An interesting bit from that Wiki link:
"It is believed that a contributing factor in the accident was the JR West policy of schedule punctuality. As a result of this, Masataka Ide, JR West adviser who played a major role in enforcing the punctuality of the company's trains, announced that he would resign in June 2005 at the company's annual shareholder meeting, with the company's chairman and president resigning in August."

Executives taking responsibility for things? Woah. An unfamiliar concept in America...

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

I think it might have been Dodge v. Ford Motor Co that established the principle that the business owner has a responsibility to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees... however, on reviewing the case itself, it seems rather shaky. Ford appears more interested in withholding funds from rivals than the public good, and I think the result reflects that.

I'll see if I can find my original references, my googling wasn't conclusive either.

The guy who made this video really failed to give a thoughtful analysis of the situation. Before I comment, I will clarify that I do not agree with the thought or spirit behind Phils comments. I think they were crude, and fundamentally wrong on a few different levels. I do agree with Phil, however, that homosexuality is a sin. However, so is stealing and lying and cheating on your taxes, and so I do not single out homosexuals for their sins in particular. To do so would be hypocrtical because I fall short of the glory of God daily and I need Jesus just as much as they do.

My comment is that this situation has little to do with Phil or Duck dynasty; it is simply acting as a vehicle for a lot of pent up outrage and angst against the media and the politically correct culture. It's an overreaction, basically, because conservatives in general and Christians in particular feel marginalized by the current cultural climate.

It's an interesting cultural milestone because while Chick-fil-a was popular, it was never in the spotlight of the media or very much in the national consciousness. As a money making and ratings juggernaut, Duck Dynasty is right on the main nerve of it all, and so its fans, typically conservatives and Christians, cannot be easily ignored. Greed has given them a voice because the threat of a boycott is seen as a clear and present danger to many different bank accounts.

So we see two forces now pitted against eachother; one is the real motive of the corporation, which is to milk duck dynasty for every dollar it can. The other is its obligation to appease the politically correct establishment by blacklisting all who have violated the new cultural norms. A&E had no choice in the matter; they clearly had to do something. But, it is all just a facade; they dearly wish they had 100 Phils with 100 hit shows instead of just 1.

So, it is interesting to me because greed is taking the air out of the politically correct atmosphere. Because of Duck Dynastys popularity, the right actually has a louder voice in the culture than the left on this issue. If Duck Dynasty was just an obscure show, Phil would be history. Yet, because it generates so much wealth for shareholders, Phil is pretty much invincible. It all comes back to the bottom line, an idol to which seemingly anything can ultimately be sacrificed, even the progressive agenda itself.

I'm 5 months too late for this conversation, but whatever. @renatojj the problem here is you're misquoting @dag. Let's go with the phrase he actually used, "big earners like mining companies. "

Your comment assumes that he's proposing taxing individuals. @dag did not say that. He referred to the mining companies themselves. By squirreling the argument into an issue of personal taxation (and the incentives/disincentives to work based on tax), that's an unfair twist to the topic.

Mining companies are the topic in this case. The companies are extracting a national resource. They are benefiting from the country's own assets, therefore the country has every moral and economic right to demand its fair share. If the company can still make a profit, and heavens know they do, then you can't in any seriousness find fault with that.

Unlike individuals, who one may argue have a disincentive to work past a certain marginal tax rate, companies will keep operating in a given industry if they're still achieving profits.

The idea that taxes on mining profits (i.e. resource royalties) are *holding back* Australia is just a head-shaker. Where's evidence of that? How exactly would Australia be in a stronger position if it had less royalty revenues, and instead the cash was sprinted out of the country to whatever offshore haven allowed the company to retain profits for its shareholders, who may or may not even be Australian? How would that help?

yeah I gotta agree with @yellowc. paying for a news site doesn't give news sites much more incentive to be truthful and more integrity.

This is the sort of thing that makes me in favor of state run media, but that has a completely different set of pitfalls and high potential of corruption. My only hope about state run media is that at least it would be answerable to taxpayers instead of shareholders. If we didn't have so many low information voters and we had higher voter participation, I'd like to think state run media could work but yeah, I acknowledge that I'm just being wishful and realistically it wouldn't work.

so private news organizations: susceptible to sensationalism and private agendas. State run news: susceptible to simply becoming propaganda.

