I'm sorry to necro this, but this is just not right. Morality does not have to be justified by any external entity that "transcends the immediate". That is false.

The Law is not based on God's existence either. You are fabricating those connections, where there neither need to be or is any.

The law may be out of our personal control, but it is inside our own personal control to follow it or not. It is also important to note that the law and our society's morality is not a fixed thing, it changes and morphs as our environment change. Laws spring up to cover things that were never thought of 100 years ago, and old laws are deleted and forgotten.

Morality is like a trend (zeitgeist, "spirit of the time") that emerges from a society that develops norms and standards for behavior. Nothing more.

>> ^filantropo:
JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.
Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.
To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.
To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.
Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"
But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"

My point was that total control of our life isn't really possible and that, as some have said, freedom is crystalized in our minds' imagination. That said, of course at a certain degree we are in control, and if we're open to changes in our values, like you said, it'll only help us truly be Moral, without the need of an exterior power (be it law or god as I mentioned), but solely with the interactions with the world from which we are able to shape and mutate ourselves constantly.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Why does an empowered control over one's life automatically denote amorality? I feel urges to cheat on my spouse, I dont act on them but I feel them. So do emperor penguins for fucks sake though! You dont have to be religious to be a moral person. Or in other words, just because I dont believe in god doesnt mean i dont believe in anything, there are various moral principles i believe in and follow quite rigidly.

What is important here, is that I am always open to the idea that I can re-evaluate my opinions. If my morals or my relationships change, I will change as well. I know who I am and who i want to be, and having freedom doesnt mean I have to act on every impulse I come across. It means I have the choice to shape my character how I see fit.

Feel free to continue the discussion as i always appreciate thoughtful comments.
-Jon

In reply to this comment by filantropo:
JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.

Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.

To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.

To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.

Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"

But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"

Why does an empowered control over one's life automatically denote amorality? I feel urges to cheat on my spouse, I dont act on them but I feel them. So do emperor penguins for fucks sake though! You dont have to be religious to be a moral person. Or in other words, just because I dont believe in god doesnt mean i dont believe in anything, there are various moral principles i believe in and follow quite rigidly.

What is important here, is that I am always open to the idea that I can re-evaluate my opinions. If my morals or my relationships change, I will change as well. I know who I am and who i want to be, and having freedom doesnt mean I have to act on every impulse I come across. It means I have the choice to shape my character how I see fit.

Feel free to continue the discussion as i always appreciate thoughtful comments.
-Jon

In reply to this comment by filantropo:
JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.

Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.

To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.

To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.

Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"

But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"

JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.

Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.

To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.

To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.

Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"

But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"

^Well the women used to be quite fit and the health service used to work quite well until we were invaded by Burger King and McDonalds, now both are unhealthy, overworked and bloated messes...

...

Helping Georgians or helping Americans is a false dichotomy, and is especially weak when you consider the cost of this effort opposed to, say, the war in Iraq. This idea of saving money through a more hands-off foreign policy is a strong point for Paul in general, but he's overworking it here.

Americans inability to find Georgia is immaterial, and I don't think he's going to get a lot of traction on the general idea of "let's not waste money by sending people humanitarian aid".

Now there's a more general point of "who should we be cheering for" in this, but Paul doesn't provide anything terribly convincing on this front. I've heard convincing arguments on both sides. Anyways, what I wish Paul had been asking was more pointed on this in particular - are we sure the Russians are the bad guys here?

You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.


Lemme tell you a little about Deedub81: I was raised with 5 siblings plus a foster sister. We lived in a 4 bedroom condominium in San Jose, CA. My parents got one room, my foster sister had another, my other two sisters had the third room, and us four boys shared the fourth. My mother and father both worked two jobs while I was in my elementary and middle school years, both of them have a BA from ASU. We ate oatmeal for breakfast, PB&J for lunch, and veggies from the garden with beans and rice for dinner. My mom would pick me up from school, when I was just 10 years old, and I would sit on the tailgate of our station wagon and throw the newspapers my mom had just rolled. I know "poor."

After I graduated high school, I took a job at the Grill on the golf course of a private resort in the Silicon Valley of California. The entry fee for membership in this club was $250,000. I was on a first name basis with many of the members -some of the wealthiest men in the world: John Chambers, Thomas Siebel, Ronnie Lott, and many others. Some of them would golf 7 or 8 times a month, often with only their caddy as a companion. One of the highlights of my job was the time I spent with these men as I served them their lunch on the terrace overlooking the golf course. My favorite thing to do was to ask them how they got to be where they were. How did they start? What made them successful?

