# Instant gratification?



## zebedee

I recently read an article on the following subject and would be interested to hear your ideas:

The Work Ethic - the idea that if you want something you have to work in order to deserve it - is dying out. The generation that is coming of age now is used to getting instant gratification and not having to think, save or plan in order to achieve something. What does this hold for the future?

To what extent do you think this is true and if so who's to blame if anyone?

zeb


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Zeb,

 Clearly,  *they* are to blame!  And who are* they*?  We are.  When we expect
 'the government' or 'the school system' or some other faceless '*they*' to instruct our children in basic notions such as right and wrong, and the need to earn something before enjoying it, we are the nefarious *they* who are at fault.

We have good help from credit card companies, leasing firms, and all other commercial enterprises that bombard us with the ability to acquire now, and pay later, at only xxxxx per month, with lots of fine print. But these are just helpers. To the extent to which we consume their services, we set an example for our offspring.*

They* are not the local government who haven't got around to filling the frost-heave pot holes in my street.  *They *are me and my neighbors who don't bother to stop by the town office and let someone know that we have pot holes!

By our inaction and assumption that things are up to someone else to deal with, we train our children to complain rather than work, even if the 'work' is as light as writing a note, making a call, sending an e-mail, or speaking with a fellow human who might make our problem disappear.

  Think I'll go read the newspaper and complain about *them* now.

 Un abrazo,
 Cuchu


----------



## leenico

I don't think this is a new revelation. With the coming of the "yuppie" generation there came a whole new way of thinking. Entry level seemed to be a thing of the past. The thought was to start at a managerial level and work upwards from there. What I find incredible is that management went along with these ideas. One can only wonder how much it cost the various industries, as these would be managers stumbled their way through.


----------



## Markus

I have heard this accusation leveled at each new generation all my life (not that I am very old). I am curious if it's just one of those things that old people say, along the lines of "kids these days have no respect".


----------



## leenico

Well Marcus, I can recall starting at an entry level job, and working my way up from there. We called it paying our dues. Most of the seniors at that time were not too forgiving either.


----------



## Benjy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Zeb,
> 
> Clearly,  *they* are to blame!  And who are* they*?  We are.  When we expect
> 'the government' or 'the school system' or some other faceless '*they*' to instruct our children in basic notions such as right and wrong, and the need to earn something before enjoying it, we are the nefarious *they* who are at fault.
> 
> We have good help from credit card companies, leasing firms, and all other commercial enterprises that bombard us with the ability to acquire now, and pay later, at only xxxxx per month, with lots of fine print. But these are just helpers. To the extent to which we consume their services, we set an example for our offspring.*
> 
> They* are not the local government who haven't got around to filling the frost-heave pot holes in my street.  *They *are me and my neighbors who don't bother to stop by the town office and let someone know that we have pot holes!
> 
> By our inaction and assumption that things are up to someone else to deal with, we train our children to complain rather than work, even if the 'work' is as light as writing a note, making a call, sending an e-mail, or speaking with a fellow human who might make our problem disappear.
> 
> Think I'll go read the newspaper and complain about *them* now.
> 
> Un abrazo,
> Cuchu




i wish i had something else to add. but i don't.


----------



## Fezman

leenico said:
			
		

> I don't think this is a new revelation. With the coming of the "yuppie" generation there came a whole new way of thinking. Entry level seemed to be a thing of the past. The thought was to start at a managerial level and work upwards from there. What I find incredible is that management went along with these ideas. One can only wonder how much it cost the various industries, as these would be managers stumbled their way through.


 
 Here's a little more food for thought, what if people weren't allowed to start at managerial level, but had to start at the bottom and work up? Would people reasonably expect someone to start at the bottom? A student fresh from getting his masters in Business and Marketing goes for a job at GM. 'Um sorry. You are going to have to start in dashboard assembly...' 
An economy strives to be efficient by nature, and has developed as such. People start at manageriel level because they are qualified to do so and, not to do so wouldn't be as efficient and so, not as cost effective.
We must remember also that the people who enter at managerial level have most likely invested a lot of money into their education, at least compared to people on the shop floor and it is in my opinion right that society reflects this, because it quite simply wouldn't work otherwise.

Oh dear, do i feel another thread coming on...???

-Fez


----------



## gotitadeleche

Fezman said:
			
		

> Here's a little more food for thought, what if people weren't allowed to start at managerial level, but had to start at the bottom and work up? Would people reasonably expect someone to start at the bottom?




It used to be the normal order of things. Experience was as, or more, important as a degree.


----------



## Fezman

gotitadeleche said:
			
		

> It used to be the normal order of things. Experience was as, or more, important as a degree.


 Well if experience was as important as a degree, wasn't a degree as important as experience, and so, capable of replacing it???


----------



## leenico

> Well if experience was as important as a degree, wasn't a degree as important as experience, and so, capable of replacing it???


They are two different things. All the colleges in the world cannot give you experience. Without experience you can cost a company a tremendous amount of money.


----------



## Markus

leenico said:
			
		

> They are two different things. All the colleges in the world cannot give you experience. Without experience you can cost a company a tremendous amount of money.


 
But the point Fezman was making was, if it was such an awful thing, why would companies be hiring people without experience? Corporations are the product of economic evolution (only the strongest survive). If it was not working, it would not be happening! Maybe it upsets the people who have been working there for a long time, but the bottom line is that corporations care only about the bottom line, so unless people become so upset that it disrupts business it is not likely to change.

I think that some people may be exaggerating here a bit as well. I do not think that suddenly you don't need experience anymore and all the young graduates are snapping up the best jobs. Using Fezman's GM example, I think it is more a matter of reorganization. Those who work on the assembly line are for the most part (exceptions possible) distinct from the managerial employees. Those who start as managers start as entry-level managers and those who start on the assembly line start on the bottom there as well.

Using myself as an example, I have just graduated with a university degree in computing science. The only jobs open to me are as a junior-level programmer; I will need five or more years of experience before I am eligible or intermediate- or senior-level positions. So I hardly think that experience is no longer necessary.


----------



## Fezman

hi, i think Marcus' example  says what i was thinking better than i did!!!


----------



## leenico

> A student fresh from getting his masters in Business and Marketing goes for a job at GM. 'Um sorry. You are going to have to start in dashboard assembly...'


 Not my point. In this instance you can expect them to start at an entry level in the marketing dept, or something similar, but not at a managerial level. I have seen more than once, where someone inexperienced became employed as a manager of a dept. & be totally lost in the function of his job. Where this person would have to be carried by more experienced people who were subject to his whims.


----------



## leenico

> Using myself as an example, I have just graduated with a university degree in computing science. The only jobs open to me are as a junior-level programmer; I will need five or more years of experience before I am eligible or intermediate- or senior-level positions. So I hardly think that experience is no longer necessary.


Yes Markus, I think we are talking about the same thing. I headed up an engineering dept. & had young engineers w/ very little experience wanting to be project leaders on million dollar projects. Their argument was that they had engineering degrees. Luckily for me I had enough experience to realize it would have been madness to allow this to happen. Imagine a manager with no experience letting an entry level engineer handle projects of this magnitude. I have witnessed more than one million dollar project go down the tubes because both the manager & the project leader were inexperienced.


----------



## cristóbal

by *they*, you mean the same one's who killed Kenny, right?

But WAIT, everyone, are we sure it's not the Bush administration's fault?  Why pass up such a great opportunity to blame something else on him?

My opinion is that the fault is of human nature--on two parts.  First part, we are naturally always seeking easier ways to do things, this is a part of the human dynamic... we are inventors, and as such we invent things to make our lives easier.  The other problem is that we are good inventors.  We have created a society/culture/environment, whatever you wish to call it, that facilitates our desire to be lazy.  Although we may long for the past and clamor for the times when you had to work a little to make a buck in this world, in reality we're not about to give up what we've 'achieved'.  

This is exemplified in the response to American "culture" infiltrating other cultures.  Take for example something like McDonald's.  Everyone is always ready to criticize and complain about McDonald's... they will be up in arms against the Wal-Mart, but in the end they end up going there and using it because it is simply easier and more efficient.  
Most of the criticism and complaints are probably valid, but that doesn't stop the _majority_ of them/us from still going.  Myself included.  




