You can choose where to shop. When your life depends on a steady reliable paycheck, choosing where you work isn't quite as easy. I'm all for standing up on principle, but that ends the moment it...
You can choose where to shop. When your life depends on a steady reliable paycheck, choosing where you work isn't quite as easy.
I'm all for standing up on principle, but that ends the moment it means making my kids go hungry.
To a lesser extent, this applies to people scraping by and the products they can realistically purchase. If you don't have enough money to buy the alternative product made in the USA, or by a...
To a lesser extent, this applies to people scraping by and the products they can realistically purchase. If you don't have enough money to buy the alternative product made in the USA, or by a company that doesn't use child/slave labor, or donates money to charities you believe in, or pays it's workers well, or any other measure or characteristic you agree with... you can't really "vote with your wallet" either.
Of course that's also ignoring the fact that you have to be aware of their bad practices to know to choose a different company in the first place - someone scraping by is likely less educated on this matter than someone who has leisure time to keep up on this news or do research on their own.
It sounds like you don't have people depending on you to live. No family being supported by your paycheck. No offense but you do not understand what it is like.
It sounds like you don't have people depending on you to live. No family being supported by your paycheck.
No offense but you do not understand what it is like.
Your privilege is showing. For many people it's not about "having it nice", it's quite literally about "putting bread on the table". Tell this to an individual who never went to college. Or one...
have it nice
Your privilege is showing. For many people it's not about "having it nice", it's quite literally about "putting bread on the table".
It's not impossible to find work outside those giant companies, you know.
Tell this to an individual who never went to college. Or one who dropped out from high school. Tell this to the single mother supporting 3 kids on the bad side of town.
What's the poorest you've been? Have you ever had no money and no one to support you? Nowhere to live for an extended period of time? Any or all of this while being in a country with a language you don't speak well?
At the very least I know you're being unrealistic about the last one, as you're very capable of holding a discussion on the internet in English. Try any of the above while supporting the life of...
At the very least I know you're being unrealistic about the last one, as you're very capable of holding a discussion on the internet in English.
Try any of the above while supporting the life of another human being. Someone who relies on you to put food on the table.
It sounds like you're a relatively young male. How much money do your parents have? Did you graduate from college? High school? Have you had to work to support yourself since you were a teenager?
Your experiences do not apply to everyone out there. It's not only a logical fallacy, it's a failure of empathy to assume that your experiences can apply to anyone but you. Quite frankly it's rude and insulting for you to dismiss the circumstances of someone else's life which you are having difficulty understanding.
Then why do you insist your "solution" is universal? I apologize if it came off that way. I was merely asking questions to understand your situation. Could you point out to me which part you found...
I understand my experiences are not universal.
Then why do you insist your "solution" is universal?
You're honestly the one being insulting here
I apologize if it came off that way. I was merely asking questions to understand your situation. Could you point out to me which part you found insulting so that I might word my discussion better in the future?
refusing to address the original point.
Which is what? I'm pointing out that your "solution" is unrealistic for many individuals.
Completely agreed. I live my life in this manner, but to be fair to other people out there, it's hardly "uncomfortable". I've been very privileged in my life and have the opportunity to vote with...
our civil rights are slowly being eroded in the name of corporate rights.
Completely agreed.
I'm asking if you think being uncomfortable now to make the future better isn't worth it.
I live my life in this manner, but to be fair to other people out there, it's hardly "uncomfortable". I've been very privileged in my life and have the opportunity to vote with my wallet and my paycheck.
I'm suggesting something that might actually work for some people, too.
Apologies, the accusations in your original post made it sound like you were accusing all people who work for these corporations of not voting with their paycheck. It sounded to me like you were questioning why anyone would work for these companies and calling them out as being unpatriotic, undemocratic, or otherwise looking upon them negatively.
if I'm not making that case.
Here's where the fundamental disconnect was. I (and clearly others in this post) did not understand that your argument was "for those who have the option, why do they not?".
by American standards, even kids in poverty have it "nice." I'm in poverty and I have like four old laptops that people gave to me
Please don't assume this is the case for everyone else. You have the connections with people who can give you old laptops. I know many people who do not have that connection, even in America.
re: your edit
To me, it feels like you're really thinking short term and saying screw their futures because they already have it bad. So they should have it worse in the future?
Why do you assume I'm not in agreement with your argument for those that it applies to?
It is absolutely fucked and I'm doing what I can to help solve the problem.
Because as someone in poverty, the future scares the living fuck out of me. It's not getting better for people in poverty. It's getting worse, fast.
I'm not in poverty whatsoever and it scares the ever living shit out of me as well.
The language makes this unclear. Apologies if my science brain is overacting here, but grammatically there's a big difference between and or or or some other qualifier to make the statement...
The language makes this unclear. Apologies if my science brain is overacting here, but grammatically there's a big difference between
kids in poverty have it nice
and
in my experience, kids in poverty have it nice
or
often, kids in poverty have it nice
or
many kids in poverty have it nice
or some other qualifier to make the statement non-absolute.