Now I'm self-employed. I supply factory direct construction materials and arrange labor for large, custom built homes owned by some of the wealthiest men in Colorado. Today, for example, I spent all day working with a developer on his 15,000sf home. I've been working with him for the past 3 months and we're not done yet. In short, I know "wealthy."

The wealthy and the poor have more in common than you give them credit for. Many modern millionaires live in middle-class neighborhoods, work full-time and shop in discount stores like the rest of us. I tend to believe that millionaires are more average than most other people think.

In an article in the Reader's Digest, Kristyn Kusek Lewis writes, "The reality is that 80 percent of Americans worth at least $5 million grew up in middle-class or lesser households."

T. Harv Eker, author of Secrets of the Millionaire Mind says,“For the rich, it’s not about getting more stuff. It’s about having the freedom to make almost any decision you want.”

Being a self-made millionaire is the "American Dream" realized, isn't it? I'm not saying they don't have a responsibility to use their success for good. I do believe, however, that they should have the freedoms that we're all entitled to. They already pay a higher dollar amount than the rest of the country. Why isn't that good enough?



Back to McCain and his wealth: How could you possibly say that McCain led a life free of hardship? His family wasn't wealthy, he married into wealth. Also, consider the time he served in the military. Do you consider that "ease?"

Does the fact that Obama had, in your opinion, a tougher life than McCain make him a better candidate for President? Not at all. That has nothing to do with qualifications. When has Obama ever stood up to his party's leadership when he knows something isn't right? I can tell you when McCain has. What has Obama done to extinguish Pork Barrel spending? I can tell you what McCain's done. When has Obama reached across the isle to get legislation passed? Not very often.

Don't get me started (and I don't even like McCain)! I didn't choose John McCain to represent the republican party. It's just so hard to keep my mouth shut when the other option, at this point, is clearly a lesser candidate. All this talk of Obama's lack of experience is getting old, but they have a really good point. Of course, that's just my opinion.



I didn't mean for you to believe that I think the only cause of homelessness is laziness. What I mean to say is, thanks to the many social programs already in place, there is no reason for anyone to sleep without a roof over their head, warm clothes, and a full belly.


Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of us waste opportunities. I'm curious, what opportunities did most of your neighbors not have?



This question remains unanswered: I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.




Commentary on the more stable economy in other countries: I was in Japan this summer with my chamber choir. This was our second tour in Japan. I look up to the Japanese people for many different reasons. Americans could learn a lot from their attitudes, philosophies; not to mention their economy. One thing in particular stood out to me on this last trip. I couldn't ignore it. Everywhere I turned it was staring me in the face. "Made in Japan"

We have strayed too far from that kind of patriotism, haven't we?



I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?





In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Wow, quite a straw man argument you started off with. I'm more thinking places like Germany and Sweeden, or even Japan as countries who manage their economies more wisely than we do.

Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.

Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.

I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.

"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.

As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?

I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.

In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.

As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.

McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.

Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).

As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).

Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).


Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Wow, quite a straw man argument you started off with. I'm more thinking places like Germany and Sweeden, or even Japan as countries who manage their economies more wisely than we do.

Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.

Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.

I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.

"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.

As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?

I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.

In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.

As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.

McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.

Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).

As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).

Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).


Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

One pretty bad side-effect of the Sandvich is the the lulz potential. I've been on multiple servers, with a class limit in effect, where the heavies just sit in spawn all game eating Sandvich after Sandvich...remorselessly (and deliciously) taunting those who actually want to play Heavy with the sound of their own gluttony.

On another note, the Sandvich is the only one I've unlocked so far and it's very handy on those maps with very defined choke-points/areas of attrition; gives an overworked/under appreciated medic some breathing room to heal the others before the big push. Two heavies, one with Sasha and another with Natasha, and two medics, one with kritzkrieg and another with normal uber, can be quite devastating when pushing together. Kudos to Valve for making each major update smoother and more seamless, with more and more relevant achievements and less ridiculous ones, than the last. Not mention the ever-increasing frequency of them.

I never was good with economics, so I am just relaying this from my point of view as a single, childless male. Changing those traits could change my view, but I'm not sure.

About the 401K, I is bad with ekonomiks. But I mentioned the profit sharing has not been taken away, or even lowered.

You think politicking is bad because it hurts naive people, but I don't think naive people should be able to vote in the first place, so...yeah. Fuck 'em. Wal-Mart can tell me who to vote for all day long if they wish, as long as I'm clocked in for it.

