Profit Over People

[abrasivesaint]

Title’s self explanatory.. all links related.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/frito-lay-employee-speaks-against-182636701.html

“Frito-Lay worker Brandon Ingram is speaking out about the pain, trauma, and harassment he suffered after allegedly being severely electrocuted on the job, leaving him disabled and denied medical care.”

https://www.thepitchkc.com/frito-lay-strike-ends-after-nearly-a-month/

 

“The contract will guarantee all employees get one day off a week and bring an end to “suicide shifts”—two 12 hour shifts with only eight hours off in between—that employees had to work.” 

Edited July 28, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[abrasivesaint]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/26/frit-j26.html
 

“More than 100 PepsiCo drivers, merchandisers and delivery workers in Munster, Indiana, have been on strike for more than two weeks against the company’s demands for sharp increases in their out-of-pocket health care expenses, forced overtime and stagnant pay.

 

While PepsiCo made over $70 billion in net revenue in 2020 (up from $39 billion in 2007), it is demanding a significant increase in out-of-pocket health care expenses from $14 a week to over $80 a week by 2025. Teamsters Local 142 had previously accepted a five-year pay freeze in exchange for no increases to workers’ health care costs. Many drivers also have variable costs on the road that eat into their income, such as the cost of gas and food, which have increased sharply this year.”

[Mercer]

"Bezos orders Amazon workers to be packaged, and delivered to homes to assure customers they're OK"

 

Quote

DURHAM, NC—In an effort to improve the company’s image amid criticism about poor conditions in its warehouses, e-commerce giant Amazon has begun to ship workers in packages to personally assure customers they’re being treated well, sources confirmed Friday. “When people who don’t know any better criticize my employer, they’re totally ignoring the fact that Amazon just sent me on an all-expenses-paid trip across the country in this nice, sturdy box,” said an Amazon employee identifying himself as Wilson O’Connell, one of thousands of Amazon workers around the country who reportedly emerged from a cardboard container filthy and covered in their own excrement, holding the items the customer ordered and immediately launching into a speech about how much they loved Amazon and appreciated the tough love of their managers. “I had a very pleasant journey, actually, because only Amazon would give me three days to myself like that. They’re so thoughtful and always looking out for me.

 

https://www.theonion.com/amazon-workers-now-being-shipped-in-packages-to-persona-1837312673

[abrasivesaint]

Still going strong on the Amazon “boycott”. Fuck em. 

[ndv]

If an Amazon employee shows up popping out of a box on my porch.  I gonna play wack-a-mole. 

[Mercer]

42 minutes ago, ndv said:

If an Amazon employee shows up popping out of a box on my porch.  I gonna play wack-a-mole. 

 

What if she's still hot, despite being covered in her own defecation from the trip?

[ndv]

2 minutes ago, Mercer said:

 

What if she's still hot, despite being covered in her own defecation from the trip?

 

At that point,  I'll hose her down and make an exception.

 

Edit:  I'll whack her with something else 

Edited July 30, 2021 by ndv

[Mercer]

In an ancap utopia, I'd like to think the customers can choose between no defecation, or opt for a free feces coating on the house, with Prime™ membership of course.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Mercer

[mr.yuck]

19 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

What if she's still hot, despite being covered in her own defecation from the trip?

Any woman that chooses to get sealed in a box to piss and shit on herself is wife material.

[metronome]

"Blackstone Profits from the Foreclosure Crisis"

 

 

https://www.invitationtenants.com/blackstone-profits-from-the-foreclosure-crisis/

[Mercer]

"Health Care Workers are Profiting From Human Sickness & Misery"

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/155013/greedy-hospitals-fleece-poor

[Mercer]

"Little Kids Charge $1.00 for Lemonade, Knowing It Disproportionately Affects The Poor"

 

Up to 200 Americans per year die from complications brought on by dehydration.

[abrasivesaint]

We all know there aint no little white girls selling lemonade in poor areas. 