So what's the solution? How do you incentivise being factual and removing bias, or at the very least identify bias easily. Even biased news can be useful IMO as long as that bias is clearly known and open to criticism and counter arguments.

The biggest pet peeve I have with media is the mentality that every issue has 2 and only 2 ways of looking at it and they're both equally likely because current news media thrives on manufactured controversy. One side typically has more evidence than the other, yet it's presented as if both sides are equally plausible.

Monsanto has sued individual farmers that have obviously and intentionally preserved seeds from their fields that border Monsanto-bred fields. Even with such a willful and intentional violation, they've never won, and have had to pay all court costs. ZERO farmers have had to pay out-of-pocket because of Monsanto's legislation, despite several admitting to being out-of-bounds.

So, yeah, Monsanto sues people, some are shady, others not, but Monsanto hasn't made a dime, and with a mountain of precedence, it never will... but it does have to sue in order to be seen as "protecting" it's Intellectual Property. I don't think Monsanto is a "Good Guy"... it's a corporation and is only interested in increasing shareholder value.

I'm as liberal as you get, but I'm against GMO legislation without proof that GMO has health concerns. I feel like I'm rather consistent... I don't want to ban weapons, cars, marijuana or smoking unless and until it's been proven through studies to cause death. Weapons, cars and smoking have an inordinate amount of death associated with their use. The chance of a gun accident in a household with guns is INFINITELY higher than one without guns.

Anyways, the point is that there have not been peer-reviewed studies that show that GMO is in any way dangerous. I do believe that corporate-controlled life is dangerous, however.

Keep GMO, get rid of Monsanto. If you're against Monsanto, be against Monsanto... You won't win any battles by going against GMO, as it makes you sound as absurd as creationists, anti-vaxers or wifi-allergists.

RFlagg,

I agree with what you've stated about CEO compensation and taxation of the wealthy. I've said the same thing for years. Reagan did the country a disservice by cutting taxes for the wealthy by half. Now, the wealthy are crying at the prospect of a few percent increase. The wealthy are as guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Republicans as the poor are guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Democrats. After WWII, the top tax bracket was paying more than 90% in taxes. For decades after WWII the top bracket was 70%. We need to be heading back in that direction. We also need to be reducing welfare programs by retraining and educating beneficiaries and properly educating their children.

I also believe that corporations with public shareholders should have salary caps for CEOs and upper management. Too often, shareholders lose money on their investments while CEOs receive shockingly high compensation for failed leadership. A board of directors, when voting on compensation, is not looking at the best interests of the shareholder. A board member is seeing potential for themselves in bloated CEO and leadership compensation.

How sneaky those corporate Darwinist's Monkey elites have become, Encana is a Canadian Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encana

If there is ever backlash and finger pointing done in Washington well they can blame foreign entities....or have a good case to exemption of accountability by their monkey lawyers that EnCana is not bind to the same standard as Halliburton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton would be in the United Sates...

Clever Monkeys washing their duty hands...sick



Clever but not very smart..... this is not the type of human values I was tough by my parents...

I even serve my country for those elites Darwinist Monkeys ..... sick

This is evil at its best and pursues of wealth , creed is evil and in today's Universities around the world the Darwinist theories are tough and those of swore to his theories will thrive to the top as monkey's foundations (darwinist ideologies) of evolution and survival of the fetus theories is implanted into human harts....

This is the fruits of ignorance and Inhuman ideologies where Maximizing Shareholders values trump brotherhoods......

No matter what citizen say, do or wish for.....darwinist SS elites have taken over the world to form a super elite club base on Monkey principle....

The world has lost it virtues of human kindness and dignity when JFK was assassinated....

Welcome to the jungle.....

Ex-Gate Keeper of the lost free world....

If shareholders had the guts to vote out entire Boards of some of these public companies that award excessive CEO compensation, maybe things would change. I think they are too afraid of what it will do to the stock price and their own investment. Another conundrum.

I cannot speak to the laws in Canada, but in the US companies are required by law to provide as safe a work environment as possible. The unions did help to put these laws into place many years ago, but the laws are there now.

In your example, you clearly show that young, untrained people are able to make almost double the amount you did up until your recent job. In addition to this, they have very good job security and benefits. This is great for them, but as you said, if you don't want to support the union due to your own beliefs, you are going to be forced to work somewhere else. It does not matter if you are more skilled or a harder worker, simply because you are unwilling to join a union.