			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Zeb,
> 
> Clearly,  *they* are to blame!  And who are* they*?  We are.  When we expect
> 'the government' or 'the school system' or some other faceless '*they*' to instruct our children in basic notions such as right and wrong, and the need to earn something before enjoying it, we are the nefarious *they* who are at fault.
> 
> We have good help from credit card companies, leasing firms, and all other commercial enterprises that bombard us with the ability to acquire now, and pay later, at only xxxxx per month, with lots of fine print. But these are just helpers. To the extent to which we consume their services, we set an example for our offspring.*
> 
> They* are not the local government who haven't got around to filling the frost-heave pot holes in my street.  *They *are me and my neighbors who don't bother to stop by the town office and let someone know that we have pot holes!
> 
> By our inaction and assumption that things are up to someone else to deal with, we train our children to complain rather than work, even if the 'work' is as light as writing a note, making a call, sending an e-mail, or speaking with a fellow human who might make our problem disappear.
> 
> Think I'll go read the newspaper and complain about *them* now.
> 
> Un abrazo,
> Cuchu


----------



## cuchuflete

cristóbal said:
			
		

> by *they*, you mean the same one's who killed Kenny, right?


What or who is Kenny? Does he or it have a work ethic?


----------



## asm

I think the topic is very interesting, and there are excellent answers and thoughts, however, I do not understand the second part of the post. "Who's to blame if anyone?"
Do we have to blame someone? Do we blame an ambiguous entity or real people? In my opinion if we look for a guilty character we are assuming that it is not our responsibility, and (instant gratification comes again), if I do not get what I need, I have ________ to blame to. Fill in the blank freely.

I agree that part of this generation is looking for "managerial" positions, but that is only a small part of the people. We are forgetting all those who cannot pursue an up-or out career in organizations. 
I think this trend is getting the gap between socioeconomic status wider, while there are people who are thinking that it is an insult accepting an entry-level position (even with no experience), there are people from the other side of the spectrum who cannot even think that he could finish his career in a similar level. This division is getting two different worlds, one as the one described in this post and the other with the “pariah”, one that reacts with instant gratification and the other ending with a helpless paradigm. What worries me the most is that the former will live at expenses of the latter.


----------



## cuchuflete

asm said:
			
		

> This division is getting two different worlds, one as the one described in this post and the other with the “pariah”, one that reacts with instant gratification and the other ending with a helpless paradigm. What worries me the most is that the former will live at expenses of the latter.



Hi Asm,

It the "Pariah" the one seeking instant gratification?  
Please elaborate a little on how "the former", whoever that may be, will live "at the expense of the latter".   This statement implies some kind of exploitation.  That was not discussed or proved in this thread.  It assumes that there is some redistribution of wealth going on, on unfair or even unjust grounds.


As to the world as described in this post, it may or may not exist.  If your assertion is correct, might it have a little to do with the question Zeb posed at the start of the thread?  Or are those in search of instant gratification to blame?  And who are those most prone to seek instant gratification? The well-to-do or those with less?

If this statement about some living at the expense of others is true, it would be nice to see an argument with a beginning, a middle with lots of evidence, and then the conclusion.  Would the U.S. Social Security tax system be a good example?  High earners pay lots more into the system than they will ever get out of it.


----------



## asm

Estimado Cuchuflete:

 

Voy a contestar en español debido a que mi nivel de inglés me impide ser mas preciso y me obliga a ser mucho más lento.

Quizás mi postura te parezca un poco radical, quizás es solo el hecho de que no me explique claramente en el “post” anterior.

Lo que quiero decir es que la cultura de la gratificación inmediata es un problema de clase; no es lo mismo cuando esto sucede con los de las clases altas que cuando sucede con las clases bajas, incluso es diferente en las clases medias.

Los pobres siempre han vivido con este fenómeno, siempre tener un poco de mas (mientras mas rápido) es mejor para ellos. 

Para ellos es muy difícil ver que si “sacrifican” un poco en el presente el futuro va a ser un poco mejor. Sin embargo, viendo las cosas a mayor distancia, la idea de que “todos” pueden salir de la pobreza es una falacia. En algunas ocasiones la idea es “buena” o bien-intencionada, sin embargo en otras es sólo para mantener el estatus-quo. Que algunos puedan salir de la pobreza no es sinónimo de que “todos” lo puedan hacer. Si todos los dependientes de Walmart estudiaran hasta tener una maestría, y así fuera para los de MacDonalds, y también para los que trabajan en los supermercados, y en los campos productores de algodón, de maíz y de frijol ¿quien seguiría trabajando en ellos? No hay, ni habrá, mercado para todos. Esta es una sociedad que necesita las clases como tú y yo necesitamos del aire limpio para vivir.

 

El problema de la gratificación inmediata en las clases alta y “media-alta” sí se está comportando como lo mencionan en la pregunta original. Ahora los descendientes de los que ayer trabajaron duro para tener lo que tienen están buscando llegar al mismo sitio sin trabajar o sin tener experiencia. Una maestría no te da esa experiencia (yo tengo dos maestrías y el 100% de los créditos de un doctorado, y sé que esto es cierto).

La experiencia viene del trabajo y no de los estudios. El conocimiento puede venir de ambas partes. A mi juicio este es un gran problema, porque estas personas están “cobrando” los beneficios del éxito “a priori” y eso no se vale.

En cuanto a lo que vi en el “hilo”, no estoy de acuerdo con quien dijo que si estudias una maestría puedes llegar a una posición “así porque si”. Siento que hay que ganarla, no en las aulas, sino en la oficina.

 

Lo que me invitó a participar en el foro es que muchos hablan sólo de la segunda descripción (clases altas) sin darse cuenta de que existe un mundo atrás que esta muy lejos de dicha gratificación inmediata. Este fenómeno con los pobres es muy distinto. Cuando yo trabajé en la industria siempre me intrigó saber porqué los obreros estaban dispuestos a trabajar tiempo extra por (lo que a mi juicio) era muy poco dinero adicional, hasta que entendí que para mi era poco pero para ellos era mucho, para mi no valía la pena para ellos sí.

 

Ahora tengo una percepción diferente, creo que los de las clases más pudientes están haciendo su dinero en muchas ocasiones gracias al trabajo de otros (afortunadamente en muchos casos también al suyo propio, pero definitivamente necesitan de sus trabajadores). El modelo de Walmart, que puede ser el mas ejemplificador (al igual que el de Mc Donalds, mas no así el de Ford o el de Microsoft) sólo funciona si estás dispuesto a pagar un salario que llevará las personas a ser pobres por definición. 

Mencionas que muchas personas pagan más al seguro social de lo que ellos mismos podrán sacar en el futuro, de la misma forma te digo que hay muchas personas que le dan mucho mas beneficio a la empresa en la que trabajan del que ellos mismos podrán “sacar” como salario. En si el problema no me parecería grave si no fuera por el hecho de que estos últimos no tienen ingresos para vivir dignamente, ni siquiera para que sus hijos se formen una cultura/mentalidad que los lleve a romper el ciclo en la siguiente generación. La pobreza, estimado amigo Cuchuflete, se hereda. No es casual de que los hijos de los pobres son pobres y los de los ricos son ricos (salvo excepciones, que lamentablemente hacen pensar que esto no es cierto). Te recomiendo que leas a la Dra. Ruby Payne (ahaprocess.com).

¿Te has puesto a pensar que los trabajadores de Walmart (macdonalds, etc.) ganan tan poco que tienen que pedir sus “estampas” y en ocasiones vivir de la ayuda que se da en las iglesias y otros organismos de beneficencia? En otras palabras el gobierno/sociedad está subsidiando estos modelos de hacer negocio. Dicho en palabras todavía mas burdas: no le pagues suficiente (al trabajador), al cabo que el gobierno les va a ayudar, así “nosotros” nos ahorramos un dinero que finalmente el gobierno va a terminar pagando.

