How do we fix the modern issue of companies that take advantage of us? I'm talking shit like:

Oh, it's even worse, I see now that you make $100k. Then your problem is obvious: leave California, moron. Of course you can't get by in a crazy environment like that. Find a place where the mortgage on a nice, non-excessive house is under $1000/mo.

>disallow products to be made in low-cost environments
>tax Americans for buying affordable products
Yeah, genius. That'll help your average American.

I worked hard, learned valuable skills, and lost the ability to apply them due to medical problems beyond my control.
I lost my job, home, savings, status, possessions, and had to move away from everyone I know to become a burden on family members.
Doctors have done nothing but jerk me around. I will likely have to fight in court for disability I do not want, but will inevitably need.

You know the difference between you and me? A roll of the dice. The grace of god.
Enjoy your good fortune. You don't deserve it any more than I did.

Of course the problem is capitalism and the solution is socialism but without changing the system you can try to unionize in your place of work.

What the hell even is "Socialism"? Bernie Sanders praises Scandinavia all day despite the facts that they have:
> no minimum wage
> much lower corporate taxes than most of the US (factoring in state-level corporate taxes)
> generally weaker regulations
> Norway actually has generally lower individual taxes than the US because it funds everything using profits from a giant trillion-dollar investment fund. That's just about the most capitalist way you can fund anything, period.

The only thing he actually gets right about them is that they have a lot of social programs.

Yeah man communism is so awful and never worked. I mean you can always have imperialism, slavery and constant warfare for a few hundred years under capitalism to reach what took communism thirty years.

I did not say anything about Scandinavia or Bernie Sanders and I do not want to say that Bernie Sanders is not a real socialist. But of course Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries. I am a Marxist in that I advocate for democratic control of the means of production.

I literally said that I don't deserve shit, I'm nothing special, and any other guy off the streets is just as capable as I am at improving himself, maybe moreso.

Sorry about your situation, and you're right about lifelong health being a roll of the dice, but your medical circumstances are outside the norm. Your problem is attributable to the shit medical situation in the US, not to OP's complaints about employers.

Healthy abled people have no excuse.

What does that have to do with immigration? I work with plenty of immigrants in NZ and they're all nice people. Also plenty of businesses exploit their workers here, immigrants especially get exploited.

I'm the OP and I make $100k in a state where that actually matters. I have three weeks of vacation. But yours is the exception, friend. I have indispensable skills, but that means my company piles more and more of the burden on me. It doesn't mean I get to go home early, or even on time. And when I'm "done" with work early on a rare day? "There's always more work, or further education you can do, user."

I know jobs like yours exist out there. But you're rare.

Actual employment laws would be a start.

But of course, that's too much to ask of America.

And to add to this, dick waving about having three weeks of vacation is fucking laughable when most of the first world has closer to a month when you START. It's ridiculous that I'd celebrate the ability to take two weeks of unpaid vacation. The ability to maybe not have to meticulously plan out every single day I have the moment the year begins, so I don't waste any of it.

The fact you're in relative comfort to the rest of the corporate world doesn't make the overall situation any better for everyone.

How does America actually justify claiming to be a first world country?

You make $100k, but don't think you'll ever retire? What are you spending your money on?

Aside from shitty work conditions, you're at fault for your situation. If you can't afford to buy property and don't think you can retire on *$100k* then the problem lies with you.

end capitalism

idk how you Americans work in such shitty environments. Europeans get 2-3 months worth of paid vacation each year.

1. $100k really isn't all that much. Lifestyle creeps up on you, and by the time you're paying for a wife, kids, etc., that shit is the new "middle class." I won't get any pension and will have to count solely on investments. And I can forget about social security, because it's going to be gone by the time I qualify. God forbid the market crashes again.

2. I'll probably die before it happens. I'll definitely be too old to enjoy anything by the time it happens. My dad had had a very lucrative airline career and is due to retire in four years. My parents were frugal and are multimillionaires. But, oops! Mom has lupus and now can't fly anywhere or travel. So they will spend their golden years sitting in the house doing nothing until they die. Hooray.

>Lifestyle creeps up on you
That's on you. You're responsible for your spending, no one else. You don't have to live in the nicest house, you don't have to go on luxury holidays and you don't need the latest phone.

