|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'd have to say Intelligensia is the best coffee in Chicago, and worth searching for if you're in the area. But Starbucks is nothing to sneeze at either, and cheaper if you're buying by the pound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I hate Starbucks in principal blah blah blah |
Statements like the above are a good sign of a liberal arts flunkie. You'll fit in well in Seoul with the legions of unemployable Canadians. "Hating" a coffee shop is just retarded. Grow the *beep* up.
Starbucks is a firm that employs thousands of people, and provides a product that millions of people enjoy. It is a nice, clean, safe meeting place for people to come together and socialize, or for individuals to sit and people watch/read the paper. It is a first job for many young people and a hell of a lot better than toiling away in fields or cleaning hotels.
Jesus H. Christ. A liberal arts degree pollutes the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
The only responsibility of public corporations is the profit motive, and that is a problem.
|
Actually the primary responsibility of any corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Do you even know anything about corporate governance? (e.g. Porter's five forces, PESTLE analysis ect.?) Of course, there are other stakeholders such as its employees, partners as Starbuck's calls them, and customers. -- Which by the way, corporations must be cognizant of customer value if they hope to bring value to the owners. Also, one day, you'll start to buy into ownership of these corporations to start that retirement nest egg so it might be a good idea to figure out what a corporation's responsibilities are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
The only responsibility of public corporations is the profit motive, and that is a problem.
|
Actually the primary responsibility of any corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Do you even know anything about corporate governance? (e.g. Porter's five forces, PESTLE analysis ect.?) |
If they don't teach it in "the sociology of capitalism" a liberal arts holder won't have a clue. So, No. He doesn't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sweet Jesus. Your bile bladders sure do like to flop. For the information, I studied a number of disciplines. That happens when you go to school for seven years. That and being able to read. Did you read my posts? Doubtful, your assumptions likely filled in the blanks for you. Poor devil bears. Read the posts above, then respond.
I am opposed to corporations, in principle, because of the status they hold in the US legally. I also find that the drive to maximize profitability, the easiest and most direct way to increase the value of its shares, to be an ultimately destructive force for all involved.
As a preemptive answer I would rather see a co-op system similar to the one employed by the Maytag corporation pre-buyout. I think it is the next step in the evolution of capitalism, the return of socialistic principles to the system. We've already trended toward this in the US with things like water and power utilities. Some of the EA branches employ a system whereby they operate almost like a private company, with the employees and stockholders being one in the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Sweet Jesus. Your bile bladders sure do like to flop. For the information, I studied a number of disciplines. That happens when you go to school for seven years. That and being able to read. Did you read my posts? Doubtful, your assumptions likely filled in the blanks for you. Poor devil bears. Read the posts above, then respond. |
It took you 7 years to get a BA? Congratulations! Though most people who go to school that long end up with a Masters or a law degree.
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I am opposed to corporations, in principle, because of the status they hold in the US legally. I also find that the drive to maximize profitability, the easiest and most direct way to increase the value of its shares, to be an ultimately destructive force for all involved. |
Again, it seems as though you don't know or understand the principles of corporate governance. What status do they hold legally? The Federal Government levies a 35% (plus a tax levied by states) tax on net income then shareholders are taxed on any gains -- double taxation! Also, corporations are constantly being sued and regulated. So unless these are your beefs, I don't see what problem you have with their legal status.
As for profits, that is why people go into business. It should be noted that simple profits don't increase the value of the firm or the firm's shareholders. (i.e. A firm could cut its sales force and increase its profit but would it increase the value of its shares?) Do you even know where the lion's share of profits end up? (Hint: it's not returned to the shareholder in the form of dividends)
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| As a preemptive answer I would rather see a co-op system similar to the one employed by the Maytag corporation pre-buyout. I think it is the next step in the evolution of capitalism, the return of socialistic principles to the system. We've already trended toward this in the US with things like water and power utilities. Some of the EA branches employ a system whereby they operate almost like a private company, with the employees and stockholders being one in the same. |
If you want to start up a firm, do whatever you wish. If you want to go public and give all your shares to your employees, be my guest. Most rational people and firms initiate an IPO to generate a financial income that can be reinvested back into the firm.(pssst! that means more productivity and jobs) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Corporations tend toward amorality, which is why it's good for consumers to show preference for the better-behaved ones. Starbucks is one of the best of the breed.
