# UNIONS - still "helping" or hurting?



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

As we see more and more companies off-shoring work and opting for imports over American goods, you have to wonder, "Is it better for them to pay cheaper prices off-shore, or for the inflated costs driven to pay Union worker's wages?"

From the companies' standpoint, it's the bottom line they are concerned with by choosing the off-shoring. This helps bring better revenue, more profits, and a less expensive product to the consumer here.

Of course from the workers' point, they're out of a job for the time being. But things balance out over time.

But every time I see a strike for "Fair Wages" I feel like they should be fired for trying to extoprt money form the company and hire in people who want to work.

I'm amazed it is still legal. Oh well, fire away...


----------



## Spud (Dec 2, 2003)

IMHO  unions do a good job of fighting for a living wage for their members. Yeah there are some issues with too much power and not enough balance  - Ive been on construction jobs where Im making less as a Professional Engineer with a masters degree than some of the laborers. Thats my problem - not going to bag on somebody taking full advantage of the opportunity available to them. 

The teamsters were there for my brother in law when he needed surgery and his employer hadnt been paying health insurance premiums already deducted from his paycheck. My uncle had his 50-year pin from the steelworkers and they did a much better job of looking out for his family while he was a POW than his employer. Once Idaho became a right to work state, most of the blue collar guys I know have suffered (more turnover, lower wages, fewer benefits, less safe working conditions). 

Unions arent perfect, but I think were better off as a society with them. For me this thought is a 180-degree turn from when I first entered the work force.   

My $0.02


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

Well, I can sure see why one would want to depend on the generosity and decency of large corporations. After all, that's worked really, really well in the past. Look at the United Mine Workers. Why, given ridiculously high wages, extraordinary working/living conditions, great health care and retirement plans, those miners were just pure-dee damn fools to organize and eventually unionize. 

No, really. We really should go back to the feudal era--you know, work hard, keep yer mouth shut, shop at the company store, don't ask for anything, because if you do, I'll get somebody cheaper.

Ask Seig and them about the generosity of coal mining companies.

I'm sorry to be rude, but...uh...do some of you guys know ANYTHING about the history of this country? 

When the hell did it become unreasonable for workers in this country to ask for--and demand if necessary--a wage they could live on, decent treatment at work, basic health care, and some kind of retirement plan? The depth of contempt this shows for working people...wow.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> When the hell did it become unreasonable for workers in this country to ask for--and demand if necessary--a wage they could live on, decent treatment at work, basic health care, and some kind of retirement plan? The depth of contempt this shows for working people...wow.



Trouble, is, they don't just ask, they take. At the sacrifice of their own company when they strike.

I don't know too many airline workers living in poverty like that of coal miners. You're a little out of touch there. OK, a lot.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *As we see more and more companies off-shoring work and opting for imports over American goods, you have to wonder, "Is it better for them to pay cheaper prices off-shore, or for the inflated costs driven to pay Union worker's wages?"
> 
> From the companies' standpoint, it's the bottom line they are concerned with by choosing the off-shoring. This helps bring better revenue, more profits, and a less expensive product to the consumer here.
> ...


Weren't you just bitching about India taking half your comany's jobs on another thread? A union might have prevented that.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

I see. None of the miners' strikes ever happened. None of it suggests that, gosh, companies just don't get real accommodating on their own. Grocery workers? Always got a fair deal. Farm workers? Never a prob till the agitators came in from New Yawk. Garment workers? Treated great, especially at Triangle Shirtwaist. Construction? Easiest, best-paid job in the world. And them Chinese what built so much of the western railway-and-tunnel-system...fat cats, every one of 'em. Cuddled, positively CUDDLED, by their employers.

It's especially hilarious to read the last post, given the long history of corporations from Union Pacific on through today. I mean, if memory serves, Standard Oil and United Fruit from time to time to time, "just took," often with military support. 

Sorry, but lots of people who are NOT airline pilots for United and dot-com millionaires work for a living. And they generally get treated like crap by their bosses, hate to tell ya...until they move the company abroad, where ya can REALLY do what you want. Been following the news on the 400-500 young women murdered at the maquiladoras across the border from El Paso over the last five-ten years?


