Socialism Is Silly

I work at Subway.

A long while ago, at Sage Parenting (need an EZboard account to visit), I was involved in a short discussion about capitalism. It was suggested by one poster that I be paid for the profits generated by each sandwich I create.

I believe this is a terrible idea, and is not implemented for that reason. After all, in capitalistic societies there are many commission-based jobs which function on exactly that principle.

However, Subway paying by commission would be disastrous, not just for the company, but for the employees. The reasons follow.

A Commission-Based Pay Scale Would Be Bad For Subway Because:

1. Off-Season pay rates would be far too low to keep on more than a couple of employees. Customers are scarce, so few sandwiches are made, so nobody would be making much money. When the season picked up, the store would find itself seriously lacking in experienced sandwich artists (yes, it does take some experience to be fast and good). This would lose customers, which would just suck all around and be bad for business, for obvious reasons.

2. If employees got all profit from each sandwich, what is Subway's incentive to provide this medium? Do the employees then pay all the costs for product?

3. It would be bad for employees. Which is bad for Subway.

A Commission-Based Pay Scale Would Be Bad For Subway Employees Because:

1. It would create incentive to compete to serve a customer, instead of incentive to work together as a flawless sandwich-making machine. For that matter, who gets the money? Station one? Two? Three? I would assume one or three, the one who takes the order or the one who rings it up, but which? And honestly, it's station two that really adds the impressive visual flair to sandwich making; if you haven't seen artful, perfectly targeted saucing and lightspeed veggie placement then you haven't been to a good Subway.

2. It would create pressure to stay on the line to pick up sandwich sales, which would, more than likely, mean that as soon as the store got slammed, you wouldn't have enough prep done to cover it. At the end of the shift, dishes would be a mess, left undone because no one was willing to forfeit pay to do them. Ultimately, this would cripple the store, since pans would run out, so no bread could be baked. I won't even go into problems caused by not sweeping, mopping, or wiping down the lobby. "Sty" doesn't begin to describe it.

3. It would destroy any regularity of income, leaving the employees entirely beholden to customer volume for their rent, food, internet, and stripper expenses. Each day would be a terrifying exercise in anxiety as employees waited for the money they needed to live to walk through the door. Would it be a slow day, or would they get hit with three buses? Would they eat steak, or rice?

4. It would be bad for Subway. Which is bad for the employees.

Now then. I have a few things to add.

First of all, I think it's interesting that there are more problems for the employees than for the company itself. Secondly, in each case, a problem is the simple fact that it is a problem for the other side. So, if there was just one reason it was bad, for the employees or the company, it would be bad for the other by default.

I want, now, to go into the 3rd reason it is bad for the employees in more depth; and, to an extent, the 2nd reason it is bad for Subway.

Essentially, my complaints are mostly with a literal interpretation of the original suggestion. A socialist model of Subway would function differently than that, in all likelihood. But the two reasons mentioned above still apply.

Essentially, the socialist version of Subway would turn each employee into a joint owner of the company. Their fate would become entwined with the company, far more than simply to the extent of "If the company flops I lose my job".

But this assumes that such a situation is always favorable. It is not.

Certainly, partners and shareholders and joint owners and co-ops are all viable systems of ownership and business management, with their own nuanced advantages and disadvantages. For one thing, because each worker's livelihood is so intensely meshed with the fate of the company, each worker would logically strive to make the company not just get by, but excel.

The beauty of the capitalist system is that anyone can begin a private business, and thrive. But, if they fail to thrive, they could very well fail spectacularly, and lose much of whatever wealth they had amassed prior to starting the business. It is an endeavor with much associated risk. To make it pay off, it requires great amounts of creativity and energy.

And, to put it very frankly, a lot of us have better things to do. Not everyone wants to be a small business owner. And, in this socialist Subway, we would be, whether we liked it or not. Many people want only to involve themselves with the small business owners by exchanging their services for a flat fee, rather than by becoming embroiled in a turbulent business venture.

As for what that fee I'm getting in exchange for my services is, well, if I think it's too low, all I have to do is convince my employer, or any employer, that I can give them a service worth more. If I want more than minimum wage, I just have to convince the employer that my services are worth paying more for. That's an essential aspect of capitalism.

And capitalism rocks, unlike socialism, which is silly. 
¶ 8:50 PM

  Note

Several new posts below. Also, upcoming will be a post about why Subway should not be run as a socialist co-op.