When I'm figuring out who to give my business to, I'm willing to pay a premium to companies that treat their employees well, and I encourage others to do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Corporations tend toward amorality, which is why it's good for consumers to show preference for the better-behaved ones. Starbucks is one of the best of the breed. |
Corporations are legal entities though they are not legal people. So the question is what effects the behavior of a firm? Managers, for one, set the strategic direction of any firm. For Wal-Mart it's everyday low prices. To accomplish that end, Wal-Mart aggressively cuts unnecessary cost and leverages its buying power. Starbucks wants to create a third home (after their house and work) for their customers so they spend more on their baristas than they do advertising. All of this goes to show that firms aren't necessarily good nor are they inexorably evil. Firms just act in the interests of their stockholders. No more. No less.
| stillnotking wrote: |
| When I'm figuring out who to give my business to, I'm willing to pay a premium to companies that treat their employees well, and I encourage others to do the same. |
If you get utility from doing business with those that 'treat their employees well.' That's fine, it's a free market. I get utility from 'everyday low prices' so I've got no problem shopping at Wal-Mart. Though lately, I've been finding that Amazon has been offering better prices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| If you get utility from doing business with those that 'treat their employees well.' That's fine, it's a free market. I get utility from 'everyday low prices' so I've got no problem shopping at Wal-Mart. Though lately, I've been finding that Amazon has been offering better prices. |
My point is precisely the opposite: I go to Starbucks even though I could get cheaper, and equally good, coffee elsewhere. I go there because I consider them a good and equitable employer that is worthy of my business. Wal-Mart isn't, and I don't shop there.
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
Actually, from an Economic point it's a utilitarian one. Rational people (customers) will make the best choices for themselves although every customer is different. You set some moral bar for those you do business with; others don't. While this rationale is perfectly acceptable, customers who simply are looking for lower prices have their preferences as well. Also, if it is a question of morality, does this make you any better than a customer who buys their coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
Actually, from an Economic point it's a utilitarian one. Rational people (customers) will make the best choices for themselves although every customer is different. You set some moral bar for those you do business with; others don't. While this rationale is perfectly acceptable, customers who simply are looking for lower prices have their preferences as well. Also, if it is a question of morality, does this make you any better than a customer who buys their coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts? |
Let me turn this around on you: are you saying that the moral implications of a decision can be combined on the same axis with its utilitarian implications? In other words, if I decide to murder my parents so as to get my inheritance, is that reducible to cost/benefit analysis -- the answer depends on how much I'd stand to inherit, my chances of getting caught, etc.?
Obviously that is an extreme case, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. Morality and utility are two different things, cannot be conflated, and indeed are often in diametric opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
Actually, from an Economic point it's a utilitarian one. Rational people (customers) will make the best choices for themselves although every customer is different. You set some moral bar for those you do business with; others don't. While this rationale is perfectly acceptable, customers who simply are looking for lower prices have their preferences as well. Also, if it is a question of morality, does this make you any better than a customer who buys their coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts? |
Rational actors is bullflop. Ever heard of herd mentality? All you Cato types love to deify consumers who act like rats at a feeder bar begging for more Three and a Half Men, Super Bowl XXXYU and American Idol. Americans are dullards, and they act against their interests with regularity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
Actually, from an Economic point it's a utilitarian one. Rational people (customers) will make the best choices for themselves although every customer is different. You set some moral bar for those you do business with; others don't. While this rationale is perfectly acceptable, customers who simply are looking for lower prices have their preferences as well. Also, if it is a question of morality, does this make you any better than a customer who buys their coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts? |
Rational actors is bullflop. Ever heard of herd mentality? All you Cato types love to deify consumers who act like rats at a feeder bar begging for more Three and a Half Men, Super Bowl XXXYU and American Idol. Americans are dullards, and they act against their interests with regularity. |
jkelly80,
Wow, an elitist leftist economic ideology. Americans are too stupid to spend their money wisely. Let me guess, you like taxes?
Pluto,
I re-read Stillnotking's post a few times. Although you and I probably are coming from the same place on economic ideology, I can't find anything wrong with what Stillnotking has wrote. He hasn't griped about corporations controlling the economy or asked for further regulation. He's just expressed a preference in corporate policy. He's voting with his dollar. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, its commendable if he does it well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
The free market is not going to protect the rights of employees. If consumers want those rights protected, they should educate themselves and shop accordingly. This is not a utilitarian argument, it's a moral one. |
Actually, from an Economic point it's a utilitarian one. Rational people (customers) will make the best choices for themselves although every customer is different. You set some moral bar for those you do business with; others don't. While this rationale is perfectly acceptable, customers who simply are looking for lower prices have their preferences as well. Also, if it is a question of morality, does this make you any better than a customer who buys their coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts? |
Rational actors is bullflop. Ever heard of herd mentality? All you Cato types love to deify consumers who act like rats at a feeder bar begging for more Three and a Half Men, Super Bowl XXXYU and American Idol. Americans are dullards, and they act against their interests with regularity. |
My goodness. Why oh why do you single out Americans? I sincerely doubt the % of "dullards" in the USA is no higher than most countries in the world. If you think it does, then I suggest you interact with a broader scope of people when you are abroad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicholas_chiasson
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Location: Samcheok
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Canada is full of people who confuse the term "all beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights" with smoking pot. US hasn't got the market as cornered in stupidity as you'd like to think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