----------



## ABN (Dec 2, 2003)

I've seen good and bad. Unions can have a positive affect on many industries (My area of experience was in the hotel F&B industry where, every time a new F&B director came in he would want to replace alot of people with his own staff) the Union protected those workers who were there and kept them from being subject to the whims of Chefs with various substance abuse problems and nasty cases of Emeril envy. Most of us who were managers usually aided and abetted  the union on behalf  of our employees. Sometimes though it was difficult when you had an employee that was not working out, had a horrible impact on the morale of other employees, and engaged in other behavior that normally would warrant termination.  The Union then found itself dragged into a situation where it didn't want to be, having to protect someone that even the Union Rep knew was a real problem. this litigation took some time and cost quite a bit of money which meant that Union dues went up.

Another interesting case is the Grocery store Wegmans, based out of NY. They are a privately held (family owned) company that has done some huge expansion over the past decade. Their employees have voted consistently "NO" to a Union and seem to have a good rapport with management independent of a Union or Union representation. As a result the IGA union pickets and protests whenever a Wegmans opens claiming that the store is "anti-union" when, in fact the employees themselves have voted against it.
In this case I think that the Union really should gracefully bow out when the workers themselves had made the decision as to what they want.

Two different views, generally though, I am in favor of them.

andy


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> I see. None of the miners' strikes ever happened. None of it suggests that, gosh, companies just don't get real accommodating on their own. Grocery workers? Always got a fair deal. Farm workers? Never a prob till the agitators came in from New Yawk. Garment workers? Treated great, especially at Triangle Shirtwaist. Construction? Easiest, best-paid job in the world. And them Chinese what built so much of the western railway-and-tunnel-system...fat cats, every one of 'em. Cuddled, positively CUDDLED, by their employers



Once again, WHAT do we need unions for TODAY? There are already laws in place that handle 90% of the cases you submitted. Now all they seem to be are legalized extortionists.

I'm not belittling these jobs, but you do what you are skilled to do and are paid accordingly.

At best, I can see that they are some sort of legal help for workers with a case, but that can be obtained elsewhere too.

When you find a company that cuddles it's employees, or where that's expressly written as how things HAVE to be, let me know.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Weren't you just bitching about India taking half your comany's jobs on another thread? A union might have prevented that.
> Sean *



No I wasn't...but isn't it the company's right to provide itself breathing room if it has to. I may not like the changes, but I have to accept that it's not really MY company.


----------



## ABN (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *
> At best, I can see that they are some sort of legal help for workers with a case, but that can be obtained elsewhere too.
> *



Mike, for most of my employees this was the only legal recourse that they had available. In Baltimore (where I worked at the time) the other legal resources that were available were oriented towards different types of litigation than that of occupational law. In addition there was quite a bit of bureacracy that had to be negotiated in order to receive free legal aid from a state or municipal resource when there was one that offered occupational assistance. this would have made things rather difficult for some of my employees who were single moms (on single incomes), immigrants who were working to gain a better grasp of the language but still hadn't quite gotten there yet, etc.

Another facet of the whole,

andy


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *Mike, for most of my employees this was the only legal recourse that they had available. In Baltimore (where I worked at the time) the other legal resources that were available were oriented towards different types of litigation than that of occupational law. In addition there was quite a bit of bureacracy that had to be negotiated in order to receive free legal aid from a state or municipal resource when there was one that offered occupational assistance. this would have made things rather difficult for some of my employees who were single moms (on single incomes), immigrants who were working to gain a better grasp of the language but still hadn't quite gotten there yet, etc.
> 
> Another facet of the whole,
> ...



Cool, well I'm glad it worked out for their case. This is one of the only facets I see as a benefit. :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 2, 2003)

This is just like those idiotic claims that women who file sexual-harassment charges are just politicized, lazy creeps who weren't really harassed and just want a free ride at their boss' expense, why nowadays a man jist can't even make a lil' jokie or two without getting sued. And anyway, everybody knows that these problems don't exist anymore...women are treated as complete equals...too equal, if'n you ask me...

Hey, here's a reason for a union. Jurupa Unified School District, this last year, decided that they were paying too much in health care costs. So they apparently decided to take $100-$200 out of everybody's paycheck to cover their costs...no notice, no discussion, and oh by the way...they have a contract which specifies employees' contributions, which they simply ignored. The union's filed with the NLRB and is also taking them to court...this sound like a reason to want a union?