[Mercer]

On 8/1/2021 at 6:30 AM, abrasivesaint said:

We all know there aint no little white girls selling lemonade in poor areas. 

 

Permit Patty tried to open up the market for them, but failed miserably.

[abrasivesaint]

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1426017141724270597?s=20

[abrasivesaint]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/krystal-kyle-friends/id1547098165?i=1000532009888

[Mercer]

 

[abrasivesaint]

This is by no means a defense of those 2, they are simple questions, because that article doesn't hold a whole lot of information.. 
 

Was the income willfully paid by those who could still afford it?

Were the tenants still working, regardless of lockdowns and circumstances surrounding COVID?

Did either one of them attempt to evict tenants that could not pay the rent? 

[Mercer]

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Was the income willfully paid by those who could still afford it?

 

The assumption is yes, all rent is paid willfully, and by people who can afford it, or they wouldn't pay it.

 

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Were the tenants still working, regardless of lockdowns and circumstances surrounding COVID?

 

Why would it make a difference where they got the money to pay rent?

 

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Did either one of them attempt to evict tenants that could not pay the rent? 

 

Hopefully not because having deadbeats can be a bummer. The type of business you're in like providing housing for example, doesn't imply some sort of different moral obligation where you give up the rights to your property, and have to share their property with others. Should shopkeepers allow shoplifting? Mechanics not charge for their services? Does one's word when signing a contract mean nothing?

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think it's OK to target an individual, or profession and make them financially responsible for another individual. I mean I could understand thinking everyone should pitch in to cover housing for those who need it, but this "It's morally wrong to evict" assertion makes no sense. Imagine how hard it would be to find housing if people were just allowed to steal from anyone who invested in it. It's like some economically challenged fantasy where people don't have rights to their own property.

[abrasivesaint]

4 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

The assumption is yes, all rent is paid willfully, and by people who can afford it, or they wouldn't pay it.

Would they though? Does having food in the fridge, or utilities functioning mean more than having the roof over your head? 

 

What i meant was. How many tenants do they have? Were tenants given the opportunity to keep their usual monthly rent, under the circumstances, but these tenants still chose to pay the money?  

 

4 hours ago, Mercer said:

Why would it make a difference where they got the money to pay rent?

 

Someone who carried on living and working normally through lockdowns, like myself, and had no changes to my income or budget, has no hard choice in the situation. If rent is complimentary, great, if not, here’s your money.. Someone who is out of work and relying on aid may have to budget that aid money more so than they would their normal income, i.e. food in the fridge or roof over the head. 
 

edit: this was more of a piggy back or extension of my first question. Not necessarily intended to be a stand alone point to be made. 

 

4 hours ago, Mercer said:

Hopefully not because having deadbeats can be a bummer. The type of business you're in like providing housing for example, doesn't imply some sort of different moral obligation where you give up the rights to your property, and have to share their property with others. Should shopkeepers allow shoplifting? Mechanics not charge for their services? Does one's word when signing a contract mean nothing?

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think it's OK to target an individual, or profession and make them financially responsible for another individual. I mean I could understand thinking everyone should pitch in to cover housing for those who need it, but this "It's morally wrong to evict" assertion makes no sense. Imagine how hard it would be to find housing if people were just allowed to steal from anyone who invested in it. It's like some economically challenged fantasy where people don't have rights to their own property.

 

My questions weren’t in regards to the morality of the situation. The article clearly is trying to paint a picture that they were still charging tenants rent while pushing to cancel rent, and giving absolutely no further evidence of the circumstances of the source of that income. There are a lot of unasked questions. I think it is incredibly disingenuous and clearly pushing a pre-determined narrative.