Allie, this is inspired by something I believe you said on SP, once upon a time, but my memory might be off. Anyway, someone said it.

Toodles, darlings. 
¶ 1:41 AM

  More On Tolerance

Reposted from comments on a post two down.

I was so glad to see this topic (tolerance, not Eminem) on your blog today, because we are having an issue on a local support email list I own/moderate and I immediately wanted your input. (So glad you will be back at Sage tomorrow!).

Anyway, someone posted an OT (off-topic) post about this PBS cartoon show that was going to feature in a small way families with same sex parents (in this case women) on it. (The episode has since been pulled by PBS due to criticism from the Secretary of Education). The post was made by a lesbian mom in our group who was basically saying "cool! A show featuring a family like ours!” However another mom in the group (there are 200+ AP parents in this group) complained about the posting of the show, saying "I appreciate the heads-up about this episode so I can preview it without my children around. Please let me reiterate again that Attachment Parenting does not equal liberal social attitudes for all of us. Wanting our children to understand that different kinds of families exist is not the same as celebrating homosexuality. Please, please keep in mind that off-topic postings regarding political or sexual agendas are not appropriate for this forum."

As the owner of the list (whose primary mission is AP support for local parents) I do attempt to be tolerant of varying viewpoints, even those that I personally find loathsome. This being Texas, it happens fairly often. So when I read her request I thought, "fair enough" and asked that the topic be moved to the Current Events forum we have for political and controversial issues.

This was not a popular move with the more liberal side of the group. Here is one response I got: "Frankly, I'm appalled that this discussion is Considered 'OT'. Why is it a "political" issue that the parents in the show are gay? Of course I get the fact that the 'L-word' sets some people's teeth on edge, but why should we accommodate that reaction any more than we would accommodate racism? Let the discussion (and gay families) out of the closet already."

My motive in moving the thread to the other list was to avoid debate on the main list, which is how we have generally done it. The main list is free from the debate now, and the discussion is ongoing on the Current Events list. Shows about *any* TV shows are OT, but OT posts are fine unless they are controversial. In order to be tolerant, do you feel that racism, homophobia, or other hateful attitudes need to be respected on such a list?


Alright, lot of things I want to touch on here.

First of all, labeling the response as homophobic, while true in a literal sense, is also problematic... namely in that I see no value to such a label, and definitely room for unnecessary negative reactions. "Homophobic" has connotations, not just of aversion/fear, but of abject hatred, vitriol, and even (or especially!) violence. Many, many gentle-hearted conservatives will rankle at this term; they don't wish any harm to homosexuals, they 'just' think it's wrong and should not be shown as normal and okay. It's an important distinction, and I think we need to keep separate words for the people who support www.godhatesfags.com, and the people who believe homosexuality is a personal sin and should not be shown as a normal, acceptable practice. 'Homophobe' applies to both, but confusing the two is a big source of unnecessary grief.

Anyway, that said...

Homosexuality is political, the same way a show dealing with a black (or better yet, mixed race!) family would have been political in the sixties. Hopefully, in twenty years the only people getting up in arms at gay families on TV will be the fringe jackoffs who really do deserve to be called whatever you like (like racists today). But for now, it's a complex, political issue.

I think moving it was the best move. A good response to the naysayer would be "it became political when [Conservative Mom's Name] objected to it."

Like you said, they become OT when they are controversial. It became controversial when someone argued about it. End of story. You made the right choice.

Finally, on what one needs to do to be tolerant...

Well, first, why are you wanting to be tolerant? This is an important question; it is not essential in all cases to be tolerant; to tolerate (see especially definition 3) all views. It is a personal choice, and my comments about Eminem were more an amused realization, since it has always been my impression that the Left is, or considers itself, much more tolerant than the Right.

When choosing to tolerate something, you should have a goal. I tolerate Eminem's occasional slander of homosexuals because his music is entertaining. I tolerate my buddy Mike's blind allegiance to the Democratic party because it has zero impact on any aspect of our actual friendship. And so on.

You said the goal of the list is to support local AP mothers. Presumably this is because you believe AP is a philosophy that improves the lives of all children and mothers, not just those of a liberal political perspective. To this end, it makes sense to me that you would tolerate any views not related to AP that were not earthshakingly vile or divisive.