Or here's another goodie:

Median CEO Pay Grew While Profits,
Stocks Declined 

Source: The New York Times 
In 2002, the average CEO compensation package equaled $10.83 million according to The New York Times. While pay cuts for the most richly rewarded CEOs reduced the size of the average compensation package, most CEOs actually got pay raises. Median CEO pay increased by 6 percent in 2002more than twice the growth of workers' paychecks. And while shareholdersincluding workers who depend on the stock market for their retirement savings and pensionshave lost $7 trillion since the stock market peak, todays CEO pay packages are roughly equal to their pre-bear market levels.


Oops, wait, I forgot, the "Times," is another hotbed of narrering nabobs of negativism.


Or try:

NEW YORK, Dec. 2  PepsiCo Inc. on Tuesday said it would cut about 750 jobs as it reorganizes its North American soft drink business and international operations and closes a Frito-Lay plant in the United States as it moves to cut costs.


Oops, wait. Reuters. Just like Pravda. But you can see why Pepsi'd do this, what with their declining value, the loss of markets, etc...oh wait. Their stock keeps going up, their market keeps expanding...what the hell?


----------



## Spud (Dec 2, 2003)

Are unions relevant today?  I understand that the Department of Labor is positioning itself to redefine _nonexempt_ employees -reference the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Labor lost the battle, but white-collar employees will likely feel the pain. Lets continue to bash labor unions while take home pay drops. Just like crabs in a bucket.  Sleepy story that died around Thanksgiving in link below. 

Sac Bee Story


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 2, 2003)

I was raised in a Union Family and I have seen the good, the bad, and the Ugly.

I worked for the Management as the Union puts it, yet I am just an engineer not a real mover or shaker making policy.


On the Good Side, it does set a wage for a job and everyone can expect this wage without having favorites of the Manager getting more for even less.

The Bad I have seen is that there was a local Union that striked 5 times in less than four years. It was difficult, they controlled one of the most popular plants for cars that the public wanted. They had control. Yet, today they do not exist. They shut the plant down, because of too much structure costs to maintain this plant. This was Bad on both sides.

The Ugly, people doing nothing, and sleeping and getting paid. Having to have a person sit by me as I do a job, in a lab, just because the lab is a Union Lab. Not only were the tools non-GM, and I was the only one allowed to use them as agreed by our supplier and GM. Yet, this guy got paid to sit there and do nothing because I was there.


There are other cases, of people punching in and going home and these people can not get the removed from their job.


Yet, on the other hand they do provide a nice common place to negotiate for Health Care.

Some of the Unions for the outsource shops, are teh same Union in the big shops, only the Union is sometimes bought off.  Or the Regional offices do not care about them, since they make $10 an hour and their dues are based upon their wages, combined wiht their low numbers, versus the larger plants that have more people and more dues. Hmmm sounds like a big business to me, in that they care more about where they get dues from. It is difficult to comprehend why they do not care about all their members the same. 

I had a guy try to tell me that is work place allowed him to smoke. And Since he was an electrician he could smoke in the lab beign built right next to my cube and have the fan blowing on me. He actually wanted to come to blows over this. I just called and complained. On the second day of calling in sick to a director for having smoke in my office, and asking him what will a jury think of the difference between my company allowing them to pump  poison into the hair and actually pumping the in the same said poisons. His Union foght for him. They lost the rigth for him to smoke in my work space.

At another job and company, I walked into a lab on the floor, and I was jumped, by a guy with a knife. I passed and did a reverse hand throw and then a disarm. I also hurt this guys' wrist and body when he fell. I then looked at the Knife. It was a pair of scissors. I put the scissors down and walked back to the office area. I found the Chief Engieer and told him about what I had done. I expected to be fired on the spot. Violence is teh only thing to get you out the door. Drugs you claim the job made you do it, and you go see a therapist then you are fine, even if you still are using. Well after my boss got done laughing he called the Union guys. They had no report of an assault. They did get a report of a slip and fall.  The Union did everything to help the guy keep his job as well as me. Why? No Union guy wanted to have to admit that he had his buttt handed to him by an engineer. The scissors was to cut my tie off 

The Unions in theory and and some practices are a good thing. They help to balance the greed of the large companies. The problem is that some Unions have made a bad image for others, and acting like big business themselves. The Unions need to understand that it a two way street. For example in the area I grew up in there were Grocery Unions. And it is nice to have them for all teh reason I mentioned before. Yet, when the Baggers made about $10-$12 an hour in 1973 and the cashiers nade about $13-$17 an hour, and the UAW was not paying these scales. This forced many of the lcoa small companies out of business. Then the large chains then threatened to close and to get rid of the Union they sold the store(s) to private investment individual(s) or groups. They just shut down and opened with new employees.

