I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism

[BrownArmy]

Nah, they burned fossil fuels until the heat killed them off. There is no getting off this planet and live anything like we live here. Seen "The Martian?" If that's an accurate portrayal of what it takes to live on Mars then how is that possibly better than dealing with rising temps here?

Think a little bigger, darling.

Going into space is rough...imagine being locked in your bathroom for days and days, monitoring your instruments...think "Apollo 13".

Yet...

Eventually, Mars would be better than what was portrayed in "The Martian", after terraforming and all.

We could have floating pleasure ships in orbit around Neptune, or gambling in high-rise towers in suspended gravity in the soupy clouds of Saturn.

Or we can argue about Clinton and Trump forevah and evah...

 

[vantexan]

Think a little bigger, darling.

Going into space is rough...imagine being locked in your bathroom for days and days, monitoring your instruments...think "Apollo 13".

Yet...

Eventually, Mars would be better than what was portrayed in "The Martian", after terraforming and all.

We could have floating pleasure ships in orbit around Neptune, or gambling in high-rise towers in suspended gravity in the soupy clouds of Saturn.

Or we can argue about Clinton and Trump forevah and evah...

We could be doing all of that here in a much more hospitable environment. We could even be influencing the warming with reflective material put into the stratosphere. Why would you want to travel for years to be stuck inside an artificial environment? Sci-fi is fun, but not practical.

 

[oldngray]

We could be doing all of that here in a much more hospitable environment. We could even be influencing the warming with reflective material put into the stratosphere. Why would you want to travel for years to be stuck inside an artificial environment? Sci-fi is fun, but not practical.

It would be cheaper to colonize the south pole.

That being said, a Mars colony would still be really cool.

 

[vantexan]

It would be cheaper to colonize the south pole.

That being said, a Mars colony would still be really cool.

Huge amounts of land in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia will be reasonably warm eventually. A few lucky scientists will get to live on Mars. But billions could live in those places. And we have the technology to make them eco smart before moving people in.

 

[rickyb]

alot of the debates about capitalism can be summarized into the following question:

do we want fewer people controlling us at our jobs or more people with control at our jobs?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

alot of the debates about capitalism can be summarized into the following question:

do we want fewer people controlling us at our jobs or more people with control at our jobs?

Neither

 

[rickyb]

Neither

so what do you propose then?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

so what do you propose then?

I'm well compensated. I propose that continue. My union helps in that regard.

 

[rickyb]

I'm well compensated. I propose that continue. My union helps in that regard.

ok but your saying you want things in terms of power to stay the same on teh job

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

ok but your saying you want things in terms of power to stay the same on teh job

I think a continual struggle is essential for a healthy worker-employer dynamic. Neither side should have too much control.

Concentrated power usually ends bad for at least one group. I think unions are probably the best tool we've come up with so far to keep the power dynamic balanced.

That being said good union jobs are a dying breed.... So no I don't want things to stay the same, I want to get back to where we were before the war on unions and workers.

 

[rickyb]

I think a continual struggle is essential for a healthy worker-employer dynamic. Neither side should have too much control.

Concentrated power usually ends bad for at least one group. I think unions are probably the best tool we've come up with so far to keep the power dynamic balanced.

answer wasnt what i was looking for but alright.

i should say im not talking about worker / employer necessarily, im just saying do we want more or less centralized control at our jobs?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

answer wasnt what i was looking for but alright.

i should say im not talking about worker / employer necessarily, im just saying do we want more or less centralized control at our jobs?

Have you considered that giving all power to the workers is actually just another way to centralize power to the majority? The will of the masses is not necessarily what's best for minority workers, and certainly not what might be best for success of the company.

Theres a balance that has to be struck to prevent tyranny of the majority.

 

[It will be fine]

Have you considered that giving all power to the workers is actually just another way to centralize power to the majority? The will of the masses is not necessarily what's best for minority workers, and certainly not what might be best for success of the company.

Theres a balance that has to be struck to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Do you think the teamsters are too centralized at this point? Too many members that vote without real understanding of the contracts? Union leadership too close to UPS leadership?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Do you think the teamsters are too centralized at this point? Too many members that vote without real understanding of the contracts? Union leadership too close to UPS leadership?

Kind of, yes, and yes.
But it's complicated.
I don't really get into the union politics game, but I'll say from my perspective a fresh start in leadership would help.

 

[It will be fine]

Kind of, yes, and yes.
But it's complicated.
I don't really get into the union politics game, but I'll say from my perspective a fresh start in leadership would help.

Is there enough variance in the local supplements to be impactful? Is the national too large an institution for a leadership change to make a real difference?

I know little about unions, from the outside they feel like they've become the evil they were created to fight. They're so big they need the same type of large organizational CEO types to run them as the companies they negotiate against.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Is there enough variance in the local supplements to be impactful?

Not in the South. Right to work.

Is the national too large an institution for a leadership change to make a real difference?

Don't think so, who knows, worth a try.

I know little about unions, from the outside they feel like they've become the evil they were created to fight. They're so big they need the same type of large organizational CEO types to run them as the companies they negotiate against.

I hear ya on that one.
It's not just companies they negotiate against though. There is an entire political machine working to destroy them. They had to jump into that circus or lose, and it's not going great for the members. Which was their opposition's goal I guess.

 

[rickyb]

Have you considered that giving all power to the workers is actually just another way to centralize power to the majority? The will of the masses is not necessarily what's best for minority workers, and certainly not what might be best for success of the company.

Theres a balance that has to be struck to prevent tyranny of the majority.

yea im not really familiar with that argument but ive heard it before in terms of political democracy. like talking about consensus. its not discussed that much by ill try and search it.

but if you "centralize power to the majority" then i would see that as spreading of power not centralizing it.

 

[rickyb]

Do you think the teamsters are too centralized at this point? Too many members that vote without real understanding of the contracts? Union leadership too close to UPS leadership?

i was thinking that when i worked at CP rail. im thinking the top union guys are corrupt.

 

[It will be fine]

i was thinking that when i worked at CP rail. im thinking the top union guys are corrupt.

It's hard not to be. What are the teamsters without UPS? They can't really put a hurt on the company without hurting themselves so where's the leverage? I don't have the answer, more curious to what rank and file think of the power structure within the union. Can an organization that large really reflect the needs of its members?

 

[rickyb]

It's hard not to be. What are the teamsters without UPS? They can't really put a hurt on the company without hurting themselves so where's the leverage? I don't have the answer, more curious to what rank and file think of the power structure within the union. Can an organization that large really reflect the needs of its members?

unions are very weak, but still better to have one than not statistically.

and i have no idea about these questions but they are good.