Anyone seeing Straight Outta Compton?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Oppression is basically defined as the prolonged or unjust treatment or control of another, or group in unfair ways. How would the pay range of a companies CEO and it's workers be considered oppression?

Jim

If you can't answer that question, you're dumber than I thought.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

If you can't answer that question, you're dumber than I thought.

You can't answer it otherwise you would have. It isn't oppression. As a liberal you'll expand the meaning of oppression to define the oppressor victim paradigm. One man making more money than another in and of itself is neither cruel or unjust, therefore it is not oppressive. You obviously don't know what oppression really is. You use the term loosely in an attempt to make irrelevant points in terms of race and equality.

Jim

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

If you can't answer that question, you're dumber than I thought.

Evidently you can't answer it either, so how dumb does that make you?

Chew on this one, sewer rat.... Imagine two companies, each of them paying the same generous scale of wages and benefits to their workers, except at Company A the CEO is paid $1 a year (he/she loves the job and is already wealthy) while at Company B the CEO earns 200 times the median - does this mean all workers at A are blissful but all workers at B are "oppressed"?

And what if I work at a private company that doesn't disclose my CEO's pay? How do I even know if I'm "oppressed" or not?


.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Evidently you can't answer it either, so how dumb does that make you?

Chew on this one, sewer rat.... Imagine two companies, each of them paying the same generous scale of wages and benefits to their workers, except at Company A the CEO is paid $1 a year (he/she loves the job and is already wealthy) while at Company B the CEO earns 200 times the median - does this mean all workers at A are blissful but all workers at B are "oppressed"?

And what if I work at a private company that doesn't disclose my CEO's pay? How do I even know if I'm "oppressed" or not?


.

Surprise, surprise, you've turned it into an all or nothing proposition. Further illustrating your inability to see the world as it truly is; in shades of grey.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You can't answer it otherwise you would have. It isn't oppression. As a liberal you'll expand the meaning of oppression to define the oppressor victim paradigm. One man making more money than another in and of itself is neither cruel or unjust, therefore it is not oppressive. You obviously don't know what oppression really is. You use the term loosely in an attempt to make irrelevant points in terms of race and equality.

Jim

You know, someone made a valid point in another post. We first have to agree on terms before we can intelligently debate on a subject. Oppression was the wrong word to use. Let's use exploitation. I feel that workers are being exploited. Wall St bankers receive millions in bonuses, companies pay dividends to their shareholders. This is all possible due to the exploitation of the working-class individual. Capitalism itself is predicated on this exploitation. Why has the wealth that workers create increased over the last 30 years, but that has not been reflected in wages? Instead, the rich get to pocket this increased value or wealth and workers were not compensated for their increased production.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Evidently you can't answer it either, so how dumb does that make you?



And what if I work at a private company that doesn't disclose my CEO's pay? How do I even know if I'm "oppressed" or not?


.

don't fear my child, the very smart people who wish to take care of you will tell you that you are oppressed


then you shall know and lift your eyes to Washington, whence comes your sustenance

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You know, someone made a valid point in another post. We first have to agree on terms before we can intelligently debate on a subject. Oppression was the wrong word to use. Let's use exploitation. I feel that workers are being exploited. Wall St bankers receive millions in bonuses, companies pay dividends to their shareholders. This is all possible due to the exploitation of the working-class individual. Capitalism itself is predicated on this exploitation. Why has the wealth that workers create increased over the last 30 years, but that has not been reflected in wages? Instead, the rich get to pocket this increased value or wealth and workers were not compensated for their increased production.

Oppression was the wrong word to use? So now you want to use exploitation. A person is exploited by another whenever there is unfair treatment in order to benefit from their labor. That's a primary element of slavery. For instance in Viet Nam young women work long intensive hours at the NIKE shoe factory for about .16 cents an hour. Although America obviously benefits from their work it's the country of Viet Nam that directly exploits them for their own benefit. This is just one example of many ways America has benefited from the exploitation of overseas workers. That is why most everything you own is made in China, Viet Nam, South America ect. Here at home workers are protected from unjust treatment by employers in the work place in terms of pay, working conditions and companies and businesses by law aren't permitted to employ those under the age of sixteen.

Jim