La idea de que los trabajadores de Walmart deben superarse para después conseguir mejores trabajos nos lleva a un problema sin salida, por un lado a dónde van a trabajar tantos empleados con mejores salarios, el mercado no es tan grande, por el otro a qué hora y de qué forma lo van a hacer si no tienen los recursos para hacerlo (la educación de cierta forma es muy cara), ni el tiempo porque están trabajando. 

¿Sabias que una gran cantidad de los pobres (de esos que mencionan las estadísticas, si tienen trabajo, pero no reciben el suficiente dinero para salir de la pobreza)?



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Asm,
> 
> It the "Pariah" the one seeking instant gratification?
> Please elaborate a little on how "the former", whoever that may be, will live "at the expense of the latter". This statement implies some kind of exploitation. That was not discussed or proved in this thread. It assumes that there is some redistribution of wealth going on, on unfair or even unjust grounds.
> 
> 
> As to the world as described in this post, it may or may not exist. If your assertion is correct, might it have a little to do with the question Zeb posed at the start of the thread? Or are those in search of instant gratification to blame? And who are those most prone to seek instant gratification? The well-to-do or those with less?
> 
> If this statement about some living at the expense of others is true, it would be nice to see an argument with a beginning, a middle with lots of evidence, and then the conclusion. Would the U.S. Social Security tax system be a good example? High earners pay lots more into the system than they will ever get out of it.


----------



## asm

This post should be read backwards, the first part is in the "quote" section, and the second part starts here. Sorry for the inconvenience   


Sobre lo que mencionas acerca de los impuestos, sólo puedo decir que creo que los impuestos sirven para que la sociedad funcione, no para dar prebendas, sin embargo si a una persona “le va mejor” que a otra porque gana mas dinero (si ese fuera el criterio de éxito para Dios, no hubiese nacido en un pesebre, pero esa es otra historia). Creo que si estas recibiendo más de la sociedad, también debes de dar mas (entre otras cosas te conviene que así sea, a la larga, no con la visión de la gratificación inmediata). Dicho de otra forma, para mi los impuestos son como el cobro de concesiones en un mercado. Los que tienen los mejores lugares deben pagar las cuotas mas altas, los que tienen los peores lugares deben pagar menos. O si vas al estadio, los mejores lugares deben costar más, los peores menos, es cuestión de mercado. Muchos se quejan de lo que se paga por mantener a los pobres, pero pocos se detienen a ver que muchos gastos del gobierno son solo para los ricos (el otro día leía en un periódico de una inversión millonaria en un aeropuerto de EUA, con dinero del gobierno. A quien va a servir si no a las compañías que se benefician de esos servicios, a los pobres no les va a tocar ningún centavo de ese dinero.





Resumiendo, el problema de la gratificación inmediata es un problema que se da en ambos espectros de la sociedad, mientras que es un problema común entre los pobres, es algo nuevo entre los ricos. Los pobres viven en los niveles más bajos de la pirámide de necesidades (Maslow) y por ello cualquier cosas es tomada rápida y fácilmente. Los ricos por lo contrario están comenzando a comportarse de esta forma porque no quieren pasar por el esfuerzo. Quieren (algunos) “comprar éxito con crédito”.

La sociedad como esta conceptual izada ahora beneficia a las clases más pudientes y a los pobres no les queda otra mas que vivir de una forma reactiva. La cultura de la pobreza se hereda (obviamente no a nivel genético, pero así es como se transmite la cultura). La brecha entre ricos y pobres se ensancha cada vez más y ésta sólo puede ser atravesada por algunos pobres que encuentran los medios para hacerlo, o por “ricos” que perdieron lo que tenían.



No soy un sociólogo explicando la sociedad, ni un liberal despotricando contra los conservadores, simplemente soy un cristiano que intenta encontrar una lógica en este mundo que esta tan dividido.



			
				asm said:
			
		

> Estimado Cuchuflete:
> 
> 
> 
> Voy a contestar en español debido a que mi nivel de inglés me impide ser mas preciso y me obliga a ser mucho más lento.
> 
> Quizás mi postura te parezca un poco radical, quizás es solo el hecho de que no me explique claramente en el “post” anterior.
> 
> Lo que quiero decir es que la cultura de la gratificación inmediata es un problema de clase; no es lo mismo cuando esto sucede con los de las clases altas que cuando sucede con las clases bajas, incluso es diferente en las clases medias.
> 
> Los pobres siempre han vivido con este fenómeno, siempre tener un poco de mas (mientras mas rápido) es mejor para ellos.
> 
> Para ellos es muy difícil ver que si “sacrifican” un poco en el presente el futuro va a ser un poco mejor. Sin embargo, viendo las cosas a mayor distancia, la idea de que “todos” pueden salir de la pobreza es una falacia. En algunas ocasiones la idea es “buena” o bien-intencionada, sin embargo en otras es sólo para mantener el estatus-quo. Que algunos puedan salir de la pobreza no es sinónimo de que “todos” lo puedan hacer. Si todos los dependientes de Walmart estudiaran hasta tener una maestría, y así fuera para los de MacDonalds, y también para los que trabajan en los supermercados, y en los campos productores de algodón, de maíz y de frijol ¿quien seguiría trabajando en ellos? No hay, ni habrá, mercado para todos. Esta es una sociedad que necesita las clases como tú y yo necesitamos del aire limpio para vivir.
> 
> 
> 
> El problema de la gratificación inmediata en las clases alta y “media-alta” sí se está comportando como lo mencionan en la pregunta original. Ahora los descendientes de los que ayer trabajaron duro para tener lo que tienen están buscando llegar al mismo sitio sin trabajar o sin tener experiencia. Una maestría no te da esa experiencia (yo tengo dos maestrías y el 100% de los créditos de un doctorado, y sé que esto es cierto).
> 
> La experiencia viene del trabajo y no de los estudios. El conocimiento puede venir de ambas partes. A mi juicio este es un gran problema, porque estas personas están “cobrando” los beneficios del éxito “a priori” y eso no se vale.
> 
> En cuanto a lo que vi en el “hilo”, no estoy de acuerdo con quien dijo que si estudias una maestría puedes llegar a una posición “así porque si”. Siento que hay que ganarla, no en las aulas, sino en la oficina.
> 
> 
> 
> Lo que me invitó a participar en el foro es que muchos hablan sólo de la segunda descripción (clases altas) sin darse cuenta de que existe un mundo atrás que esta muy lejos de dicha gratificación inmediata. Este fenómeno con los pobres es muy distinto. Cuando yo trabajé en la industria siempre me intrigó saber porqué los obreros estaban dispuestos a trabajar tiempo extra por (lo que a mi juicio) era muy poco dinero adicional, hasta que entendí que para mi era poco pero para ellos era mucho, para mi no valía la pena para ellos sí.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahora tengo una percepción diferente, creo que los de las clases más pudientes están haciendo su dinero en muchas ocasiones gracias al trabajo de otros (afortunadamente en muchos casos también al suyo propio, pero definitivamente necesitan de sus trabajadores). El modelo de Walmart, que puede ser el mas ejemplificador (al igual que el de Mc Donalds, mas no así el de Ford o el de Microsoft) sólo funciona si estás dispuesto a pagar un salario que llevará las personas a ser pobres por definición.
> 
> Mencionas que muchas personas pagan más al seguro social de lo que ellos mismos podrán sacar en el futuro, de la misma forma te digo que hay muchas personas que le dan mucho mas beneficio a la empresa en la que trabajan del que ellos mismos podrán “sacar” como salario. En si el problema no me parecería grave si no fuera por el hecho de que estos últimos no tienen ingresos para vivir dignamente, ni siquiera para que sus hijos se formen una cultura/mentalidad que los lleve a romper el ciclo en la siguiente generación. La pobreza, estimado amigo Cuchuflete, se hereda. No es casual de que los hijos de los pobres son pobres y los de los ricos son ricos (salvo excepciones, que lamentablemente hacen pensar que esto no es cierto). Te recomiendo que leas a la Dra. Ruby Payne (ahaprocess.com).
> 
> ¿Te has puesto a pensar que los trabajadores de Walmart (macdonalds, etc.) ganan tan poco que tienen que pedir sus “estampas” y en ocasiones vivir de la ayuda que se da en las iglesias y otros organismos de beneficencia? En otras palabras el gobierno/sociedad está subsidiando estos modelos de hacer negocio. Dicho en palabras todavía mas burdas: no le pagues suficiente (al trabajador), al cabo que el gobierno les va a ayudar, así “nosotros” nos ahorramos un dinero que finalmente el gobierno va a terminar pagando.
> 
> La idea de que los trabajadores de Walmart deben superarse para después conseguir mejores trabajos nos lleva a un problema sin salida, por un lado a dónde van a trabajar tantos empleados con mejores salarios, el mercado no es tan grande, por el otro a qué hora y de qué forma lo van a hacer si no tienen los recursos para hacerlo (la educación de cierta forma es muy cara), ni el tiempo porque están trabajando.
> 
> ¿Sabias que una gran cantidad de los pobres (de esos que mencionan las estadísticas, si tienen trabajo, pero no reciben el suficiente dinero para salir de la pobreza)?