I own my home already. This thread is less about me as OP, and more about fixing the systemic problem. Human beings are not meant to sit in an office for 1/3rd of their lives. But that's how most will end up, unless you get lucky, inherit, or get really savvy with passive income.

>ignoring the rest of my post

I'm aware. I could pay off my house ASAP and spend the next 40 years doing my best to cobble it together and growing potatoes in my backyard. It's still not a life worth living.

See my other points. You never know when death is going to come, or something is going to incapacitate you. Saving for a meager retirement but never doing anything with it isn't optimal either.

But we're digressing from the point of the thread.

>What does that have to do with immigration?
There's this quote be Peter Jackson that goes something like, "New Zealand is not a small country, but a large village"

It's like how everyone knows and looks out for each other in small towns, but people don't know or care as much in dense cities. It's this same concept, on a global/population scale: Higher populations and population density leads to people not caring about each other and generally being worse to each other.

More people leads to more competition for resources. This is why Asian and South Asian people treat each other like shit.

Highly dense populations also lead to a higher sense of anonymity, so people commit big and small crimes more. I am aware how crime in cities have been dropping; this is a separate concept.

Apart from this, culture is also relevant: For there to be peace and social cohesion, there needs to be a homogeneity of culture. Assimilation takes a long time (often decades). With high immigration, it's possible for more people to come in than can assimilate, in a given period of time. People also like to associate with their own culture over others, and often form insular groups. This directly hinders assimilation. Different groups psychologically relate to each other less.

And then, there are specific/explicit cultural beliefs: Some cultures have traditions of treating people well, while others have those of specifically treating people badly.

All of these represent factors that can contribute to harsh capitalism/the taking of economic advantage of some people by others

>I work with plenty of immigrants in NZ and they're all nice people.
Yes, I'm aware - I'm an immigrant myself. Most are nice enough (genuinely). At the same time, most will be condescending against Kiwi culture, amongst themselves. Immigrants from other cultures rarely come to the West for the culture; they come for the economic opportunity.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 62K)

...

But the culture *created* the economy. If the culture is not regarded, both will be lost.

You own your home AND make $100k, and don't think you can retire?

Why should I take your ideas on life's financial sustainability seriously?
>And I can forget about social security, because it's going to be gone by the time I qualify.
Yeah, because that shit's expensive. It pays out more than people pay in. What do you expect? The US pays more for Social Security than it does on defense. On DEFENSE. You know, that military budget that's higher than the next ten countries' combined? The US spends LESS on that than Social Security. And you're complaining that you can't afford life on a $100k salary (which boggles my mind, but whatever). You think you'll have an easier time of it with even higher taxes?

I honestly don't see how you don't see my point. To make $100k, to have a chance to retire, I have to sit in a goddamned office 8 hours a day nearly every weekday. I have to deal with constant stress, I have to be exhausted, I have to force myself awake to shit, shower, commute, and go to a place I hate with a smile on my face, all to lock the corporate boot.

I have to excitedly talk to my bosses about how excited I am to put more time in on the next project, brag to my coworkers about how "hard I work," and then accept promotions when I know full well they will mean more work, and less time with friends and family.

I do this for the "privilege" of 2-3 weeks off a year, normally where I can't relax because I'm still dialed into email, projects, and know that when I return to the office, I'll have a ton of emergencies to tend to, along with 500+ emails in my inbox.

I know that I am "at will," which means the company can and will fire me with absolutely no notice or warning, with zero loyalty or care about my family, but if I walked out, I'd never get another job again.

Sure, one day I might hypothetically retire, but until then, the system is making it as difficult on myself and others as it possibly can.

I'm in the same position you are, an 8 hour office job, except I don't have constant stress (just occasional stress with deadlines), I don't check my email on vacation, and I enjoy my work: it's interesting, challenging and fulfilling, and provides me a living as well as time to myself (not as much as I'd like, but an adequate amount).

My workplace (a big corp with 10k-plus workers) claims to care about work/life balance and employee well-being. I don't trust corporate further than I can throw them, but I and most of my coworkers are skilled and valuable enough that the company wants to keep us happy and away from our competitors. When I get sick my boss doesn't question when I take 2, 3 or even the week off, or work from home. I still get a solid "middle" score on my performance reviews. Sure, I don't get my face on the awards wall and my raises aren't as high as they could be. But why would I need another $3k a year, when I already make six figures in a city that doesn't rape me with cost of living?