In my experience philosophy books tend to be overly complicated with entire arguments hinging on the use of a particular word and the nuances of how it differs from another synonym. That being...
In my experience philosophy books tend to be overly complicated with entire arguments hinging on the use of a particular word and the nuances of how it differs from another synonym.
That being said, we're on the internet and discussion is both finite and lacking many social cues like body language and vocal tone. I often find it's better to spend more time explaining myself (even if it makes the post much longer) to ensure a minimal amount of communication error.
In the end I think I'm in agreement with your premise - we should consider where our money is going and where its coming from whenever possible. It'd be nice to get some collective bargaining rights back too, but unfortunately the supreme court and congress have been eroding them over the last few decades.
I'm a white male living in the US. I'm privileged enough to be able to avoid working for giant megacorps and companies I don't agree with. But I also have plenty of friends who are not anywhere...
I'm a white male living in the US. I'm privileged enough to be able to avoid working for giant megacorps and companies I don't agree with.
But I also have plenty of friends who are not anywhere near as privileged as I am, who simply do not have the option of "voting with their paycheck" as proposed by OP.
Yes. I'd rather they live in some Orwellian neo-feudalist society than die of malnutrition because Daddy wanted to stick it to the Man.
Even if that means your kids will eventually be living in a dystopian society where they will be hungrier and in worse health when you are no longer there to care for them?
Yes. I'd rather they live in some Orwellian neo-feudalist society than die of malnutrition because Daddy wanted to stick it to the Man.
I mean, this is it, really. If the US had a more robust welfare system or a universal basic income system, it might be different. I'd like to quote a song from one of my favorite albums: Being...
I want to assume most people just need work and need to sustain themselves
I mean, this is it, really. If the US had a more robust welfare system or a universal basic income system, it might be different. I'd like to quote a song from one of my favorite albums:
You can have your principles
When you’ve got a bellyful
Being able to protest unethical companies by refusing to work for them is a luxury for those with the resources to endure the difficulties of not having work.
This post raises an issue that I as an anti-capitalist am very passionate about: the ways that major companies exert social control by their limiting of choice w/r/t voting with one's paycheck....
This post raises an issue that I as an anti-capitalist am very passionate about: the ways that major companies exert social control by their limiting of choice w/r/t voting with one's paycheck. Because huge companies in tech and finance spaces are so dominant they crowd out companies that would give people to work in a more ethical way.
That isn't to say they make it impossible to do work for someone good - just that they limit the array of choices. OP asks what if people stopped working for these companies. What if indeed. Thousands would probably starve. And in that is the coercive and subtle violence of inadequately regulated transnational capitalism.
I'm not 100% sure if you're asking this as an ethical question or as an actual solution. Although I get the impression you're proposing it as a solution. In which case I'd like to tell you to be...
I'm not 100% sure if you're asking this as an ethical question or as an actual solution. Although I get the impression you're proposing it as a solution. In which case I'd like to tell you to be careful falling into common mistake. Which is ignoring human nature and circumstance while asking everyone to just act completely differently. For example, say we replaced working for a large corporation which something much simpler. What if our argument is that people should vote against rape by not raping. If everyone just stopped raping nobody would become traumatized and the world would be a better place! You can use this as an ethical argument of what people "should" do. But completely ignores what people will do and doesn't further progress towards an actual solution.
So to directly address your point. Yes if people stopped working at the large corporations that they hate they would do significant damage to them and send a much larger signal compared to voting with their wallet. Unfortunately it's somewhat delusional to think this would actually happen. Not only for the reason that these companies aren't as hated as people think.
In general, unions were the mechanism used to prevent "bad behaviour" with respect to employees and regulation was the mechanism used to prevent it with respect to society. Both of these...
In general, unions were the mechanism used to prevent "bad behaviour" with respect to employees and regulation was the mechanism used to prevent it with respect to society. Both of these institutions have been gutted in modern times, generally due to mistrust from the population.
So how do you get a population behind this type of organization? The ability to communicate and organize large numbers of people has never been easier. Maybe you can give it a try, OP.
The way I personally do this is by really limiting my standard of living. By requiring less on a day-to-day basis, I have the freedom of movement between jobs.
You can choose where to shop. When your life depends on a steady reliable paycheck, choosing where you work isn't quite as easy.
I'm all for standing up on principle, but that ends the moment it means making my kids go hungry.
To a lesser extent, this applies to people scraping by and the products they can realistically purchase. If you don't have enough money to buy the alternative product made in the USA, or by a company that doesn't use child/slave labor, or donates money to charities you believe in, or pays it's workers well, or any other measure or characteristic you agree with... you can't really "vote with your wallet" either.
Of course that's also ignoring the fact that you have to be aware of their bad practices to know to choose a different company in the first place - someone scraping by is likely less educated on this matter than someone who has leisure time to keep up on this news or do research on their own.
It sounds like you don't have people depending on you to live. No family being supported by your paycheck.
No offense but you do not understand what it is like.
Your privilege is showing. For many people it's not about "having it nice", it's quite literally about "putting bread on the table".
Tell this to an individual who never went to college. Or one who dropped out from high school. Tell this to the single mother supporting 3 kids on the bad side of town.