----------



## cristóbal

Estimado asm, me has impresionado con tus palabras.
A lo mejor no tengo suficiente experiencia ni conocimiento para dar una respuesta tan bien pensada.
Pero, eso no me va a quitar las ganas. 



> Lo que quiero decir es que la cultura de la gratificación inmediata es un problema de clase; no es lo mismo cuando esto sucede con los de las clases altas que cuando sucede con las clases bajas, incluso es diferente en las clases medias.
> 
> Los pobres siempre han vivido con este fenómeno, siempre tener un poco de mas (mientras mas rápido) es mejor para ellos.
> 
> Para ellos es muy difícil ver que si “sacrifican” un poco en el presente el futuro va a ser un poco mejor.



Yo no sé si estaría completamente de acuerdo contigo en cuanto a tu tésis sobre esta cultura que hemos llamado "la cultura de la gratificación".  Sobre todo lo encuentro difícil estar de acuerdo con tu última frase que he citado arriba.  Quizá hoy en día esto sí que es verdad, pero yo me atrevería a decir que históricamente la probeza causa que uno que está dentro de ella tenga presente sus recursos limitados y también porque está pendiente del verdadero fruto de su trabajo, sea lo que sea, (injusto o no) el pobre tiene mejor conocimiento de lo que valga su trabajo y así sabe con cierta 'sabiduría' de experiencia lo que va a sacar de él.  

Sobre todo, creo que el sacrificio es un tema muy conocido en el mundo de la pobreza... a lo mejor cuando decimos que ellos sólo tienen vista del futuro inmediato estamos realmente haciéndoles un deservicio.

O sea, yo creo que la cuestión aquí se trata del 'valor del trabajo' y hoy en día este supuesto 'desconocimiento' del valor del trabajo es algo que a lo mejor trasciende todas las clases.  

Pero bueno... no me acabo de convencer que esto sea un problema de clases.


----------



## cuchuflete

> El modelo de Walmart, que puede ser el mas ejemplificador (al igual que el de Mc Donalds, mas no así el de Ford o el de Microsoft) sólo funciona si estás dispuesto a pagar un salario que llevará las personas a ser pobres por definición.



In addition to being a gross oversimplification, which does not take into account local cost of living, this is the same shallow reasoning used by those who condemn European and North American companies contracting to buy products made by "cheap labor" in Asia.

A rebuttal of the economic facts [the underlying social ideology doesn't affect the arithmetic one way or another!]

1. Nobody is forced to take any given job.  One's skills, education, experience, and ambition all come into play on the part of the person offering their services.  The other side of the market equation includes, but is not limited to the Walmarts of the world.  The statement that Walmart wage scales drive employees into poverty is an acusation that anyone who accepts a job with that company is both poor and stupid!

2.  A Walmart employee, or other "underpaid" [according to what standard are they underpaid?] person does have the option of seeking (1)a better job (2)education to become qualified to win a better job.  I am not saying that the process is easy, but I have worked at menial jobs, and concurrently gone to school, so that I might be able to win a less menial job.  This was no act of heroism; it was common sense. 

3. No economy I want to live in has only high wage jobs!  Skills, experience, education and intelligence are generally required for the better paying endeavors.  Those who are lacking in one or more of these areas should expect lower pay.  This may sound cruel and heartless to you, but it is no more than a rather obvious reality.
The country you and I live in redistributes an enormous amount of wealth from high wage earners to low wage earners.  Would you pass a law to 'level the playing field' such that all incomes above the median are taxed at confiscatory rates, to subsidize Walmart workers to a position of economic equivalency with those who have studied for eight or ten years to qualify for better paying professions?

I respect your wishes that everyone would be well off, that poverty not exist.  I do not agree at all with your sweeping generalizations about how the labor market does or should function.

un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## cristóbal

A ver si estamos a lo que estamos... ¿Es esto un debate sobre el "ético de trabajo" o los males del capitalismo?


