Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
When The American Conservative is calling it "Amazon's Triangle Shirtwaist fire," it might be time for some heads to roll.
www.theamericanconservative.com
Amazon’s Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
In Illinois, echoes of the 1911 industrial disaster caused by corporate greed
www.theamericanconservative.com
It doesn't get taught much in school these days, but it used to be something a lot of Rust Belt states covered.
Yes, it does. It gets taught in high school frequently, and almost always in any basic US History course in college. Anyone who attended the US school system has no excuse for not knowing about it.
I'd never heard of it, and I've been through highschool and college US History courses.
Okay, maybe I should revise my statement. Given that the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire is a standard part of state standards for history in high school, every student in the US should have heard about it. It's very possible many people forget it as they get older; however, if your teacher truly didn't talk about it they did a shit job and should be ashamed.
Maybe *should* is the appropriate word here, but you realize every state sets their own standards, right?
Of course I do. I’ve studied many of them. It’s in every standard I’ve seen.
I don't want to derail too much into politics, but...
January 2019 – AHA
www.historians.org
I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it's not in Texas'
This one is actively being erased and even when it does get taught, they keep trying to call it the Kent State Shooting. No you fucking idiots, the National Guard fired on a crowd of unarmed and defenseless students... you can't even pretend it was justified or there is some moral ambiguity here.
It's not a requirement in Florida. Shocking to everyone, I'm sure.
UPDATE:
Billionaire Sacklers granted lifetime legal immunity in opioid settlement
Several states already plan to appeal what the judge himself called “a bitter result.”…arstechnica.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JIQZF2EOBRKYPIWZRELM6AFPQ4.jpg)
U.S. judge tosses $4.5 bln deal shielding Sacklers from opioid lawsuits
A federal judge overturned a roughly $4.5 billion settlement that legally shielded members of the Sackler family who stand accused of helping fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic, a decision that threatened to upend the bankruptcy reorganization of their company, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP.
www.reuters.com
Good. Let's see if it sticks.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Even if you don't care about boycotts, it might be wise to stay away from Kellogg's products:
Sabotage of outgoing goods (ether directly or by interfering with the manufactoring process such as by altering important machine settings) to cost the company money in recalls and undermine the public's faith in the company is one of the oldest union tactics there is. And there is nothing Kellog's can do about it because arresting people for it is just going to antagonize their workers further.
I suspect they'll start hiring goons soon and the Republicans will just look the other way, like they always do. Hell, the Pinkertons are still around...
figmentPez
Staff member
Kellogg's removed their name from Pop Tarts (and presumably other products), because they're hoping people won't remember how much stuff Kellogg's makes, and they know their name is toxic right now:
figmentPez
Staff member
Amazon Driver Was Warned She'd Be Fired For Returning With Packages During a Tornado
the driver was told that returning to the warehouse would be viewed as a route refusal, "which [would] ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning."
Amazon is denying that this is corporate policy, and trying to make a scapegoat of the dispatcher.
the driver was told that returning to the warehouse would be viewed as a route refusal, "which [would] ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning."
Amazon is denying that this is corporate policy, and trying to make a scapegoat of the dispatcher.
Having gotten a month now into Amazon, and as much as I liked the ease of the onboarding process, I can't deny the company as a whole is pretty fucking stupid.
They have a ton of rules, signs, training, etc. Once you on the floor though? Fuck it, rules are for pussies. Signs everywhere don't put boxes on the floor, leave it on the belt. Piles of stuff now on the belt? "Why didn't you put it on the floor?"
The hardest thing for me as a professional is dealing with the absolute negligence of management. I know WHY they are negligent, they are basically a single rung above you on the ladder, but it gets to me when I get stuck picking up tons of slack on something because management is too busy looking at a number screen for quotas then actually fixing pipeline discrepancies. So many days I come in, get assigned a job working duo in a lane only for the other person to not show up. Since we all have to check in, you would think management would know this and work on a replacement, but no, I now have to work by myself until a manager kind of wanders by on his little cart and wonders where the other person is like they didn't notice their name tag on the sign in board was not marked as there.
Anyways enough ranting, I have had worst jobs, I just get sick of the over reliance on brute numbers over any type of viable efficiency, since it makes the work harder on everyone, but that is a whole other argument. That is why they get pissed about drivers possibly stopping for anything, because the numbers are everything to them.
They have a ton of rules, signs, training, etc. Once you on the floor though? Fuck it, rules are for pussies. Signs everywhere don't put boxes on the floor, leave it on the belt. Piles of stuff now on the belt? "Why didn't you put it on the floor?"
The hardest thing for me as a professional is dealing with the absolute negligence of management. I know WHY they are negligent, they are basically a single rung above you on the ladder, but it gets to me when I get stuck picking up tons of slack on something because management is too busy looking at a number screen for quotas then actually fixing pipeline discrepancies. So many days I come in, get assigned a job working duo in a lane only for the other person to not show up. Since we all have to check in, you would think management would know this and work on a replacement, but no, I now have to work by myself until a manager kind of wanders by on his little cart and wonders where the other person is like they didn't notice their name tag on the sign in board was not marked as there.