 

I have no stake in the game, i don’t give a fuck about either one of those Reps. If they’re guilty of the hypocrisy, then by all means, fuck em. In regards of the article, i’m just calling a spade a spade. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[Mercer]

We're each individually responsible for the needs of ourselves, our families, and those we choose to take care of. Given we're able to provide for our own basic needs, we're also free to provide for ourselves beyond them. Outside of a parent child relationship, we have no right to a non-consensual parasitic relationship with another human being. Not that we all shouldn't feel entitled to some help (consensual) in a good society, but that help has no meaning if it's non-consensual.

 

For example: a landlord supporting deadbeat tenants, against their will is a non-consensual parasitic arrangement. The Landlord's financial life blood is slowly drained, and in some cases it can be fatal, actually bankrupting the host. This arrangement violates logical consistency in two ways. 1. It invalidates one party's basic rights to own private property. 2. It invalidates one's obligation to a contractual arrangement, in some cases excusing blatant fraud. If this famine minded approach to property rights is taken to it's logical conclusion: Securing adequate housing would be next to impossible for anyone unable to buy, or build their own. Do you know what is favela? 

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

The Landlord's financial life blood is slowly drained, and in some cases it can be fatal, actually bankrupting the host. This arrangement violates logical consistency in two ways. 1. It invalidates one party's basic rights to own private property. 2. It invalidates one's obligation to a contractual arrangement, in some cases excusing blatant fraud.

Being forcefully robbed of your income due to lockdowns during a pandemic, and having to give the limited funds you do possess to a landlord instead of potentially putting food on the table is also draining the “lifeblood” of the worker, and tenant, and in some cases can be fatal. It invalidates one’s basic right to life because of a rigid system that was poorly crafted and is enforced by zealots who fear the consideration that their precious system is flawed and needs amendment, because admission of such means that inevitably they may not have unfettered access to resources at the expense of their host. 
 

Edit: this does not mean the system is without merit, but must evolve and adapt, or perish. 
 

“..but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.“

 

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

we have no right to a non-consensual parasitic relationship with another human being.

There is no alternative, even in the most free land (allegedly) on the planet. Human beings are forced to live within a predetermined system, regardless of their position of it. Parasites attach themselves to the host and drain it of it’s nutrients until it expires within this system. There are 2 options within this system, remain a host, or become a parasitic host. An attempt of being an entity free of this predetermined system results in forfeiture of liberty, or life. 
 

There are many parasites, and they work in many ways. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Being forcefully robbed of your income due to lockdowns during a pandemic, and having to give the limited funds you do possess to a landlord instead of potentially putting food on the table is also draining the “lifeblood” of the worker, and tenant, and in some cases can be fatal.

 

One wrong doesn't excuse another. A landlord has no control, or liability for their tenants financial, or government infringement problems. 

 

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

It invalidates one’s basic right to life because of a rigid system that was poorly crafted and is enforced by zealots who fear the consideration that their precious system is flawed and needs amendment, because admission of such means that inevitably they may not have unfettered access to resources at the expense of their host. 

 

Poorly crafted? We're enjoying the highest standard of living on earth, ever. World poverty at an all time low, even the poor here have it good if compared to others, or the past. It might come up short measured against a the perfect utopia people who want to abolish private property might promise. But we all know how that goes, a long list of Socialist utopias turned economic disasters, in fact, these are the only places where people starve on a regular basis these days.

 

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Edit: this does not mean the system is without merit, but must evolve and adapt, or perish. 

 

Your (abolish property rights) approach has already been tried, and failed miserably. An evolutionary dead end. In my opinion, us trying to shape this evolution in an intentional manner is destructive. Free societies use the full planning, and brainpower of the entire masses to improve society through prosperity. Centralizing decision making by not respecting, or abolishing private property rights it the economic equivalent of square peg for a round hole maximization.

 

 

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

“..but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.“

 

Free markets are superior to centrally planned ones in this regard, and the economic data supporting this is undeniable. 

 

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

There is no alternative, even in the most free land (allegedly) on the planet. Human beings are forced to live within a predetermined system, regardless of their position of it.