You also lay the blanket claim that the workers benefiting from these socialistic practices are not affecting the profit of the company in anyway, nor the output to the shareholders. You do not mention the costs passed along to the consumer of the final products, but lets overlook that for a second. You do not have the figures to show that the shareholders are making millions or billions, nor do you appear to have a basic understanding of what profits a shareholder gets from the net profit of a company. Typically the main profit a shareholder gets is the value of the stock increasing, not dividends paid to them from the net profit. Stock can increase in a union-based company, but it typically does so at a slower rate than a non-union company. This can also affect the solvency of the company, as it is harder to get loans or sell more stock when it is such a slow return.

Now to go back to the point I mentioned about the passing on of costs, the people primarily subsidizing your example employees are the people buying the products that they produce. Companies prefer to pass on these costs to the consumer if they can, simply because the nature of a corporation is to show a profit. No profit or small profits lead to the situation I mentioned above with the stock price and the desirability of the stock. So customers are paying for these extra wages, and may be forced to do so for some time, UNTIL products come in from non-union companies and undercut the price. Then you have a crashing stock price and or closing of the company, all because of an anachronistic union catering to unskilled or semi-skilled employees.

The simple point is, unions provide job security that should not exist in the type of jobs they typically are involved in. They provide wages and benefits far higher than those type of jobs should generally have. This is great for the people in the union, but not so great for everyone else. Nor is it sustainable in today's global economy, because unless your government closes it's economic borders to imports, there will be another country that will do the work for FAR less and undercut your product.

I am not a defender of all unions. There are many unions out there and I can't have the facts on all of them.

I have been in the workforce since I was a teenager in high school. I've worked a lot of jobs. All of them non-union. Not once did I have a wage that kept me above poverty. And these jobs were considered decent jobs. I never had a paycheck more than $12-13/h and Never did I have a job where I felt secure in my future.

My current job is the first job I've ever had that was unionized. I make about $22/h. Not an amazing paycheck for my line of work, definitely lower than in the public sector, but my job feels secure and I have a decent benefits package so I know my job will take care of my family.

I come from a northern town where forestry is the main industry. Mill jobs are all Union and it's a decent living. Most young people who start at the mill never leave because they just can't get that kind of pay anywhere else. To do so is to take a drastic cut in pay. I'm not talking a rich man's paycheck. I'm saying they can buy a house, feed their kids, buy a quad and go camping and fishing in the summer. Not extravagant but nothing to complain about.

Now, those mills like to restructure and cut and skimp and save money left, right and center. They run three shifts a day and they NEVER shut down. (OK, they shut down once a year at run-off but that's when the equipment gets serviced).

These mills make profits in the millions/billions for their shareholders. Don't you think for one second that without the unions, the Mills would cut salaries, skimp on safety and eliminate job security while slashing benefits. Everyone working those mills benefit from the presence of the union. They all pay dues, NO ONE complains and it's never been an issue. Ever.

If you don't want to be a union worker, you get a job in town at 1/3-1/2 the pay and no job security. No one holds a gun to your head and tells you where to work. But if you want to get a job with a pay check you can raise kids on, then let the union stand behind you and defend you.

Who decides what is fair working conditions and pay? I draw your attention to the recent Twinkie debacle where the Bakers Union was unwilling to accept a pay cut and benefit decrease to a 25 dollar an hour semi-skilled job. I've worked in a highly skilled computer field for 20+ years and it was at least 10 years before I made that level of pay and benefits, plus my 'pension' was a 409k plan.

In truth, Unions came about to counter practices such as monopolies, anti-competition agreements, and general mistreatment of unskilled to semi-skilled employees during the Industrial Revolution. Since then we have enacted numerous laws, which in all fairness many of which were furthered by the early unions, that have eliminated most of these practices. Unions now are simply a form of Socialism in which unskilled to semi-skilled employees, such as the ones in the aforementioned Baker's Union, are able to manipulate wages to a level that is anti-competitive and prevent non-union workers from replacing them.

In the United States, the outsourcing of labor has been partially driven by increasing costs of union partnership, which gives other countries a comparative advantage in labour, making it more efficient to perform labour-intensive work there. You cannot justify paying extreme wages and benefits to people with minimal skills that can be easily replaced. Corporations have duties to their customers and shareholders that go beyond protecting laborers that can easily be replaced.

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.