I understand if a worker works overtime they should be compensated. And at Wal-Mart, they are. It's frowned upon, but they don't break the law by not paying overtime already worked. They just found an inventive way to remove the danger of overpaying workers--don't let them work overtime. And if you want to work overtime? Go get a second job. I can barely stand that place for eight hours; why would I want overtime?

I don't need to supervise the employees to know they're all being fed regularly. 70 percent of them are overweight or obese. Trust me, nobody is passing out and dying because their bodies aren't receiving enough food. If you add the weight of customers and the weight of the workers, I'm surprised Wal-Mart hasn't pulled us into the sun by now.

>> ^NetRunner:
@thinker247, I'm kinda surprised at your position on unions. To quickly run through your points:
On wages, Wal-Mart needs to compete with other unionized employers, so they have to offer decent pay. The shift differential is required by law (again, pushed by union efforts). The 40 cent raise I'm sure you earned, but I'm also sure you'll hit a wage ceiling quickly, unless you advance to a higher position within the company, or move to a different job entirely.
On 401k and profit sharing, cutting back on those things affect you. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "why would anyone put their 401k in one company", we're talking about corporate matching of contribution to the fund, not about how the funds are diversified. The idea behind profit sharing is that you're tied to the company's profit -- reducing the percentage rate at which it's done, or eliminating the program altogether is against your interests, and results in less money paid to you. Unions would fight both moves, because Wal-Mart is definitely in good shape right now.
Advocacy of politics by individuals is fine, but requiring employees to hear one-sided propaganda is questionable at best. I know you're solid in your beliefs, but people who're naive and trusting might buy into it, without realizing that it's actually counter to their own interests. To me, this is a bit like separation of church and state -- I shouldn't be forced to listen to political propaganda in order to keep my job.
As for overtime, you're describing the corporate reaction to the overtime laws unions helped get passed. They do everything they can to minimize overtime pay, even if a particular individual wants to work overtime hours to get more money. It does mean no one gets overworked, but without unions, there wouldn't have been any consideration of that at all.
As for no one starving at Wal-Mart, I doubt it's a blanket condition for every Wal-Mart everywhere, but I'll also point out that people who're in that situation won't advertise it. Unless you're personally supervising everyone at your Wal-Mart to ensure they've eaten each day, it'd be pretty easy to hide skipping a lunch.
Okay, so that wasn't quick. I promise I won't charge overtime.

@thinker247, I'm kinda surprised at your position on unions. To quickly run through your points:

On wages, Wal-Mart needs to compete with other unionized employers, so they have to offer decent pay. The shift differential is required by law (again, pushed by union efforts). The 40 cent raise I'm sure you earned, but I'm also sure you'll hit a wage ceiling quickly, unless you advance to a higher position within the company, or move to a different job entirely.

On 401k and profit sharing, cutting back on those things affect you. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "why would anyone put their 401k in one company", we're talking about corporate matching of contribution to the fund, not about how the funds are diversified. The idea behind profit sharing is that you're tied to the company's profit -- reducing the percentage rate at which it's done, or eliminating the program altogether is against your interests, and results in less money paid to you. Unions would fight both moves, because Wal-Mart is definitely in good shape right now.

Advocacy of politics by individuals is fine, but requiring employees to hear one-sided propaganda is questionable at best. I know you're solid in your beliefs, but people who're naive and trusting might buy into it, without realizing that it's actually counter to their own interests. To me, this is a bit like separation of church and state -- I shouldn't be forced to listen to political propaganda in order to keep my job.

As for overtime, you're describing the corporate reaction to the overtime laws unions helped get passed. They do everything they can to minimize overtime pay, even if a particular individual wants to work overtime hours to get more money. It does mean no one gets overworked, but without unions, there wouldn't have been any consideration of that at all.

As for no one starving at Wal-Mart, I doubt it's a blanket condition for every Wal-Mart everywhere, but I'll also point out that people who're in that situation won't advertise it. Unless you're personally supervising everyone at your Wal-Mart to ensure they've eaten each day, it'd be pretty easy to hide skipping a lunch.

Okay, so that wasn't quick. I promise I won't charge overtime.

Okay, I'm not sure, but I think I'm the only person here who actually works for Wal-Mart.

The minimum wage in Idaho is the same as the federal, which now is 6.55 an hour. Yet I started at 9.10 an hour, and I received a 40 cent raise within two months. If I move to overnights, I will receive a 1.50 an hour shift differential, putting me at 11 dollars an hour. Not too bad for the cost of living here. And I didn't need a union to negotiate that for me.