So, like anything in this life if it is used well and in moderation it is a good thing. If it is abused and over indulged then it is not good for you.


BTW: I believe in supporting large companies for they are the ones to generate teh research that creates new technologies. I also support the small companies, they can do many things the large ones cannot including turn around time, and customer care.


:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2003)

Our standard of living today is directly attributable to the work of the Unions.  Just about everything the middle class is about is attributable to a Union.  My Grandfather remembers when strikers (himself included) were shot by hired thugs or government soldiers.  He also remembers storming the beaches of Normandy.  If you ask him when he was fighting for the Rights of the People of America, he will tell you it was during the strikes.  Which begs the question "who really has died for our rights?"


----------



## OULobo (Dec 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Our standard of living today is directly attributable to the work of the Unions.  Just about everything the middle class is about is attributable to a Union.  My Grandfather remembers when strikers (himself included) were shot by hired thugs or government soldiers.  He also remembers storming the beaches of Normandy.  If you ask him when he was fighting for the Rights of the People of America, he will tell you it was during the strikes.  Which begs the question "who really has died for our rights?" *



Your pappy sounds like quite the guy to talk to. There many people who are generally not recognized as soldiers who died for our rights, but should be. I can think of a few that used to attend Kent State University. 

I have to agree with Mr. Parsons on this one, as I am in the same situation. Moderation is key. I was raised in a union house, as my father was in the UAW, and now I am an engineer in the grey area between labor and managment. The unions of the past have definitly helped give the working class a better deal, but the question is how good for anybody are they now. 

Yes, unions standardize pay and seniority, fight for good benefits and provide a measure of security, but some of the freedoms given by unions are abused (ie. sleeping, or lagging around on the job). These are luxuries that are inefficient and don't exist in non-union shops. Obviously, union ties to the mafia and corruption are negatives. While unions are usually a way to avoid violence through mediation, sometimes they condone it through harassment and intimidation. Unions also cost the company more, and this is reflected in lost net and then possibly final price. This effectivly hamstrings some companies from adjusting operations to increase efficiency, due to union rules and concessions. 

Now, Ohio is a "right to work" state, which roughly translates to "right to get fired" state. Basically, the government says "you guys handle it betwix yourselves". Past federal law there is no help from the government for labor if you are not in a union. They can fire you at any time for just about anything. So much for "90% of the cases have laws already in place to deal with this." We are at the mercy of our bosses. Worse yet what about companies that hire illegal aliens or unsafe/untrained/unskilled workers to do jobs because they work for less. 

For people in the "grey area", its worse, we have no union leverage and we aren't in the "good old boys club" of classic management. All we have is a booklet that states company policy, which the company can decide if they want to abide by or change at a whim. Currently there are jobs that are defined as salaried to negate the ability to gain overtime, but they still require you to punch in and out.  No union will help these folks, because they are "management". 

In terms of import and export business, I think it is important to keep companies here to keep the jobs here. Time to cancel NAFTA, increase the tariffs on imported goods and level extra taxes on companies that choose to remain headquarted in America but have their workers in other countries. If you want to enjoy the security of this country then you have to keep your workers here and buy from the companies here, or pay the price. 

Unfortunatly "do what you are skilled to do and paid accordingly" doesn't happen. The employers find ways to cut out people who are skilled and ways to lower the pay to pennies. Look at teachers, who get paid among the least of all college degree manditory jobs, despite having unions, and these are the people who influence our children. Let's see how this idea holds up at produce farms where the companies hire Jaun and Tito (I'm not trying to be racist), who just swam the Rio Grande, for pennies while there are citizens here who will do it for minimum wage because the law says that's the lowest they should have to work for. When the government refuses to step in like, here in OH, then there is no check or balance against company power and unions are desperatly needed. If the gov. decides to take it up to monitor the fairness of companies then unions become less necessary.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Some of the Unions for the outsource shops, are teh same Union in the big shops, only the Union is sometimes bought off. Or the Regional offices do not care about them, since they make $10 an hour and their dues are based upon their wages, combined wiht their low numbers, versus the larger plants that have more people and more dues. Hmmm sounds like a big business to me, in that they care more about where they get dues from. It is difficult to comprehend why they do not care about all their members the same.