----------



## asm

11111111111111                                


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In addition to being a gross oversimplification, which does not take into account local cost of living, this is the same shallow reasoning used by those who condemn European and North American companies contracting to buy products made by "cheap labor" in Asia. [CODE]Sin comentarios, solo agradezco los calificativos[/CODE]
> 
> A rebuttal of the economic facts [the underlying social ideology doesn't affect the arithmetic one way or another!]
> 
> 1. Nobody is forced to take any given job. [CODE]De acuerdo, nadie esta obligado, sin embargo todos los adultos productivos estamos obligados a tener una fuente de ingresos/sustento, y eso se consigue en el mercado laboral. En esta sociedad no hay muchas opciones, y no es una sobre-simplificacion asegurar que mucha gente acepta trabajo aun sabiendo que la remuneracion no alcanzara para satisfacer las necesidades basicas. Puedes refutar esto?
> 
> [/CODE] One's skills, education, experience, and ambition all come into play on the part of the person offering their services.
> [CODE] 300% de acuerdo, lamentablemente no siempre se dan las mismas oportunidades para todos. Aunque la historia de quien salio adelante sin escuela, sin educacion y totalmente "solititititito" es verdadera, es menos frecuente de la historia de quien tenia el potencial pero que le fueron negadas las oportunidades porque no tenia el color de la piel, el nivel socioeconomico y el roce social que se requiere en muchas ocasiones para conseguir trabajo. Muchos de los grandes emprendedores han salido adelante despues de mucha adversidad, pero casi nunca salieron de tener una pobreza extrema y generacional. Lamentablemente las excepciones nos hacen pensar que ellos son las reglas. Si este X pudo, todos los demas pueden hacerlo[/CODE]
> 
> The other side of the market equation includes, but is not limited to the Walmarts of the world. The statement that Walmart wage scales drive employees into poverty is an acusation that anyone who accepts a job with that company is both poor and stupid! [CODE] Te pido que no pongas cosas en mi boca, yo nunca dije que la gente que acepta empleo en esas empresas es pobre y estupida, lo que si dije es que muchos de los puestos (pido perdon si no aclare que este juicio no aplica a "todos" los niveles, sino en los que se paga el salario minimo). Si bien estoy de acuerdo que son los pobres quienes aceptan esos trabajos (quizas estudiantes que estan buscando ingresos extra tambien los toman), estoy en total desacuerdo en que sean estupidos. Una cosa es tomar un trabajo por necesidad y otra muy diferente es tomarlo por ser estupido[/CODE]
> 
> 2. A Walmart employee, or other "underpaid" [according to what standard are they underpaid?]
> [CODE]En mi estado el maximo que hay que ganar para ser elegible para "estampas" es 15,757  para una persona que tiene la obligacion de mantenerse a ella y a otra persona.
> Me parece justo hacer un calculo con este caso: si el salario minimo es de 5.15 dolares por hora, para ganar el dinero suficiente para "salir de ser  pobre" hay que trabajar 3059. horas, entre 52 semanas (no hay vacaciones) equivale a 59 horas a la semana. Si lo normal es trabajar 40, estamos pidiendole a una persona que trabaje casi medio tiempo extra, solo para salir del limite de pobreza. Con un trabajo que seguramente no es motivamente. Sin embargo estoy seguro que la mayoria de quien lea este comentario no se consuela con salir de pobre, seguramente hay muchas otras necesidades que hay que "cubrir".
> [/CODE]
> person does have the option of seeking (1)a better job (2)education to become qualified to win a better job.
> [CODE]has pensado que sucederia si todos los pobres regresaran  a la escuela, y que el 100% de la fuerza laboral fuera educada. Que para vender hamburguesas en MC donalds haya que estudiar en la universidad? Si llegas al fondo de esta pregunta veras que el sistema necesita de los pobres. Cuantas veces has oido que un problema serio que tienen los empresarios en los EUA es qeu ya no hay mano de obra barata? Que bendicion para muchos de ellos cuando llegan los ejercitos de indocumentados para cubrir esos puestos.
> [/CODE] I am not saying that the process is easy, but I have worked at menial jobs, and concurrently gone to school, so that I might be able to win a less menial job. [CODE] bendito sea Dios que tu y yo tuvimos estas oportunidades, pero no todos las tienen. Lamentablemente la cultura de la pobreza no genera el deseo y el sentimiento de urgencia para salir. La pobreza produce una especie de "consuelo" para no "sufrir" las consecuencias. Un fenomeno muy conocido es que los que fueron de clase media y llegan a la pobreza "sufren" mas que los que son pobres por generaciones[/CODE]
> 
> This was no act of heroism; it was common sense. No todos tienen el mismo sentido comun. De la misma forma que antes de Newton la gente no podia entender porque las cosas caian hacia el suelo, y ahora casi todo mundo lo sabe, los paradigmas y la forma de pensar no es cosa privada, es un aprendizaje social. Lo que es obvio para ti no lo es para todos (obvio, no?)
> 
> 3. No economy I want to live in has only high wage jobs! Skills, experience, education and intelligence are generally required for the better paying endeavors. Those who are lacking in one or more of these areas should expect lower pay. This may sound cruel  (it does) and heartless to you, but it is no more than a rather obvious (define obvious) Is gravity obious to you? to me it is, but ask (if you culd) people from the middle ages, and to them it was ) reality.
> 
> The country you and I live in redistributes an enormous amount of wealth from high wage earners to low wage earners (and also the other way arround, could you tell me about a successful business that does not depend on their people?). [CODE]aclaro, no quiero hacer pensar que estoy solicitando un gobierno comunista, no voy por ahi, de hecho no creo estar  mas que "describiendo" lo que veo, y cuando mucho haciendo unos juicios de valor, no estoy proponiendo algo nuevo, no puedo. Pero eso no me quita el derecho de pensar que puede haber un mejor futuro para los pobres
> 
> [/CODE]
> 
> 
> Would you pass a law to 'level the playing field' such that all incomes above the median are taxed at confiscatory rates, to subsidize Walmart workers to a position of economic equivalency with those who have studied for eight or ten years to qualify for better paying professions? [CODE]No, lo que si creo es que eso ya sucede, y beneficia tanto al trabajador como al empleador. El ejemplo de los indocumentados es perfecto en este sentido: si no hubiese beneficios economicos para los empleadores al contratar indocumentados, esto no habrian llegado en los numeros que ahora vemos. Los indocumentados no llegaron solos, hubo fuerzas que los atrajeron, y algunas (aclaro que no todas, para que luego no me acuses de que sobre simplifico las cosas) de ellas estan relacionadas con el beneficio economico que recibe el empleador[/CODE]
> 
> I respect your wishes that everyone would be well off, that poverty not exist(no creo que vaya a desaparecer). I do not agree at all with your sweeping generalizations  [CODE]te pido que seamos parejos, creo que no soy el que ha sobre simplificado las cosas, yo si he mostrado argumentos (si no te convencen o si piensas que son similares a los que critican a las grandes companias americanas y europeas es diferente). De hecho, cuando estas companias pagan bien me paercen que hacen mejor, algunas dan mas beneficios que las companias locales que de todas formas pagan mal. No es cuestion de nacionalidad, ni de ser americanos o europeos[/CODE] about how the labor market does or should function [CODE]No creo estar diciendo otra cosa mas alla de que seria mejor que las companias pagaran mas a sus empleados, solo eso. Muchos de los otros problemas los puedo dejar pasar sin mayor problema[/CODE] .
> 
> un saludo,
> Cuchu


Saludos

ASM


----------



## asm

Es una discusion acerca de la gratificacion instantanea. Yo solo queria decir que este fenomeno esta significativamente diferenciado por las clases sociales. 
Eso de que todo mundo quiere llegar a tener una posicion gerencial desde el inicio de su carrera por no saber/querer esperar y "ganarse" las cosas es una falacia. Si existe en un segmento de la poblacion, pero este segmento es relativamente pequeno en comparacion con el total. 
Sin embargo los medios y buena parte de los que estudian los comportamientos sociales nos hacen creer que lo que sucede con las clases mas acomodadas es lo que "esta sucediendo".
La gratificacion instantanea funciona diferente para un pobre, que para uno de clase media que para uno de clase alta. Han visto el fenomeno? Yo si, y nunca con personas de extraccion humilde, nunca.



			
				cristóbal said:
			
		

> A ver si estamos a lo que estamos... ¿Es esto un debate sobre el "ético de trabajo" o los males del capitalismo?


----------



## Edwin

asm said:
			
		

> 11111111111111
> 
> Saludos
> 
> ASM



If like me you had trouble reading the replies in post #24 in this thread, one solution is to copy ASM's entire message and paste to a word processor (or something like Notepad if you use Windows). Then the inserted comments will not be on a single line. 

Prehaps the simplest way to insert comments in a message one is replying to is to color your additions as many do? Then adding several periods outside the quote will allow it to go through. I guess that's the function of the row of 1's in his message. 

I'm curious about what ASM did to get each inserted reply to be put on a single line in new window.  Whatever, I hope it is disabled.   Maybe it works well on some computers, but not for Windows XP.


----------



## Benjy

he just used the code box =[
im tempted to reformat it for him.


----------



## cuchuflete

ASM and I agree that it is sad that there are many poorly paid people in the world. I say that with no ulterior motive or sarcasm. It's a fact. It is lamentable.

Going back to Zeb's orginal question, I find the source of our fundamental disagreement:



> The Work Ethic - the idea that if you want something you have to work *in order to deserve it* - is dying out.



I will not put words in anybody's mouth.  The impression that I get from reading ASM's well presented and thoughtful arguments is that ASM appears to believe that people may deserve an opportunity that they do not currently have.  My notion of basic rights is far more constrained.  I do not believe that *they*, including any potential employer, should be obligated to offer wages above what supply and demand equilibrium dictate.  

There is a solution by which the desire for greater economic well-being and market economics may overlap: a strong labor union, or even the prospect of one.   If what's left of the union [sindicate] movement were to focus its recruiting efforts on large retail establishments, that would likely lead to some increases in wage scales.

Let's ponder the likely effects of such increases.  I am assuming, without having seen a P&L for Walmart or any other retailer with which it competes, that the largest cost element is merchandise.  Other significant costs are apt to include facilities--store lease charges, utilities--, taxes, and labor.  Let me take a wild guess that labor represents some 20% of the total cost structure. (Anyone who knows anything about this should correct me, please!)  

Consequently, a 20% increase in total labor expenses, not all of which would go to wages, as Social Security would gobble up some, would increase total costs by 4%.  How much of this would be passed on to consumers, in the form of higher prices, is a source of pure speculation.
Let's assume that shareholders and capital markets would tolerate a  decline in profits from 5% net of taxes to 4.5%.  Some of the wage cost increase would thus be absorbed by the firm, and the remainder would be passed on to customers.

Some of these customers are the low wage employees themselves, and thus there would be some net erosion of the benefit of the wage increase.
Nonetheless, they would have a substantial percentage gain, though it might be modest in absolute currency terms.

Now, realistically, any "big box" retailer would not be content to accept such a reduction in ROI, so it would seek savings elsewhere.  To the extent to which that would include squeezing suppliers--for which Wmart is justly famous or infamous, this might result in greater efficiencies...read job losses, for supplier companies.

Also, it is interesting to note that pension funds are often among the largest shareholders of huge, higly capitalized firms such as Wmart.  There would therefore also be a potential reduction in the return available to retirees.  

