The bosses will never pay us our fair share unless we force them to
The bosses will never pay us our fair share unless we force them to
I like to think that I'm a very knowledgeable organizer, so if folks want some advice ask me in the comments!
You're viewing part of a thread.
Well, since you read so many details of someone claiming it as a myth in the article, you'd have also astutely read the parts where real world examples were provided of it happening.
I think you'd find that someone claiming a concept as a myth is more focused on academic definement.
The Big Bang Theory is a theory, it does not make it a myth, though many would claim it is. Do you want to highlight them too? We run with it based on real world evidence supporting the concept, but it's not a rule.
Edit: Also, I'm not linking it to worker's rights. I don't know why you are. Simply providing further explaination of how workers costs can cause inflation like any other cost to businesses, be that oil, infrastructure, tax, etc. This is why we protect small and medium sized businesses as much as workers. Bad things happen if either are in financial dire.
I read the article.
The discussion is descending even below the level of pointlessness.
You are not even understanding basic terms.
A scientific theory is given as...
an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method...
In turn, a myth is given as...
A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing; a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality.
The feeling is mutual.
I'd point out that I provided a concept used to explain things we've observed in economics for a long time.
You are challenging this as though it's my opinion.
I think you, and the points you are pulling from the information—I provided to you, none the less—are seeing this as a binary drive of economic inflation as though "it is" or "it is not", when the whole concept works as, "it is here, it is not here, it is of influence here, it is something else here". i.e. a contributing factor that has scalable influence in a bigger picture.
Also, just because my example of a theory so happened to be a "scientific" theory, you didn't need to go barreling down that path all on your own. I don't see what supplying the definition of scientific theories has to do with anything here, but 👍
You are being incredibly dishonest, given the context.
Hm?
Okay, it seems we were ever on the same page to begin with and I apologise if it's caused confusion and time of your day to be wasted. It was never my intent to have you use so much energy on something so useless and I feel responsible for encouraging it with replying.
Much peace.
Well, you are promoting ideas that antagonize worker interests, in a socialist community. It may be expected, and rightfully so, that you would encounter resistance.
The comments quite exactly resemble those promulgated by reactionary sources that help oligarchs maintain their power.
If you are interested genuinely in exploring the best strategies for workers to make gains, then please consider the importance of the sources you invoke being ones that can be understood as reliable and robust, as well as generally independent from hegemonic institutions and ideals.