 

This isn't true, people have successfully hermitted themselves for ages. Humans are only forced to live within their biological needs by nature, and nature is a whore. This animosity towards the "system" is masked disdain for the realities of inequity once one transcends poverty. You could even live as an tribes-person in some areas of the world if you can find a tribe to accept you, if not, it's not "the systems" fault" you're forced to live in it. Those same tribespeople often make the move into favelas, and slums where one can enjoy a better life than in the jungle, perhaps learn to read, and have a chance of their kids joining the 2nd world, and so on up to the first world, up to the wealthy amongst the first world. You for sure aren't being forced to be part of this system, you're lucky to be part of it and don't appreciate it.   

 

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

Parasites attach themselves to the host and drain it of it’s nutrients until it expires within this system. There are 2 options within this system, remain a host, or become a parasitic host. An attempt of being an entity free of this predetermined system results in forfeiture of liberty, or life. 

 

A successful parasite doesn't kill it's host, it establishes a system of taxation.

 

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

There are many parasites, and they work in many ways. 

 

Agreed, however the line between a parasitic, and a symbiotic relationship between parties is the consent, and mutual benefit of both parties involved. I've thought about this. Every non-consensual relationship I have involves the government on some level, and their threat of force. All "capitalist", or voluntary interactions I have are a decision that only ends with me not being able to meet my biological needs at worst. Many of them may not be ideal, but they're better than the alternative choices I have. Voluntary choices like jobs, and leases aren't made under duress, or a fear of intentional harm realistically, unless my choices violate the rights (including property) of other individuals.

[abrasivesaint]

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

Your (abolish property rights) approach has already been tried, and failed miserably.

It’s not my position, and i was getting the feeling that you felt it was, and i tried to clarify. I don’t believe in the abolition of property rights, that’s why i said amended and not abolished. 

I think the fact that we’re even discussing who has more important rights in this predicament is the clear indication that the system has a flaw. Again, this doesn’t mean abolition of the system is the answer. Neither tenant nor landlord should be put in this position. We have protections and insurances for damn near everything else within this system, why can there be no protections for both parties in this situation? 
 

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

Free markets are superior to centrally planned ones in this regard, and the economic data supporting this is undeniable. 

The concept of a free market has led to Facebook and what many consider their, damn near, monopoly on free speech. Including many folks around here. They have reached the point where they own the majority of major social media sources. This has resulted in Facebook’s ability to control free speech, and restricting the rights that the country claims to uphold. Other industries only follow suit. A system does not check the market, leaves the market open for monopoly. A people who do not check the system, leaves the system open to corruption, and still, monopolies. The abolition of the state in place, only leads to monopolies becoming the state. 
 

It results in Chevron being able to hold their own court, and prosecuting Donziger at their will. Imposing harsher penalties than even the current state would enforce in their prosecution, but are upholding under the state, due to corruption.

 

Those who attempt to live outside the system succumb to the enforcement of violations, whether public or private. Eventually leading to force, leading to exile, imprisonment, or death. This doesn’t improve under privatization. 

 

Admitting that one has rights, admits that there is a need for an authority to protect those rights. I have no faith that unfettered free markets protect these rights, or lead anywhere but totalitarianism. 
 

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

You for sure aren't being forced to be part of this system, you're lucky to be part of it and don't appreciate it.   

I certainly appreciate it, and i reject that statement on a personal level. I contribute to the system like anyone else. I don’t seek abolition, (despite my criticisms of it), but amendment. To be honest, i have to partially attribute that to some conversations around here.  
 

9 hours ago, Mercer said:A successful parasite doesn't kill it's host, it establishes a system of taxation.

Correct. To clarify, i didn’t mean it drains the host to death, i meant it drains the host until it’s death. 
 

Regardless, this wasn’t the point. The point to all of this was that i believe the article you shared was disingenuous, on their end. If those Reps “cancelled rent” for tenants, and some tenants still chose to participate in the rental agreement, that is of no fault of the Reps, but the article doesn’t ask those questions.