What I'm getting at is that one doesn't create higher wages out of the air.
Some redistribution of incomes will occur.  This may be just and good and fair and salubrious, or not.  

Who *deserves* what, and why?...it's not a simple question.  Simple answers are apt to be wrong. That includes any I may offer.

Saludos,
Cuchuflete


----------



## cuchuflete

As an aside, Wal-mart seems to be doing a very fine job of redistributing wealth from the US to less-developed (leaving all euphemisms out, ' poorer'!) nations:



> From a global perspective, Wal-Mart's procurement practices redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Its commitment to provide consumers with the cheapest prices drives production and employment offshore. While that move is denounced by local labour as unfair, it transfers jobs and the precious purchasing power that goes with them from North America to countries that have a fraction of our living standards.


 https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20040308/RRUBIN08


----------



## LV4-26

Edwin said:
			
		

> If like me you had trouble reading the replies in post #24.


I didn't have that much trouble.

To come back to the topic here's an idea for what it's worth.
The question I ask is : is the idea that work helps you achieve a better wealthiness, higher wages, a richer cultural life, and so on, is this idea still valid these days ?
I would suggest it's only partly valid.
My feeling is that 50 years ago or maybe less those who had the best jobs were those who worked most and worked best.
My impression is that, nowadays, those who get the better jobs are less and less those who work most and best but rather  those who know best how to "sell themselves". Those who can easily convince an employer to hire them because they have that particular skill in highlighting their own assets.
More and more depends on your performance during a hiring interview.

In the past, if you were, say, a mason looking for work, you just went to a construction site and say "i'm available" and they would hire you. And they would keep you if you worked well. Nowadays, you have to send a CV and be interviewed.

Also, there would be a lot to be said about the influence of mass media which often display people who lead an easy life and don't have to work much to be wealthy. How does that influence the way the younger generations sees the usefulness of work ?

And maybe we should have started by *defining* *what "work" is.*

1.If work is (this goes for me, for other people it would be different things) playing and writing music or translating (or designing 3D objects for computer games and sceneries), then _work is not really work,_ in the sense of something tedious that you have to do if you want to "deserve what you get".
In this case, it's very hard to stop me working. I could spend days and nights doing this "work".

2. If work is screwing bolts in a factory eight hours a day with the noise around, low wages and so on, then would you allow me to think that...er...I don't know exactly what I would like to be allowed to think, actually


----------



## zebedee

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I didn't have that much trouble.
> 
> To come back to the topic here's an idea for what it's worth.
> The question I ask is : is the idea that work helps you achieve a better wealthiness, higher wages, a richer cultural life, and so on, is this idea still valid these days ?
> I would suggest it's only partly valid.
> My feeling is that 50 years ago or maybe less those who had the best jobs were those who worked most and worked best.
> 
> Also, there would be a lot to be said about the influence of mass media which often display people who lead an easy life and don't have to work much to be wealthy. How does that influence the way the younger generations sees the usefulness of work ?



That's partly what I was thinking of when I posed the original question. 

What role models are easily available in today's society for younger generations to follow? "Famous" people, the majority of whom owe their status of "rich and famous" to their image being marketed by the media. When did society stop rewarding thinkers and doers and start rewarding fame for fame's sake?

zeb


----------



## asm

I'm not sure I agree that "thinkers" had been rewarded as much as doers, but that's another story. In my opinion, after the WWII the economy followed a production trend (or fad), in the 80's it turned into quality, and 90's turned into service. 

I do not know what you mean by "famous". Just people like hollywood and sport-entretainment stars? If it is "them", my humble "answer" would be that the turning point was set by the media and responded to the change I mentioned above. When service became important the entretainment industry rose to the sky, but not only hollywood, it happened with computers, music, TV, video games, etc.
I still remember a person who was extremelly upset by realizing that the new fad (20 years ago) was to "show" the brand label in some shirts and sweaters, when the traditional use was to have them face to the "inside" of the garment. Brand recognition (with attached price), media influence, product "customization" were part of the turning point.

Other possible reasons:

Within the family, I'd say, some parenting beliefs and behaviors also helped to make kids getting things without earning them.

Post-modernism (I am not against or in favor) has also an important role in this change.

Another possible vain = our culture of the "disposable"; buy it, use it and throw it out.




			
				zebedee said:
			
		

> That's partly what I was thinking of when I posed the original question.
> 
> What role models are easily available in today's society for younger generations to follow? "Famous" people, the majority of whom owe their status of "rich and famous" to their image being marketed by the media. When did society stop rewarding thinkers and doers and start rewarding fame for fame's sake?
> 
> zeb


----------



## cristóbal

zebedee said:
			
		

> That's partly what I was thinking of when I posed the original question.
> 
> What role models are easily available in today's society for younger generations to follow? "Famous" people, the majority of whom owe their status of "rich and famous" to their image being marketed by the media. When did society stop rewarding thinkers and doers and start rewarding fame for fame's sake?
> 
> zeb



I think the issue "nowadays" is not a rewarding for being a thinker or doer but rather a very particular and well-thought out "appointment" because they are not rewarding artists for their qualities but are instead, and of course not in all cases, *creating* these famous people in order for them to be a product to be sold and to be used until they run out of steam in the market.


----------



## cristóbal

And you know, re-reading what I just posted, I think all I did was reiterate what had already been said...   My main point was the last line, that these famous people are being "bestowed" their fame for the purpose of turning them into a usable and sellable product.


----------



## Phryne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> As an aside, Wal-mart seems to be doing a very fine job of redistributing wealth from the US to less-developed (leaving all euphemisms out, ' poorer'!) nations:
> 
> https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20040308/RRUBIN08



I’m sorry to disagree with you Cuchu. Wal-Mart or any other transnational does not redistribute any “wealth” to “poor” countries, and they do not bring any decent jobs either. First of all, this companies set their lovely supermarkets in areas where there were already business that took care of those type of needs. Profits that used to end up in the hand of locals, now feed big cats abroad. (I don’t see any redistribution there. Quite the opposite I would venture to say) 
Most people that fill these jobs were those who worked or owned the previously mentioned small business. Those jobs that used to be decently paid are now much lower, and employees work under terrible conditions. Paid with dirty money to the corrupt federal and local governments, laws change for the worse leaving workers unprotected. All the good twentieth century civil right laws went down the drain. The work conditions of these people are similar to those at beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Most employees work under 3 month contracts that may or may not be renewed (they never know), with no benefits, no health insurance, no unemployment, no paid sick or vacation days, no extra hours that are coerced to take. Employees get fired for no reason and they have nowhere to complain to. Salaries are less than a dollar an hour, impossible to satisfy minimum needs for a family. If they try to join an Union or complain about any unfair practice at work, they can be fired, bullied, threatened, physically abused. These companies hire people to do the dirty job and “send the message: If you complain, you get physically beaten up”. 
I personally know people who work or have worked in places like these. I know poor people who have no opportunity because they are so poor that they can’t afford the bus or the photocopies they need in order to go to school. I know other people who have 6-year college degrees, are civil engineers and are “stuck” in these companies because they have a family to feed. If they lose their job, all they can wish for is to work for another of these companies. Maybe because they are over 40 so they can’t find work doing what they have studied. 
Besides the bribed government officials, I can only think of the consumer gaining out of this situation. But guess what? The consumer is the same people that have these trash-contract jobs—as we call them. It is a vicious circle. People welcomed these companies until they became unemployed and their choice was between working at Wal-Mart, or be part of the unemployment force.
I can’t either think of any benefits that children who work at sweatshops might receive from these companies. 2, 3 cents an hour is not good even under any currency exchange. This kids work when they should be in school. In many cases they can’t afford a place to sleep, so they sleep in the same factories. (Should I mention how do these places look like?) It was reported sexual harassment and abuse in many cases. And by the time they are 25, or so, they are fired because they can’t be as precise as before. 
The world is much different today. I’m not necessarily against globalization, but this “get-as-much-profit-as-possible-regardless-of-human-suffering” goes against any “market law”. Building monopoly out of unfair practices is not desired by any neo-liberal economist either.  

PD: I apologize for my childish English....