 I'm in a union terminal (teamsters) and can tell ya that this seems to be the case most everywhere with them.  Our local represents Kroger, UPS and several other smaller companies here.  Come contract time the UPS contract begins negotiation months in advance as does Kroger.  The smaller shops like ours will see the contract date come and go and maybe, if we're lucky, negotiations will start for a new contract a few months after the expiration date.  I have mixed feelings about the unions, myself.  I have much better medical benefits thanks to the union, I know that my wages will not fluctuate during the contract period and if I have a safety issue that my immediate management will not adress then I can file a grievance with the steward instead of going to OSHA... and THAT is the biggie for me.  Yes, there are gov't agencies that will handle most every problem that I could ever encounter on the job, but the time, paperwork and just plain headache of dealing with them often stops many folks who have legitimate gripes.  Having the shop steward around to act as liason makes the situation a lot easier.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 3, 2003)

I quite liked the point about companies that move abroad being essentially gamblers--they're taking advantage of being housed in the US, given our stability, and then sticking their production facilities in the Third World for cheapness...and then, if THOSE workers finally get their act together and take over, or some war breaks out, the thing that now occurs is that they'll be running back heere, screaming for gov't handouts and protective legislation and, likely enough, troops to "protect vital American interests abroad." Lovely.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2003)

The only handouts those companies in third world countries get are guns.  These are distributed to that countries government soldiers and the workers are "dispersed" along with their families.  That is the ugly secret of South America.  The stuff we never will hear about up here.  Its sad.  Tito and Mario are swimming the Rio Grande for pennies a day because at least in this country they can quit or complain and not get killed.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 3, 2003)

Um, sorry, but the way it works is: American companies can get all sorts of government support, including tax breaks and writeoffs, for being headquartered here and maintaining factories abroad. 

Mostly, they don't shoot so much anymore. Inefficient, and it gets into the papers. Other methods work better, and that way you can still fall back on overt violence against workers and farmers and people in general. Look at Chiapas province...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2003)

Kubutao, Brasilia, Quito, and Bolivia in general.  I don't think violence is so uncommon that it cannot be characterized as the norm.  We honestly, don't hear about it here though.  Talk to the missionaries though...Talk to the immigrants...they are full of horror stories and all of those stories contain American made weapons.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 4, 2003)

Well that falls under the idea of what is really the threat. Is it the guns or the people shooting them. The truth is that if they didn't have American weapons, they would get AKs from China, Iran or the Slavic republics. Atleast with the American weapons they get a chance to run when the guns jam frequently. The problem with those areas is the government not the guns. Even if we took every gun away they would just regress down to using goons with machetes like they do in the poor African countries. Consequently, I know quite a few people who are here on student visas that are from the countries you mentioned Equador, Brazil and Bolivia) and the all say the same thing. It is better (read safer and more stable) to have a mild dictator than civil war and raging rebellion. 

This is an even better reason to give them incentive to not send their jobs to these places.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 4, 2003)

The governments you talk about were installed by US interests.  The weapons are either given or sold very cheaply.  Its not right no matter how its argued.  Somethings are just indefensible in my opinion.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *The governments you talk about were installed by US interests.  The weapons are either given or sold very cheaply.  Its not right no matter how its argued.  Somethings are just indefensible in my opinion. *



I'll re-state that these countries are often in better positions by having dictators present (reduction of crime, increase of national economy), regardless of who got them there and the crimes they commit, and that weapons are one of the cheapest commodeties in the world right now and easily obtained no matter who wants them.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 4, 2003)

False alternative. Dictators and chaos are not the only options--or they wouldn't be, perhaps, without the century or so of the US trashing democracies throughout Latin America because they didn't agree with us.

The obvious case in point would be Chile, which had a democratically (and honestly) elected President, Salvador Allende, until the US-back 1972 coup. Then, the country had a military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, until the 1990s. 