If I quit this job, I could easily find another. Maybe not quite as good, but I bet I could find something on par with my last job, which was on a similar scale.

So it sounds to me like you need to find a better job, or improve your marketability and *then* find a better job.

By not living in third world shithole.

You're still caught up in trying to solve *my* problem than the bigger one. Fix the massive amount of companies that are fucking everyone over and making work culture absolutely miserable, not my one individual situation.

I don't want to personally go find the one opportunity that my fellow man doesn't have, I want us all to stand up and say "no, we won't let you treat us this way, we won't let you use salaried work as an excuse for indentured servitude, no, you can't just expect everyone to work weekends for free instead of hiring and training more help."

I'm not the only person having this problem. Most professionals I know are having the same issues. Pay has gone nowhere relative to inflation, but companies are raking in record profits.

It's like you're watching your friends and family get mugged, but don't seem to give a shit because they haven't noticed you standing 10 feet away.

This just sounds like a Yank issue. Stop living in a shit hole that eats poor people for breakfast and leaves their families with the debt.

The answer to your problem--oh, I'm sorry, society's problem--is what I've been suggesting all along: find a job that "cares" (read: wants you enough that they'll give in to your desires).

Why are working conditions so shit in the games industry? Because employees have nothing to bargain with; they can get canned and the employer suffers no repercussions since there's a willing stream of starry-eyed high schoolers who think they're the next Shiggsy.

Why can't you do that? Or, since you're claiming this is endemic to "most professionals I know," why can't they do that? Based on what you've said, I can only imagine it's a combination of not actually having any distinguishing skills, or they're so saddled with debt and keeping up with the Joneses that they can't risk a two-month job search.

Which is why I keep bringing up your ridiculous conception that $100k is some barely-survivable never-retirable salary, when in reality it's tens of thousands above what any professional would need to comfortably retire in any place that's not the coasts.

Because the jobs don't just magically start to exist because you want them real bad, my dude. Companies will lie out the ass to bring talent on board, knowing full well that they hold all of the bargaining chips because you can't just up and leave without severely damaging your resume. Very few companies are going to open up with "we know we're really not a great place to work, we'll expect you to be here all the time and our culture is toxic."

Finding the right company is practically luck. The fact of the matter is that there are less "caring" jobs than there are qualified applicants. And people have to eat, or pay for housing, or kids, or whatever. So no, not many get to start the game from the top, which is why companies hold all of the power. The company that promised you the world can take it all away on a whim by threatening to put you on the street.

And for whatever reason you keep bringing up my wonderful ability to retire, fine, great, I can possibly retire one day. If I don't die first. But it's still going to take twenty to 30 years of suffering before I can comfortably do that. If that's even comfortable.

Again, I bring up social security and pensions (which are all gone for people my age), because it is revenue the elderly can count on. Even if it's a relatively meager amount, my grandmother's pension ensures she won't starve to death if the market collapses and takes her savings with it.

People are being treated like dogshit, and your answer is to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and keep being treated like dogshit, only just a little less dogshit.

Anyways, I'm going to sleep. I'll see where this thing is in the morning.

This guy is absolutely right.

This guy is absolutely a gigantic cunt.

What you're failing to acknowledge is this. Not everyone can be at the top of the pyramid, but if you don't want society to be 5% working people with actual skills propping up 95% of the population on welfare eventually, you're going to have to concede that people who work for a living deserve a decent standard of life, regardless of whether or not they contribute as much to society as you do.

Once the reward for a hard day's work in those needless McJobs falls so far below the poverty line that it actually isn't worth it to work for a living anymore, you're going to have a major problem with huge numbers of people quitting work to get gibs, and good luck getting the majority to vote for population control with they themselves on the recieving end. You'll be stuck with them. Millions of people, no skills or work experience whatsoever, just BEING here. And the government will prop them up, because those people, being dependant on government gibs, can then be counted on to continually vote more and more money into the hands of the government gibbers.