----------



## cuchuflete

Phryne said:
			
		

> I’m sorry to disagree with you Cuchu. Wal-Mart or any other transnational does not redistribute any “wealth” to “poor” countries, and they do not bring any decent jobs either. .....PD: I apologize for my childish English....



Hello Phryne,

No need to apologize for your English...you express yourself with perfect clarity and great conviction.

Because you immediately jumped into the effects of Walmart and other 'big box' retailers on existing retail establishments (and you are perfectly correct in every word you wrote on that topic!) I have to assume that you didn't read the linked article, or even what I wrote.   It had nothing to do with the retail end of the supply chain.  It was about merchandise sourcing.

When you address that, I'll be glad to reply.  Just be sure not to throw the term "sweat shop" around to indict every supplier to a North American or European customer.  There are lots of sweat jobs, but not all merchandise destined for the rich nations comes from them.

And on the topic of labor rates of pennies per hour....if in fact that is the pay rate, how does it compare with other existing and available jobs in that particular marketplace?

I've spent some time in "low wage nation" factories owned by, or supplying, major US companies, and those that I visited were far cleaner than the ones run exclusively for the local economy.  Further, they paid higher wages, thus driving up the pay rates for the entire area, whether or not the other factories were involved in global commerce.  

As to the original statement...about 80% of Walmarts gross revenue last year was spent on merchandise...Cost of Goods, in accounting parlance.
If only one third of that was sourced from China and other developing nations, that meant an infusion of over 70 billion USD to those nations.

Ask the workers who received a piece of that inflow if they want the job or not.   I don't want their job, and I'm sure you don't either.  But what alternatives for employment did they and do they have? 

Capitalism is a nasty economic system.  Sadly, I've yet to learn of another one that works any better, and I've experienced a few that are a lot worse.

Un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## Phryne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Because you immediately jumped into the effects of Walmart and other 'big box' retailers on existing retail establishments (and you are perfectly correct in every word you wrote on that topic!) I have to assume that you didn't read the linked article, or even what I wrote.   It had nothing to do with the retail end of the supply chain.  It was about merchandise sourcing.
> 
> When you address that, I'll be glad to reply.  Just be sure not to throw the term "sweat shop" around to indict every supplier to a North American or European customer.  There are lots of sweat jobs, but not all merchandise destined for the rich nations comes from them. *You are right!!*
> 
> And on the topic of labor rates of pennies per hour....if in fact that is the pay rate, how does it compare with other existing and available jobs in that particular marketplace?
> 
> I've spent some time in "low wage nation" factories owned by, or supplying, major US companies, and those that I visited were far cleaner than the ones run exclusively for the local economy.  Further, they paid higher wages, thus driving up the pay rates for the entire area, whether or not the other factories were involved in global commerce.
> 
> As to the original statement...about 80% of Walmarts gross revenue last year was spent on merchandise...Cost of Goods, in accounting parlance.
> If only one third of that was sourced from China and other developing nations, that meant an infusion of over 70 billion USD to those nations.
> 
> Ask the workers who received a piece of that inflow if they want the job or not.   I don't want their job, and I'm sure you don't either.  But what alternatives for employment did they and do they have?
> 
> Capitalism is a nasty economic system.  Sadly, I've yet to learn of another one that works any better, and I've experienced a few that are a lot worse.
> 
> Un saludo,
> Cuchu



Hello, Cuchu!! Actually, I did read your message and the attachment, but I missed most points   Sorry, I tend to jump into conclusions. 
Nevertheless, I don’t agree with the writer when he claims that Wal-Mart (or any transnational) redistribute wealth globally. Sadly I’m very ignorant about China’s labor situation before the installation of foreign factories. Also, you are right about that international companies are not necessarily the ones to blame, since locals take advantage as well, and sometimes it is impossible to find differences between how they treat their employees. Anyway, there is a correlation between the installation of these factories and new modes of distribution of wealth locally. They are also related to corrupted governments that allow this to happen and to the pressure given by international monetary institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. For instance, Argentina has been historically a country with a large middle class and great social laws that protected citizens from labor exploitation. Also, the country has been through periods of time where no money was owed to the IMF or any other institution (my point is that it’s not a poor country per se). The story afterwards is well known. Dictatorships were supported by economic institutions so that the country could be sunk in an astronomic debt, and therefore, it became confined to follow their so-called “recipes” that only favor to keep any country under economic control, paying unreal interest rates and imposing new labor laws that are only good to exploit workers and help big companies to concentrate wealth. In other words, they create the perfect environment for Wall-marts to settle and take advantage of its situation. So, how can any Wall-mart be good to create jobs when it’s linked to destroy jobs in the first place?
I have to admit that I don’t know what the best solution might be. However, from a humane point of view I can’t support the idea of wages ruled by market prices is good for workers when the market is being controlled by corruption and greed. Conversely, I can’t expect anybody paying better wages to be able to compete to these Wall-marts. The perfect free-market doesn’t exist and even if it did I would not agree to leave the crippled and those who need help behind. After all, we are human beings whose existence should not be reduced to accumulate wealth but to satisfy our basic natural needs and pursue happiness, without mess with other people’s lives ….

Siempre un gusto charlar con vos…


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Phryne,

I promised a reply once we were talking about the same topic, and so now, despite los párpados de plomo, tengo que cumplir.
It will be a little easier for me to reply within your text...I hope that is  ok with you.



			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> Hello, Cuchu!! Actually, I did read your message and the attachment, but I missed most points Sorry, I tend to jump into conclusions.
> Nevertheless, I don’t agree with the writer when he claims that Wal-Mart (or any transnational) redistribute wealth globally. Maybe I should re-read the article...I'm not sure if he said "wealth" or "income" or "jobs".  What clearly *is* being redistributed is employment. Jobs in manufacturing are chasing lower wages. This is taking funds out of the wealthier nations' economies and placing at least a portion of those foregone wages elsewhere. If we think of "wealth" as riches, I am quick to agree with you. If we think of wage income, I have to maintain that major transfers have occured and will continue to do so. Sadly I’m very ignorant about China’s labor situation before the installation of foreign factories. Also, you are right about that international companies are not necessarily the ones to blame, since locals take advantage as well, and sometimes it is impossible to find differences between how they treat their employees. Anyway, there is a correlation between the installation of these factories and new modes of distribution of wealth locally. They are also related to corrupted governments that allow this to happen and to the pressure given by international monetary institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. For instance, Argentina has been historically a country with a large middle class and great social laws that protected citizens from labor exploitation. Santa Madre! You write even longer run-on sentences than I do!  I agree with what you have said. Also, the country has been through periods of time where no money was owed to the IMF or any other institution (my point is that it’s not a poor country per se). The story afterwards is well known. Dictatorships were supported by economic institutions so that the country could be sunk in an astronomic debt, and therefore, it became confined to follow their so-called “recipes” that only favor to keep any country under economic control, paying unreal interest rates and imposing new labor laws that are only good to exploit workers and help big companies to concentrate wealth.  Absolutamente sí. But now we are intermingling at least three distinct, though related topics. In other words, they create the perfect environment for Wall-marts to settle and take advantage of its situation. So, how can any Wall-mart be good to create jobs when it’s linked to destroy jobs in the first place? It is not concerned with destroying jobs. It is seeking low cost goods from domestic --EEUU--suppliers, who in turn are producing or contracting to purchase those goods in low wage environments. The difference really doesn't matter that much, as the jobs are destroyed in the US, and re-created elsewhere. While the net cost is lower, it may or may not be lower in terms of purchasing power parity for the new wage earners. I suspect that it is lower by any objective and relative measure, but I cannot prove this.
> I have to admit that I don’t know what the best solution might be. However, from a humane point of view I can’t support the idea of wages ruled by market prices is good for workers when the market is being controlled by corruption and greed. On an emotional level, we are in complete accord on this. Sadly, economics is not usually a function of emotions, other than in promotions based on fear, greed and sex!  Conversely, I can’t expect anybody paying better wages to be able to compete to these Wall-marts.Niche retailers can compete with a substantially higher cost structure, but that requires product differentiation, generally through the provision of a notably higher service level. Plain example: I sometimes buy from a higher priced merchant when I find value in the advice and reliable service they offer. A Walmart purchase is a commodity acquisition decision: price is all that matters.  The perfect free-market doesn’t exist and even if it did I would not agree to leave the crippled and those who need help behind. After all, we are human beings whose existence should not be reduced to accumulate wealth but to satisfy our basic natural needs and pursue happiness, without mess with other people’s lives …. And I share your view, but also lack a useful solution.
> 
> Siempre un gusto charlar con vos…Igualmente MJ!! Gracias.