Anyways enough ranting, I have had worst jobs, I just get sick of the over reliance on brute numbers over any type of viable efficiency, since it makes the work harder on everyone, but that is a whole other argument. That is why they get pissed about drivers possibly stopping for anything, because the numbers are everything to them.
That's why I get annoyed at the constant "how many rooms did YOU sell?" BS. If we're sold out, does it matter? Do you realize that the rooms I *don't* sell might be more important than the ones I do? At this hour, it's imperative to keep out the dealers, junkies, and hookers so the guests we REALLY want aren't scared off.
figmentPez
Staff member
No, Jesus, I didn't see you poor and needy, the market did! I would have housed you, blame the market not me!
Fuck Davey Ramsey and his false gospel. He's a racist, ableist, piece of shit who preys on the disadvantaged.
Did his mortgage go up on his rent houses? No, fuck him for increasing rent in a depressed market.
The scripture does make references to helping the poor and needy. Leaving aside religious considerations, however, what exactly is wrong or morally objectionable in wanting to get market value for you property?
figmentPez
Staff member
Kicking someone out of their home because you want to make a better return on your investment is greed, pure and simple. If he had said that a landlord has costs, and that the overhead of maintaining a property has increased, so too much rent increase, that would have been different. No, he said the market value, and we all know that the market value is based on how much money can be wrung out of people, not on how much it costs to provide it. Mr. Ramsey is advocating raising the rent just because everyone else is, and hiding behind what the world does as an excuse for a Christian to avoid the responsibilities of their faith.
Christians are called to care for others, especially the poor. Part of Dave Ramsey's teachings is that you're supposed to "live like no one else" so that you can "give like no one else". He's built his empire on the image of being a Christian, living by Christian teachings, and claiming that by following those precepts God will reward people with wealth. He's made the promise that if you work hard like he has, then you will be able to give back from your wealth, the way he gives with his wealth. Ramsey has the power to make someone's life better by not demanding what the world says is owed to him. This is a Christian principle, to sacrificially give to others when it is your right to claim more for yourself.
Dave Ramsey absolutely can afford to let one of his properties earn less than market rate. Many landlords make less than market rate, because they find it worth it to keep good tenants, or because they don't want to force someone to move just because they didn't get a raise to keep up with a world in chaos. You don't even have to be religious to decide that people are more important than money. However, if you are going to say, "I am a Christian. I follow Christ's teachings." well, then Christ said to give to those in need, and that whatever you do to the least of humans, you've also done to him. Dave Ramsey is only right in raising the rent beyond his clients means to pay, if he'd also do the same to a poor and in need Jesus Christ Himself.
Raising rent for those that can pay? Fine. Raising rent because you can't afford to provide the housing without charging more? Morally frustrating, but sometimes people don't have anything to give. Raising rent because the market says you should be earning more on your investment, even though you have more than enough to live on already, and raising the rent so high that you force someone out of their home during a pandemic? Well, now, that's just being a greedy asshole who is exploiting the image of religion while refusing to practice what they preach.
Last edited:
One could argue it is morally objectional to be a landlord in the first place, but the obvious answer is you are valuing wanting more money over letting people stay in their home.
I disagree that being a landlord in and of itself is inherently immoral.
Depending on the housing market in the area/country, and the way you treat the house(s) you own, it absolutely can be sleazy and immoral, but it certainly doesn't come with the simple act of owning a house.
Owning a house doesn't make you a landlord.
I can't sleep, so I guess I'll elaborate on why landlords are immoral.
First, what is a landlord? A landlord is someone who owns a home or other property that they are not using and so rent out to others to live in. I'm talking entirely about residential landlords. People with capital, aka wealth, use it to buy a valuable commodity, in this case a home, apartment, etc, and then rent to those that can't afford to buy property of their own. Why can't they afford their own property? A great many very complicated reasons, but one of them is because landlords have purchased all the property so that others can't have it. Why do "market values" (which, as a reminder, is entirely made up) go up? Because those with capital use their wealth to continue the divide, pricing out poorer people so that they can justify charging more and gaining even more capital, while those renting effectively see no lasting benefit to their labor, working to instead fund the landlord's next venture.
This thread is about asking if income inequality is unjust. Most people here outside of steinman and the guy with the increasingly unironic Mr Burns avatar seem to think so. Landlords profit off of this inequality.
So this is why you are morally justified to punch a landlord in the face.
First, what is a landlord? A landlord is someone who owns a home or other property that they are not using and so rent out to others to live in. I'm talking entirely about residential landlords. People with capital, aka wealth, use it to buy a valuable commodity, in this case a home, apartment, etc, and then rent to those that can't afford to buy property of their own. Why can't they afford their own property? A great many very complicated reasons, but one of them is because landlords have purchased all the property so that others can't have it. Why do "market values" (which, as a reminder, is entirely made up) go up? Because those with capital use their wealth to continue the divide, pricing out poorer people so that they can justify charging more and gaining even more capital, while those renting effectively see no lasting benefit to their labor, working to instead fund the landlord's next venture.
This thread is about asking if income inequality is unjust. Most people here outside of steinman and the guy with the increasingly unironic Mr Burns avatar seem to think so. Landlords profit off of this inequality.
So this is why you are morally justified to punch a landlord in the face.