Really, you asked the question wrong, milady. Instead of "In order to be tolerant, do you feel that racism, homophobia, or other hateful attitudes need to be respected on such a list?", it should be "In order to help a maximum number of people embrace AP philosophy, do you feel that racism, homophobia, or other hateful attitudes need to be tolerated on such a list?"

And that's really a question you would answer better than I, but I expect the answer will be: Yes, within reasonable boundaries. 
¶ 1:14 AM

  IGNORANCE, Part II

Irrational Hatred

This one will be short.

I hated Bush. I hated all Republicans. I didn't know much about their stances, I just 'knew' they were fascist bigoted bastards, and that was good enough for me (nevermind that fascism is a form of socialism, not of right wing ideals).

Now, here is a really simple question. Did I ever actually listen to any of these people?

Did I ever, say, listen to a speech of Bush's? I mean listen to the speech, and to what he was trying to say, not just listen for grammatical missteps.

No.

I assumed I knew his true motives. He was a lying liar, and I knew what he really was saying.

So let me ask any reader who thinks Bush is a naughty naughty man... have you ever listened to what he said with the assumption that he was basically telling the truth as he sees it?

Also...

I recently came across a really good question to ask my former self. I found it here.

"Let me ask you something."

"Sure."

"Of all the governments in the world, which one do you know the most about?"

"Probably this one" (meaning the U.S. of course).

"Do you trust it?"

"NO!!!!!!!!"

"So why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to countries whose governments you don't even know that much about? Ones that have proven themselves to be brutal or uncaring?"

I honestly have no idea what my answer would have been.

What would yours be?
 
¶ 10:37 PM

  IGNORANCE, Part I

Politically Correct Intolerance

...or...

Why I Like Eminem (Now)

Okay, so let's flash back about three or four years. I can't be bothered to figure it out exactly.

This was back when I was a leftist. No qualifications, no... anything. Left was right, as far as I was concerned (as opposed to now, where I consider myself a liberal but not a leftist; a libertarian but not a Libertarian; Right wing but not part of that Right wing). Anyway. I was discovering TCS, and it appealed to my liberal foundations (solid foundations upon which I have always built the rest of my political views, whatever they may be).

A few TCSers I talked to seemed to like Eminem's music. I could not fathom this. I loathed the man. Why? Because he was a homophobic misogynist bigoted bastard, of course! How could you even ask!? Who would like him!?

Flash forward to now, where, after a brief love affair with his music (during which it was almost all I listened to) Marshall Mathers has found his way onto my playlist in a general sense. What changed?

The political shift that has been pretty well documented on this here ol' blog.

Is this because Right wing tendencies made me like his bigotry?

Of course! That's it. I'm slowly turning into Michael Savage, don'tcha know.

... Not quite.

Actually, I'll let you in on a little secret. Before, when I hated him? I'd never listened to his music. Not once. Not a single song. At all.

And another secret... he gots the mad rappin' skillz and beatz, baby. Or something more believably gangsta, because this middle class white boy really can't replicate it.

Which is why I listen to him. It, well, sounds good. Which is all I can ask from music, really.

And now, the final irony. Slim Shady is, like most of his ilk, very, very left-wing. He hates Bush. Etc.

I disagree, but it doesn't stop me from listening to his music. Four years ago, I would have had a hard time listening to music by someone I knew was extremely right-wing.

Yes. You read me right. I have become much, much more tolerant of dissenting viewpoints.

When I was a leftist, and much more concerned with political correctness, I was substantially more intolerant. Isn't that... well... the opposite of how it's supposed to be?

Now, I'm actually willing to give ideas a chance, to stand or fall, on their own merits. I have gained tolerance.

And I have lost something else. ...Whether or not you think my conclusions are right, I am not ignorant of the facts upon which those conclusions are drawn. I have lost the shell of ignorance, the echo chamber, that I maintained four years ago.

Coming up... More on this ignorance junk.  
¶ 11:22 PM

  Stealth Post

I was never here. You didn't read this. More won't come.

Shhhhhhh






----------------------------------



The knight stood motionless, as he had for an age before. Dust from an eternity of purgatory was draped across him like a blanket.

His heavy armor, once shining and bright, was soiled with rust and decay. He still held his sword high, but its blade had dulled and cracked from the blight of time. Though he still sat astride his steed, its trappings had crumbled away to ashen powder. All his battles had long since ended, and he had been left with nothing. Eventually, entropy had found the noble knight, and undone him, as it undid all things.