What's the poorest you've been? Have you ever had no money and no one to support you? Nowhere to live for an extended period of time? Any or all of this while being in a country with a language you don't speak well?
At the very least I know you're being unrealistic about the last one, as you're very capable of holding a discussion on the internet in English.
Try any of the above while supporting the life of another human being. Someone who relies on you to put food on the table.
It sounds like you're a relatively young male. How much money do your parents have? Did you graduate from college? High school? Have you had to work to support yourself since you were a teenager?
Your experiences do not apply to everyone out there. It's not only a logical fallacy, it's a failure of empathy to assume that your experiences can apply to anyone but you. Quite frankly it's rude and insulting for you to dismiss the circumstances of someone else's life which you are having difficulty understanding.
Then why do you insist your "solution" is universal?
I apologize if it came off that way. I was merely asking questions to understand your situation. Could you point out to me which part you found insulting so that I might word my discussion better in the future?
Which is what? I'm pointing out that your "solution" is unrealistic for many individuals.
Completely agreed.
I live my life in this manner, but to be fair to other people out there, it's hardly "uncomfortable". I've been very privileged in my life and have the opportunity to vote with my wallet and my paycheck.
Apologies, the accusations in your original post made it sound like you were accusing all people who work for these corporations of not voting with their paycheck. It sounded to me like you were questioning why anyone would work for these companies and calling them out as being unpatriotic, undemocratic, or otherwise looking upon them negatively.
Here's where the fundamental disconnect was. I (and clearly others in this post) did not understand that your argument was "for those who have the option, why do they not?".
Please don't assume this is the case for everyone else. You have the connections with people who can give you old laptops. I know many people who do not have that connection, even in America.
re: your edit
Why do you assume I'm not in agreement with your argument for those that it applies to?
It is absolutely fucked and I'm doing what I can to help solve the problem.
I'm not in poverty whatsoever and it scares the ever living shit out of me as well.
It's not an anecdote when you make the statement
The language makes this unclear. Apologies if my science brain is overacting here, but grammatically there's a big difference between
and
or
or
or some other qualifier to make the statement non-absolute.
In my experience philosophy books tend to be overly complicated with entire arguments hinging on the use of a particular word and the nuances of how it differs from another synonym.
That being said, we're on the internet and discussion is both finite and lacking many social cues like body language and vocal tone. I often find it's better to spend more time explaining myself (even if it makes the post much longer) to ensure a minimal amount of communication error.
In the end I think I'm in agreement with your premise - we should consider where our money is going and where its coming from whenever possible. It'd be nice to get some collective bargaining rights back too, but unfortunately the supreme court and congress have been eroding them over the last few decades.
I'm a white male living in the US. I'm privileged enough to be able to avoid working for giant megacorps and companies I don't agree with.
But I also have plenty of friends who are not anywhere near as privileged as I am, who simply do not have the option of "voting with their paycheck" as proposed by OP.
Yes. I'd rather they live in some Orwellian neo-feudalist society than die of malnutrition because Daddy wanted to stick it to the Man.
I mean, this is it, really. If the US had a more robust welfare system or a universal basic income system, it might be different. I'd like to quote a song from one of my favorite albums:
Being able to protest unethical companies by refusing to work for them is a luxury for those with the resources to endure the difficulties of not having work.
This post raises an issue that I as an anti-capitalist am very passionate about: the ways that major companies exert social control by their limiting of choice w/r/t voting with one's paycheck. Because huge companies in tech and finance spaces are so dominant they crowd out companies that would give people to work in a more ethical way.
That isn't to say they make it impossible to do work for someone good - just that they limit the array of choices. OP asks what if people stopped working for these companies. What if indeed. Thousands would probably starve. And in that is the coercive and subtle violence of inadequately regulated transnational capitalism.
I'm not 100% sure if you're asking this as an ethical question or as an actual solution. Although I get the impression you're proposing it as a solution. In which case I'd like to tell you to be careful falling into common mistake. Which is ignoring human nature and circumstance while asking everyone to just act completely differently. For example, say we replaced working for a large corporation which something much simpler. What if our argument is that people should vote against rape by not raping. If everyone just stopped raping nobody would become traumatized and the world would be a better place! You can use this as an ethical argument of what people "should" do. But completely ignores what people will do and doesn't further progress towards an actual solution.
So to directly address your point. Yes if people stopped working at the large corporations that they hate they would do significant damage to them and send a much larger signal compared to voting with their wallet. Unfortunately it's somewhat delusional to think this would actually happen. Not only for the reason that these companies aren't as hated as people think.
In general, unions were the mechanism used to prevent "bad behaviour" with respect to employees and regulation was the mechanism used to prevent it with respect to society. Both of these institutions have been gutted in modern times, generally due to mistrust from the population.
So how do you get a population behind this type of organization? The ability to communicate and organize large numbers of people has never been easier. Maybe you can give it a try, OP.
The way I personally do this is by really limiting my standard of living. By requiring less on a day-to-day basis, I have the freedom of movement between jobs.