[misteraven]

Solution is easy… You are your own priority, be responsible to and for yourself. You aren’t entitled to anything you can’t create or earn yourself, but once accomplished, it’s yours and yours alone. Don’t be a dick, your freedom doesn’t extend to encroach on the freedom of others. 
 

Summarized: Mind your business, be a decent human.

[Mercer]

There's no in between, amendment, or slight tweak to something as absolute, and black/white as property rights. Either the owner has rights to the property, or they don't.  If landlords can't enforce their property rights, well then, good luck getting anyone to build/invest in rental property moving forward. No level of economic illiteracy should prevent a Socialist from putting these simple cause/effect together. It's like 1 + 1 first grader shit.

 

Why do you think people build/maintain rental property? Taking things a step further, what do you think happens to renters, the people "cancel rent" is supposedly helping when there's less availiable housing as a result of rental property being a poor investment? It takes a massive amount of cognitive dissonance to deny "amending" private property rights for landlords/tenants wouldn't ultimately destroy the market.

 

This is very basic stuff, unfortunately many in this generation have been propagandized to the point where they can't understand a very basic economic concept, like property rights, contracts, etc. actually work.

[abrasivesaint]

Again, not arguing the legitimacy of property rights.
 

Any talk of amendment was to a system that offered no protections to both tenant, NOR LANDLORD, in the rare situation we found ourselves in due to lockdowns resulting in massive amounts of unemployment and income loss, and not because one simply does not want to pay rent because they’re a lazy cunt and don't want to work. 

 

Both LANDLORD, and tenant, lost their source of income through no fault of their own during pandemic lockdowns. The system that enforced these lockdowns, should have implemented across-the-board protections for both parties. Similar to something like this one..

 

 https://www.mass.gov/info-details/information-for-landlords-on-emergency-housing-assistance

 

Again, that article left questions unasked, important questions. Questions that if they had answers to, may not paint the picture they desired. Maybe they would, but we don’t know, because they didn’t ask. If not because they’re being disingenuous, than because of their weak ass journalism skills. 
 

edit: But if we’re going to continue into the weeds.. Please play out the scenario that you think should have happened, involving evictions, and where that would have ended. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[abrasivesaint]

Seeing as how the Daily Mail seems to be either inept, or willfully disingenuous as i’ve claimed, i finally decided to dig a little deeper, and do their job for them.. 

 

Pressley:

 

[Her latest financial disclosure report submitted to the clerk of the House of Representatives states she and her husband received rental income of $5,001 to $15,000 on her “primary residence” in the city that was converted to a “two-family building.”

 

That primary residence, she disclosed, is worth $500,001 to $1 million.. 

 

.. Pressley could not be reached for comment after multiple attempts by the Herald Tuesday.]

 

https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/08/17/ayanna-pressley-claimed-up-to-15000-in-rental-income-last-year/

 

 

Tlaib:

 

[The rent was for a residential property in Detroit valued at $100,000 to $250,000, according to a financial disclosure report posted this week.

 

“There is no contradiction between advocating for an eviction moratorium and rental relief and having a great relationship with a long-term tenant in a single rental home,” Tlaib spokeswoman Adrienne Salazar said.]

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/20/tlaib-defends-detroit-rental-income-amid-conservative-attacks/8201891002/

Edited August 20, 2021 by abrasivesaint

[abrasivesaint]

“Tlaib and other lawmakers who pushed for the continued moratorium hoped to provide more time for states to distribute federal funds — nearly $47 billion approved by Congress this year — to reach tenants and landlords that need it. Hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money is yet unspent in Michigan.”

 

- Also from the Detroit News article.

 

Italics and underlining of landlords done by myself. 

[Mercer]

If you argue against evictions for non-payment, you’re arguing against private property rights.Either the person who owns the property is allowed to enforce contracts regarding its use, or they’re not. There’s no loopholes around this.