In the video they warn of Wal-Mart's downsizing of its 401K and profit sharing incentives. My answer...so what? Why would anybody put their entire 401K into one company? Didn't Enron's employees learn that the hard way eight years ago? And besides, everyone in my store just received a 250 dollar profit-sharing bonus for passing the sales goal. Once again, no union was needed.

About the politicking...I don't care if someone from corporate tells me who to vote for. They won't fire me for voting for Obama, because 1) I don't need to tell them about my vote and 2) I'm not voting, anyway. Doesn't matter to me in the slightest bit. And besides, if they fire me for that I'd sue them, and they know it. They are much more afraid of a lawsuit than they are of a union.

And about the overtime? If you get it, they have a talk with you about it, then remind you to leave early next time. Some of my friends that work there, if they have an hour of overtime, will be told to take a two-hour lunch. That isn't to cheat them out of overtime, because they aren't supposed to be scheduled that many hours, anyway. Don't think of it as Wal-Mart saving money; think of it as workers not being overworked. And in the end, nobody complains about a two-hour lunch, anyway.

Oh, and the ending, with the guy talking about Wal-Mart employees starving at their lunchtimes? I don't know if he's working at the Ethiopian Wal-Mart, but I've never seen anybody go hungry because they don't earn enough. 17K a year is below the poverty level for a family of four? Yeah, if that's the only income for your family! I work with a woman who has five kids, and she does just fine. You know why? Because her husband also works full-time. It's called "family planning," and if you're starving to death in the break room...wtf is wrong with you?

--
I don't care for Wal-Mart much, but that's just because I hate dealing with its customers all day at the deli. Talk about dredging the gene pool for scraps!

I make a good living at Wal-Mart, and I don't care that they have no union, because they don't need one. IMO.

According to Wikipedia,

The music video was banned from MTV because it showed people jumping in front of trains to kill themselves, though it is also thought that the real reason it was banned may have been to make sure it "didn't give people ideas" about overwork.

"bigotry and hatred by the insane."

Inflammatory rhetoric is common among familiars. Above....why I can't stand WIKI-full of armchair editorializing-a reference for special interest at times at best, tinctured with facts, figures but on subjects like religion, politics, sexuality, or anything controversial, a unilateral, masturbatory back-patting hand, on the end of a stick. Not that the information above is not correct, but in most reference material, editorials, or TRUE journalism, which is what the above is attempting, one leaves their personal position at home.

This is not really the point I was trying to convey, and perhaps you should know how I feel about homosexuality, religion, and atheists. But first......
What was your personal motivation, for starting this thread? Are you an atheist?? Are you a homosexual? Do you think all Christians (i meant to spell it Christ-stains before) are insane, for believing in God??

I think this preacher is an idiot. I also believe, that he is a manifestation of the paradigm, just as black or covert ops and secret government activities are......just as the phenomena of the United State's diseased bodies from eating the shit they are sold and that is readily available, is the reason our health care system is going to shit....just like two generations of children and young adults, obsessed with the internets and video games whose parents who are not really parents at all, are overworked to keep them good cattle breeders, and herders....just as the morality of just 50 years ago is ancient history, to the detriment of those who laud her demise and the replacement thereof, with anything fucking goes....just like turning on the television, to a show like Good Morning America, nets the viewer of a steady stream of the magnificent culture and heritage of Islamic countries, not that it is not so, but this is what we get, to replace information of pertinent to what is meaningful and true.....Lifestyles of the empire builders, puppets, and pawns.

You really don't want to know what I think, do you????



Ok. Homosexuality. Equal rights. Name culture in the history of civilization, who granted wholesale, a checklist of privileges and equal rights to the homosexual minority, because they screamed, whined, and cried in the streets, and compared their plight, to that of slaves, former slaves, descendants of slaves, or other such minorities? None that survived much longer........These are signs of the goddamn times man, like the pathetic back and forth, between atheists and christains, evolution and creation, black or white, this or that.

We have much more important issues to be concerned with, as a world, than homosexual weddings, bi-polar preachers in the news (and their children's pathetic imprinting), or whether or not it was the big bang, or Kwai Chang Kang, started the universe......

Fellas, fellas. The Cleveland Steamer went out of style back in '02, this video is proof that it's been relegated to the realm of awkward, elbow-y teenage experimentation and possibly overworked Japanese husbands' stress relief. The new scene is all up in this Angry Pirate business, ferreal.