Finally, after spewing rationality at you, I will confess that I frequently make conscious decisions to shop locally at family-owned shops. The prices are sometimes higher than at the local branch of the major supermarket chain or hardware store. I do it because I want my neighbors to stay in business, became I want to be a contributing member of a community that is not run from Bentonville, Arkansas or Atlanta or some other faraway city. I believe, both rationally and emotionally, in communities. They are not always terribly efficient in a rational sense, but they have value that cannot be measured in a financial statement. 

C.


----------



## asm

I cannot agree more with you in this regard. To support your point: some people say that the market dictates these rules, and wages are only a response to those "market" forces, they cannot do anything about it. However, those same arguments (free market) seem to be irrelevant with other issues like dumping and monopolies.
When a company develops certain strength to become a monopoly, the state intervenes to split that company appart to avoid the effects of that monoply, or when a company offers certain products with prices that are below their costs (but will benefit the company), again, the regulations make the company pay a lot of fines and compensatory fees.
I am not in favor of monoplies or dumping, I am only saying that those "natural" market forces are manipulated differently, accordingly to the people who are in power, not by the forces themselves.

Anybody could argue: monopolies and dumping negatively affect the market, they do not promote competition and development, they are bad  (I agree). However, that's exactly what low wages do with REAL people. What can you say about companies, negative effects, competition, loyalty, over-prices, supply and demand laws, etc. against monopolies and dumping (just to mention two) that could not apply to wages?

Why are we so divided when we analyse the "market" and favor some forces, but not others?
There are many answers to this question. Phryne says, there is no "perfect free-market", and I agree with her 200%, and in her response there are some of the possible answers (just some): corruption and greed, there should be many more. 
Why do "goverments" protect "markets" while at the same time they cannot  (?)protect "humans"?

I accept that there are flaws in this rationale and many people might argue against me, but I cannot see a flawless argument against the whole idea.

Phryne, you are right   (two thumbs up!!)

"After all, we are human beings whose existence should not be reduced to accumulate wealth but to satisfy our basic natural needs and pursue happiness, without mess with other people’s lives …."

The founding fathers couldn't be "more proud" of you and your statement

(te aventaste un diez )



			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> I have to admit that I don’t know what the best solution might be. However, from a humane point of view I can’t support the idea of wages ruled by market prices is good for workers when the market is being controlled by corruption and greed. Conversely, I can’t expect anybody paying better wages to be able to compete to these Wall-marts. The perfect free-market doesn’t exist and even if it did I would not agree to leave the crippled and those who need help behind. After all, we are human beings whose existence should not be reduced to accumulate wealth but to satisfy our basic natural needs and pursue happiness, without mess with other people’s lives ….
> 
> Siempre un gusto charlar con vos…


----------



## LV4-26

asm said:
			
		

> Other possible reasons:
> 
> Within the family, I'd say, some parenting beliefs and behaviors also helped to make kids getting things without earning them.
> 
> Post-modernism (I am not against or in favor) has also an important role in this change.
> 
> Another possible vain = our culture of the "disposable"; buy it, use it and throw it out.


These might be interesting angles. 
I'm not sure this belief that you can/should be instananeously gratified is totally new. I do believe there have always been people (I include myself) who felt, consciouly or not, that they should get instant pleasure without having to do anything for it.
However, this seems to have spread a lot among the youngsters in recent years. I know that because I teach music to children of various ages and I've noticed that they just don't understand why they should do any homework, for example.
What has changed in parental behavious in recent years ? Well some psychologists and especially pediatricians claim that, some years ago, babies were generally fed at fixed hours, for example. Whereas they tend to be fed "on demand" nowadays (as soon as they start crying). And that there's a specific stage in the child development which psychologists call "precocious frustation" ("I'm not my mother's "owner" or something of the sort) and that this stage is essential and _should_ take place. The general idea is that "we are manufacturing tyrant children"

I don't know how much credit we can give to this analysis but as I've recently read a newspapers article about it I just wanted to submit it.


----------



## asm

cada vez que estudio mas de esto me queda claro que las clases sociales modifican casi todo. En la educacion es palpable, hay estudios en cualquier cantidad y calidad que demuestran el efecto del nivel socioeconomico en el desempeno, esto al menos sucede en los EUA que es en donde estoy estudiando este efecto.

De lo que tu dices acerca de conocer el valor del trabajo es algo mas adecuado a la clase media. En este nivel hay mas claridad de que si progresas en lo personal puedes ayudarte en otros ambitos, como el economico.
El pobre (solo estoy describiendo, no calificando) se geneera una especie de proteccion para que no le afecte tanto el ser conciente de que no tiene. estoy hablando de los que son realmente pobres, no de los que batallan para sacar las cosas pero que finalmente lo logran.
te hablo del que no sabe leer (o casi no sabe), del que sabe que no va a progresar porque no sabe que tiene el potencial.
Te voy a enlistar lo que dice la Dra ruby Payne acerca de la pobreza:
1.- La pobreza es relativa, 2.- la pobreza existe en todas las razas, 3.- Hay pobreza generacional y situacional y son diferentes, 4.- la pobreza tiene patrones, pero como todo, hay excepciones, 5.- Las escuelas operan bajo las normas y los valores de las clases medias, 6.- Los individuos traen con sigo las reglas ocultas de la clase en la que fueron criados, 7.- Hay diferencias culturales en la pobreza 8.- Acaba diciendo que no hay que "excusarlos" ni "reganarlos" sino ensenarles.
No tengo espacio para lo que sigue, pero es impresionante ver sus patrones que definen cada clase, creo que tiene una validez considerable.
Ejempls: el dinero: para los pobres es para gastarse, para la clase media es para ser administrado y para la clase alta es para ser conservado e invertido. El enfoque es diferente..
Para no alargar mas esto te digo acerca del destino, los pobres creen que no se puede hacer mucho para aliviar la suerte (fate), la clase media cree en las elecciones (choices), una buena eleccion hoy puede cambiar tu futuro, la clase alta cree en su obligacion "nobelezca" (nobelesse oblige).
Quizas no nos damos cuenta, pero si la idea de qeu el mundo se ve con el color del cristal con que se mira, yo podria decir que ese cristal nos lo dieron en la cuna.

Saludos





			
				cristóbal said:
			
		

> Estimado asm, me has impresionado con tus palabras.
> A lo mejor no tengo suficiente experiencia ni conocimiento para dar una respuesta tan bien pensada.
> Pero, eso no me va a quitar las ganas.
> 
> 
> 
> Yo no sé si estaría completamente de acuerdo contigo en cuanto a tu tésis sobre esta cultura que hemos llamado "la cultura de la gratificación". Sobre todo lo encuentro difícil estar de acuerdo con tu última frase que he citado arriba. Quizá hoy en día esto sí que es verdad, pero yo me atrevería a decir que históricamente la probeza causa que uno que está dentro de ella tenga presente sus recursos limitados y también porque está pendiente del verdadero fruto de su trabajo, sea lo que sea, (injusto o no) el pobre tiene mejor conocimiento de lo que valga su trabajo y así sabe con cierta 'sabiduría' de experiencia lo que va a sacar de él.
> 
> Sobre todo, creo que el sacrificio es un tema muy conocido en el mundo de la pobreza... a lo mejor cuando decimos que ellos sólo tienen vista del futuro inmediato estamos realmente haciéndoles un deservicio.
> 
> O sea, yo creo que la cuestión aquí se trata del 'valor del trabajo' y hoy en día este supuesto 'desconocimiento' del valor del trabajo es algo que a lo mejor trasciende todas las clases.
> 
> Pero bueno... no me acabo de convencer que esto sea un problema de clases.


----------

