Maybe you should get a job in finance, they pay well. Harvard B-School is the way to go if you want to get into Goldman or Morgan Stanley.

[-] 3 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

great idea, all we need is more people who do nothing but play with numbers all day (producing nothing for humankind) and then taking the lions share of wealth.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

And work with a bunch of tool bags, no thanks..

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 12 years ago

I though Parsons was incorporated into the New School a long time ago.

[-] 2 points by desant72 (6) 12 years ago

Sorry, yes, Parsons is part of The New School. TNS, back in the day, used to be a progressive and liberal institution, but like so much else has turned the way of profitability at the expense of ideology. Don't trust TNS - they've changed and I'm so glad the occupiers took over one of their buildings!

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Thanks for sharing and informing.

[-] -1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

If you were a company and you could hire workers for half the cost that are just as creative - why wouldn't you do that?

I know it is personally bad for you and I understand your focus on your situation but there are other sides to the story.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Exactly, and if what your employer is paying is an "unfair" wage, then why are the foreign designers willing to take it? You said you bought a large house in Jersey and have tons of medical bills, again, not your employers fault. If you are swimming in debt, maybe you should look into Bankruptcy, its not an attractive option but at least it can get you a clean slate to start again.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

Exactly. That other person is willing to work harder and, according to you, under some unfriendly supervisors for a better life. They work harder for less pay, therefore they should get the job. It's competition. I don't like it any more than any other American does, but to say it's wrong is not true. And saying that you deserve the job more would mean saying they deserve to live in their country, which obviously isn't as good if they are working in such terrible conditions as described in the post.

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Your perspective seems a little skewed. It's like you completely glossed over some of the OP's post because you didn't want to face the facts.

"Work harder for a better life" is such a nice way to put what is described above, and probably exactly what these supervisors say. But working under threat to be sent back to said country is not "working harder for a better life." It's working in fear of the consequences if you don't. These people might feel just as taken advantage of as the other people who aren't getting jobs, but won't speak up for fear of having their visa not renewed.

I've worked under some very unfriendly supervisors, and not once was it "working for a better life". It was working to survive. Was it my right to leave? Yes. Of course, that "right" meant having no job to earn food, and no money to pay for housing - but since I had the right to walk out, it's my problem if I stayed. I didn't exercise my right to homelessness and starvation, so clearly I created my own situation. Nice to know that.