And the pawns were in even worse condition.

The Eye looked away from the decrepit wooden chess set; he had given up the past-time years ago, since his ability became widely known, and he lost the ability to even gain some small amusement by toying with his opponents. Few recreational pursuits were left to him, these days.

Which was why he now occupied himself with more productive games.

He turned his Sight back towards the Flamedancer, toward the haze of concealment that hid the inn. Whisper had infiltrated successfully; she'd learned a bit about where the Al'Naer were positioned in the building, and had resolved to learn more. She had ventured back into the void, out of The Eye's reach, in the guise of a cat.

It took him altogether too little time to put a word to what he was feeling now, for it was becoming very familiar.

Worry.

There had been a time when such an emotion was alien to The Eye. Why worry, after all, when he could simply See the probable outcomes of an action, and how to reach whichever result he desired?

Yet now, he was plagued with it. Wracked with doubt. Paralyzed by fear. He was jumping at shadows, fearing that around every corner lay Rabith, or Jason, or, gods save him, the Pestilent or the Eagle. Lying in wait, to pounce upon him as soon as he lowered his vigil.

The worst thing was, perversely, the best as well. Everything was going perfectly. Every plan he had formed was ripening, every trap he had laid was ready to be sprung.

Even his most tenuous plan had executed itself flawlessly.

The Al'Naer Jason was not immune to The Eye's Sight, save when he hid in the Flamedancer, and the results of any augury were only soured by the fact that Jason did change his fate with sorcery. The Eye had seen Jason's inevitable death at the hands of the Guard, in the warehouse outside Mannard's steel foundry. Yet he knew the gangly Al'Naer would not fall so easily, once his power was taken into account.

The result left naught but a skeleton remaining of Graymere's Guardsmen, and a weakened Al'Naer. The Eye had watched with elation as Jason tore through the Guard, a hurricane of merciless destruction.

The Eye had to keep the balance perfect, until the end. Every obstacle to his power was arrayed before him, every weapon he possessed was close at hand. This was his chance. All he had ever dreamt of was within his grasp. His plans were perfect, and, as time ran on, each one reached fruition exactly as he hoped.

Yet even with his victories, he knew he had to temper his excitement with caution. It was a dangerous endeavor. He was a fire-walker. A tamer of bears. A puppet-master, yet with one false move his puppets would consume him. He played a grand game, grander than any played by his foes, and yet he was no match for any of them personally.

Well, nearly any of them.

A knock at his door did not startle him; he had been expecting it. He said nothing, and the door swung open a moment later. As he had known it would. He took small solace in this return to normalcy. To his indisputable superiority.

"Lord," spoke the intruder reverently. His name was Egan, and he was one of the best assassins in The Eye's employ. One of the best in Graymere. He was better even than Whisper at blade-work, and poisons.

What amused The Eye most was that all Egan could think of was the conversation he'd recently had with Councilor Osbourn. How he had been offered ten thousand crowns to bring The Eye's eyes to the councilor. How he hadn't yet decided whether the bounty was high enough to chance it.

The Eye cared nothing for Egan's loyalty; he would try nothing today. The assassin was helplessly calculating; The Eye would see any attack coming days in advance. And until that time, Egan was a valuable tool.

"It is time," The Eye said simply, his back still to the assassin.

Egan nodded. He opened his mouth to voice a question.

"West side. Fourth floor. Center window," The Eye answered.

Egan sighed, and bowed his head. "Aye, Lord," he whispered, then took his exit. He was, for the fifth time in as many days, promising himself he would not take the Councilor's offer. The risk, he decided, was too great. The Eye, Egan thought, was omniscient; omnipotent. The closest man could come to godhood.

The Eye smiled wanly. He knew Egan's impression of him, while flattering, was ultimately not true.

Yet.

* * * 
¶ 10:11 PM

  Insider Junk

So, to any members of SP who are following my blog (and the last entry's comments) will know I have been banned from SP for 2 weeks (standard procedure). Shazaam! That's never happened before! Where're my loyal zombielike minions to bail me out, hmmm? I am exceedingly disappointed in my current mind-control techniques, and you can bet I'll be writing a stern letter to Slavemakers, Inc. If these kinds of shoddy results are what I can expect from future uses, I swear, I'll make the switch to Apple's version, Serfmaker.

