best posts from the forums
- stegosaurus posted in Get off the off-site: Let's play "Real Life" (6848 posts)
- That’s a good idea. We could call it Terrible Tuesdays. Owned.
- ilmdge posted in HANDS OFF SYRIA (2258 posts)
- Nice list of people I'm smarter than
- Aspie_Muslim_Economist_ posted in Tales from the Vampire's Crypt: Capitalist Inefficiency ITT (35 posts)
- Another story for y’all. This is from a factory in a middle-income country. Not a worst-of-the-worst sweatshop by any stretch of the imagination, but worse then what people in the core have to deal with.
Company A does semiconductor fab. They run the plant 24/7, and have two 12 hour shifts a day. Workers have five shift = 60 hour weeks. They have three teams of workers and 14 shifts per week, and labor laws say they can’t make anyone work more than 60 hours a week or 24 hours straight. What you find if you try to schedule shifts is that, with three teams, you can’t fill the 14 slots and keep every team in only first or only second shift. So to deal with this, company A forces every factory worker to alternate between first and second shift every week. Because of this, they have huge turnover—way over 100% as year.
It’s pretty well known now that human beings can’t function normally with highly erratic sleep schedules, and mistakes are extremely costly in the semiconductor industry. If you forget to add diced onions to a burger at McDonald’s it doesn’t really matter that much, but if you fuck up a wafer the company’s out thousands of dollars. So this is one of the handful of cases where profitable management and basic humanity are actually aligned. All you need to do is bring in one more shift worth of workers, and, with four teams, you can keep everyone on a stable schedule. However, company A won’t do this. It’s slightly more expensive to train and support a 33% larger workforce, and that cost is immediate, easily quantifiable, and certain. The exact benefits of having non-impaired workers that stick around, by contrast, are uncertain, so because of their extreme risk aversion and cognitive biases they torture their workers AND produce inefficiently.
Interesting side note: one of the main arguments for free trade and the exploitative industrialization it engenders is that it’s usually voluntary. People choose to leave sharecropping or w/e they were doing before to move to the city and work in the sweatshop, so it must be an improvement for them. What you realize if you look at these factories is that they have insane turnover and their employees have no idea what they’re getting into. Factories don’t have to provide a better alternative to previous forms of production, they simply need access to a constant stream of uninformed young people who they can run ragged for a few weeks or months, then spit out.
- Caesura109 posted in Totalitarian British Regime can't Feed its own People: Food/Product Shortage Thread (38 posts)
- The totalitarian British regime destroyed evidence of its having granted citizenship to colonial subjects during a period of labor shortages in the mid-20th century in a blatantly racist attempt to expel them decades after their arrival.
The Home Office destroyed thousands of landing card slips recording Windrush immigrants’ arrival dates in the UK, despite staff warnings that the move would make it harder to check the records of older Caribbean-born residents experiencing residency difficulties.
A former Home Office employee said the records, stored in the basement of a government tower block, were a vital resource for case workers when they were asked to find information about someone’s arrival date in the UK from the West Indies – usually when the individual was struggling to resolve immigration status problems.
Although the home secretary, Amber Rudd, has promised to make it easier for Windrush-generation residents to regularise their status, the destruction of the database is likely to make the process harder, even with the support of the new taskforce announced this week.
They imposed the burden of providing 4 documents for a given number of years they had lived in the UK to prove the legality of their existence and livelihoods:
In 2009, Mr Green tried to update his passport with the proper visa information, but was told by the Home Office he had to prove he had lived in the UK for each of the previous 10 years.
His application was rejected twice. In March last year, Mr Green travelled to Jamaica to be with his dying mother, but when he tried to return to the UK in June, he was not allowed on the flight.
"I was upset - virtually in tears. I couldn't understand why," he said.
Failure to provide these has lead to the firing, eviction and deporting of an unknown number of citizens who have for decades upon decades lived as subjects of and payed taxes to the regime, which no longer sees the need to respect the rights of non-native peoples:
Winston Jones was admitted to hospital with a brain aneurysm in 2014, which he attributes to the stress he was under as he tried to sort out his passport problems.
The 62-year-old spent five months in hospital, where staff told the former British Rail worker that he might need to pay for his treatment, even though he had paid UK taxes for more than 40 years.
“They showed me a bill for the brain operation. I think it was £5,000,” he said.
Upon discharge, he had nowhere to go because he had lost his home as a result of official doubts about his right to be in the UK. Hospital staff had been unable to find him a bed in a homeless shelter; having been classed as an “illegal immigrant” he was ineligible for a bed in a state-funded hostel. Despite his precarious health and lack of accommodation, he was allowed to leave the hospital and began sleeping rough. He had no warm clothes and few belongings because when was he evicted all his things had been thrown away.
This has put entire families - including those who were not yet born when their parents or grandparents emigrated to the British kingdom - at risk of expulsion:
The daughter of a woman who arrived in the UK with the Windrush generation is facing imminent removal despite all of her family, including her dying mother, being based in Britain.
Jamaican national Yvonne Williams, 59, was detained in Yarl’s Wood last August and has been served notice that she could be deported at any point in the next 72 hours, after a number of submissions for right to remain and asylum claims were rejected by the Home Office.
Speaking to The Independent from the detention centre, Ms Williams said she feared being alone and “living on the streets” if she was sent back to Jamaica, where she has no family ties since the death of her grandmother in 2000.
This is the latest effort by the xenophobic nation's ongoing 'hostile environment' policy adopted to drive out non-native born persons from their borders.
- Caesura109 posted in Tales from the Vampire's Crypt: Capitalist Inefficiency ITT (35 posts)
- While it probably isn't this convoluted anymore, Engels made mockery of the claim that capitalist distribution is efficient
Let us, however, discuss present-day trade in a little more detail. Consider through how many hands every product must go before it reaches the actual consumer. Consider, gentlemen, how many speculating, swindling superfluous middlemen have now forced themselves in between the producer and the consumer! Let us take, for example, a bale of cotton produced in North America. The bale passes from the hands of the planter into those of the agent on some station or other on the Mississippi and travels down the river to New Orleans. Here it is sold — for a second time, for the agent has already bought it from the planter — sold, it might well be, to the speculator, who sells it once again, to the exporter. The bale now travels to Liverpool where, once again, a greedy speculator stretches out his hands towards it and grabs it. This man then trades it to a commission agent who, let us assume, is a buyer for a German house. So the bale travels to Rotterdam, up the Rhine, through another dozen hands of forwarding agents, being unloaded and loaded a dozen times, and only then does it arrive in the hands, not of the consumer, but of the manufacturer, who first makes it into an article of consumption, and who perhaps sells his yarn to a weaver, who disposes of what he has woven to the textile printer, who then does business with the wholesaler, who then deals with the retailer, who finally sells the commodity to the consumer. And all these millions of intermediary swindlers, speculators, agents, exporters, commission agents, forwarding agents, wholesalers and retailers, who actually contribute nothing to the commodity itself — they all want to live and make a profit — and they do make it too, on the average, otherwise they could not subsist. Gentlemen, is there no simpler, cheaper way of bringing a bale of cotton from America to Germany and of getting the product manufactured from it into the hands of the real consumer than this complicated business of ten times selling and a hundred times loading, unloading and transporting it from one warehouse to another? Is this not a striking example of the manifold waste of labour power brought about by the divergence of interests?