Instead of drawing the line between people who are really useful (almost nobody on the planet, a tiny percentage) and people who aren't (most of humanity), why don't we simply draw a line between people who wish to work and people who don't and let the market sort itself out so that more jobs are useful down the line? People who work for a living deserve a decent life. Do you really disagree with that in principle?

Spare me your "I represent the oppressed everyman" bullshit.
>Because the jobs don't just magically start to exist because you want them real bad, my dude.
Exactly the fucking point. The jobs only exist once companies actually lose something when their people quit and move to competitors. That means you have to have skills they want, or you have to unionize. You have to cause them pain.
>Finding the right company is practically luck.
Not dying of multiple sclerosis is luck. A "professional" staying with a company with "constant stress" "vacations where I can't relax" "I'd never get another job again" is not luck, it's bad life choices.
>Again, I bring up social security and pensions (which are all gone for people my age), because it is revenue the elderly can count on.
The fact that yours and my Social Security is contingent on the next thirty Congressional sessions not fucking it up is evidence that we cannot, in fact, "count on" it. Same for pensions.
>People are being treated like dogshit, and your answer is to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and keep being treated like dogshit, only just a little less dogshit.
No, my answer is to cause the companies pain. How do you think we got the 40-hour workweek? Not by people like you who literally work on their paid vacations.

>you're going to have to concede that people who work for a living deserve a decent standard of life
You seem to think that's not what I've been saying. Apparently the point was lost on you too: people should have a fulfilling career that provides for their needs, and we can make it happen by empowering them.

You're suggesting... what, exactly?
>regardless of whether or not they contribute as much to society as you do
???
>Instead of drawing the line between people who are really useful (almost nobody on the planet, a tiny percentage) and people who aren't (most of humanity)
You have a really remarkably low opinion of most of humanity.

Most people want to learn, and are capable of learning, but a lot of them don't realize it. Educate them. Give them the tools they need to make a positive impact on society. Give them skills that make them valuable so they can actually have bargaining power over their own time, rather than being locked into a job they hate but can't afford to leave.

Taking tax for Social Security, which is unsustainable and subject to the whims of Congress, out of workers' paychecks does the opposite of empowering them. Seducing them with easy loans to buy more house or car than they need or could pay for on their own locks them further into dependency on institutions that live and die outside of their control, taking them further from the ability to control their own destiny.

How do we fix the current situation: a citizenry with neither the skill nor the will to take their employers to task? Why don't people have leverage to demand fair compensation for their time and labor? We can provide this by making them more valuable: giving them the power to increase their skills.

The social safety net should provide the ability to gain these skills (read, provide a useful education), and help people like the sick who cannot work.

I would argue that the middle class has been deliberately de-skilled and that things aren’t going to go back to the way they were. The people who have real control over the market simply don’t want the competition that would come from another generation of people with actual educations and real skills. The truth is, with modern machinery they don’t need a huge glut of trained workers commanding decent, living wages. What they need is uneducated people with no skills that can run the McJobs that are provided and will take minimum wage, and a tiny percentage of educated folks to repair machines and foster new technology. If Americans aren’t becoming that fast enough, they’d be happy to import those people from other countries with a less skilled workforce in the meantime while the middle class is being “taught” that they need to accept pensions, unions and decent standards of work are a thing of the past. It takes time to rid people of notions like fair treatment and workers rights, and it also requires that there be an even less qualified class of Americans to remind us that industrialists don’t really need us to be self sufficient or practical. They only need us to be stupid and poor enough to be totally dependent on industry.

Pensions should be a thing of the past. Just like Social Security is subject to the whims of decades of Congresscritters, pensions are subject to the whims of decades of company boards of directors. A 401(k) is better, since the money is yours and you can keep it even if you quit or get unjustly fired.

Unions and decent standards of work are basic requirements though. Everybody has an inherent right to assemble. We need to demand that right from employers, or fight when it's been taken away from us.

It's very easy to reach the "advancement" of the soviets if you 1) starve your population; 2) welcome nazi scientists; 3) devour the resources of every nation you "liberate"; 4) purge any opposition while drowning your citizens in propaganda and 5) create a purposefully ambiguous and oppressive legislation where people are sent to gulag for the most minor of transgressions (or for no reason at all) and then spend years doing manual labour for the state to keep their ideological machine going, mysteriously "disappearing" afterwards.