Ahem. Anyway. Tearing my tongue away from my cheek for a moment...

Like all the other bans, speaking as an SP mod, I support the decision of the Administrator fully, though I admittedly have minor misgivings... primarily just the lack of any established, written guideline which I broke. But I pissed a lot of people off, despite not meaning to or anticipating that, so I understand the decision.

And for the record, I think a web board administrator is completely and utterly unlike a parent, and much, much more like a landlord. SP's landlord is enormously kind, generous, and gentle, compared to any other I know of. Furthermore, in a virtually unheard of kindness, she is working with her tenants in order to establish the building as, effectively, a co-op. These never work (Note: I mean online forum co-ops, I know the real things work fine), normally, but I have high hopes for SP and their landlord. However, I think constant badmouthing of said landlord is extremely poor form.

Alright. That's all I have to say, for now.

Toodles, darlings. 
¶ 10:47 PM

  Disasters

Not writing yet. This post is somewhat political, especially at the end.

This post has been altered by request.

Some people were arguing about the tsunami, and the relief offered to it, to try and find ways that America is still bad.

First of all, this strikes me as supremely absurd.

Second of all, as is typically the case, their arguments are tenuous at best, nonsensical and hysterical at worst.

Let's go through it bit by bit.

The first concern was a question... why is the tsunami getting so more attention than, say, the AIDS epidemic in Africa?

I understand this person's concern and I wouldn't call this one hysterical. But I do think it's off the mark.

The primary reason is, a devastation like a tsunami is a specific (tragic and unavoidable, as she said) disaster. It had specific repercussions. And money given to this cause can help to alleviate some of those repercussions (though not bring back the dead...). Compare this to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. This disaster is ongoing, even with money being spent on it. Money going to help individuals will be endless until AIDS is cured, and money going to AIDS research will not guarantee anything. In other words, this is a sinkhole. Donating money to it is a noble endeavor, but, ultimately, very different. I, for one, can understand why one would rather donate to a situation where the money will definitely get put to use, and and cause lasting differences.

Next one...

This observation was that people care more when tragedy hits close to home... that, it's not the 150,000 dead that matter to us, but the fact that a thousand or a hundred of those were our kind.

I don't know if this is true or not. But I do know that a certain Western nation offered to send a 150-man delegation to Sri Lanka, to help with personnel needs (such as medical care). Sri Lanka refused their help.

So this snubbed nation is sending... 10,000 blankets, mineral water, 12 tons of food, cans of baby food, over nine tons of medicine, generators, tents, beds and mattresses, by plane, instead. They're also in the process of sending aid to Thailand and India.

This is all pretty cool, right? And it's made even cooler (and more topical to the above quote) by the fact that no one from this particular Western nation has actually been reported dead from this tsunami!

Oh... and of course, because I love throwing the surprises at you, the nation responsible for all this compassionate relief effort is, of course, the only nation that terrorists hate more than the USA.

Israel.

Onward! To the 'nonsensical and hysterical' part.

Someone basically tried to link this to Iraq. Basically, why does no one care about the victims in Iraq? And even asked, 'what if a wave hit Iraq'?

Forgetting, for the moment, that the only place Iraq touches the ocean is where a miniscule fraction of it's south-western portion kisses the Persian Gulf... we'll assume this was know, and it was, you know, a theoretical point, man. Because, like, we hate those damned towelheads and wouldn't help them for nothin'! Nevermind that, for the past decade and beyond, we have routinely given huge amounts of aid to the middle east, in the hopes that some of it would make it past their maniacal dictators.

And especially nevermind the fact that... well, let's move on to the rest of it.

The poor innocent victims in Iraq have, for the most part, been freed. Thousand upon thousands less have died this year than any other. The answer to "who helps them?", then, seems rather obvious.

It's the same people who provided the majority of Tsunami aid.

The same people who, again and again, show themselves to care about the welfare of our fellow man, regardless of where they are or what they believe or what they look like. Often even more than those that live with them and believe what they believe and look like them (Indonesian Billionaires, of which there are several, have given virtually no money to help their own people).

Check out this to see a good, general measure of how compassionate these people are.

Yeah. You know who these people are.

They're us.

Edit: The original version of this included direct quotes taken without permission, and caused undue hurt feelings. I have attempted a half-assed remedy of this problem. If it is insufficient, let me know. 
¶ 11:29 AM