Then tried to nail that SOB on was crimes when he was in England, but regrettably the General was too old and ill to stand trial.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *False alternative. Dictators and chaos are not the only options--or they wouldn't be, perhaps, without the century or so of the US trashing democracies throughout Latin America because they didn't agree with us.
> 
> The obvious case in point would be Chile, which had a democratically (and honestly) elected President, Salvador Allende, until the US-back 1972 coup. Then, the country had a military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, until the 1990s.
> ...



I agree in theory, but in reality I think those are the only realistic options.  A case of good textbooks, bad reality. Hindsight is 20-20 and human greed is a defining feature of the species (I know too many cliches, but they get the point across quickly). We know how they got to this point (can't do anything about that now), we know what to do after the civil wars and rebellions (that covers the past and possible future), but I think that for now they are in the best possible place (present). All the guys I know from Equador are thanking god they don't have to deal with what Columbia is going through (because Equador is still pretty much under a dictator that won't put up with it). Their words, not mine.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 4, 2003)

Do you really think that folks in Latin America are incapable of organizing democracies? Moreover, my point was that they'd repeatedly tried, only to have one European power or another undo everything.

Given the history of Latin America, the difficulty with democracy doesn't say anything about human nature. It says a LOT about colonialism...


----------



## OULobo (Dec 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Do you really think that folks in Latin America are incapable of organizing democracies? Moreover, my point was that they'd repeatedly tried, only to have one European power or another undo everything.
> 
> Given the history of Latin America, the difficulty with democracy doesn't say anything about human nature. It says a LOT about colonialism... *



True enough, but colonialism is a perfect example of greed and greed is part of human nature. As for the influences of European countries, or any country for that matter, that hasn't changed and isn't going to change. As long as there is something to be had in a poor country, there will be someone in a rich country ready, willing and usually able to try and take it or benefit from it. 

And now to try and round out this tangent back to the main topic: Does anyone know what the influence, if any, is of unions in said latin american countries.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 4, 2003)

Sigh.

First off, you seemed to be arguing that chaos and dictatorship were the only choices for contemporary Latin America. Did I misread?

Second off, I'd sure like to see some proof for the claim that, "greed," is part of human nature. For that matter, I'd like to see what human nature is supposed to be.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 4, 2003)

To answer the question above, one of the biggest arguments against unions is that they cost us jobs in the US.  Businesses move to Latin American countries because they don't have unions to protect their workers.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Sigh.
> 
> First off, you seemed to be arguing that chaos and dictatorship were the only choices for contemporary Latin America. Did I misread?
> ...



Not the only, choices per say, just the most realistic to the average citizen. They either deal with a dictator for the security and stability he can bring or take their chances with a rebellion that will cost thousands of lives and require much sacrifice. Most of them don't see any other options except emmigration. 

As for the second point, how about capitalism or any other actual  government in the world. American capitalism is built on the back of greed, that's why it has flurished so much, and every other socio-economic regime I can think of was either heavily influenced or taken over by greed when put into application, like Soviet Communism. Even Consumer trends are based on greed, like how much money we can save when shopping. While, I'm not the best at either human psychology or economics, I think there are enough examples of greed (or its twin jealousy) in all levels of human culture and behavior.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 4, 2003)

At the level of culture, maybe. But you'be been arguing, "nature." They're differnt.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 4, 2003)

But don't even the youngest children show greed, jealousy and envy? Wouldn't that be included in nature?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 5, 2003)

That's not evidence, and it ain't science. That's anecdote. Like most of the claims about, "human nature," it's behaviour seen through adult eyes, from which all sorts of guesses--and they are guesses--about "nature," get made.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *That's not evidence, and it ain't science. That's anecdote. Like most of the claims about, "human nature," it's behaviour seen through adult eyes, from which all sorts of guesses--and they are guesses--about "nature," get made. *



So how would you characterize or describe human nature, or are you saying that it is an illusion or in some way unstudyable (if that's a word) or indecypherable? Are you saying that we are reacting to observed behaviors or possibly that he are transfering our imperfections onto our vision of our children? You haven't given me an alternative or opposing view, you have only disagreed. All parts of applied science are impirical assumptions (guesses) and all parts of theoretical science are theories (guesses). Hell, it has been argued that all reality is a perception (guess).


----------

