Intelligent Design?

[wesmorris]

We are falling apart because people have abandoned science and reason.

LOL. Don't you first have to accept something to have abandoned it?

Democratic socialism is one of the best systems of government yet devised.

That was not how this country was devised. It evolved into that.

Scaring the public with images of communist totalitarian Russia with its suppression of freedom is one of the ways the right encourages the rights of corporations over people.

? How does that work exactly? The reason corporate rights are pushed is such that corporations can make the economy strong by employing people and buying stuff from other corporations who employ people. How is it that being scared of comtotrus should make one think corporations should have rights?

You see, promoting personal responsibility is just a euphamism for "every man for themselves", while corporations get every break they need to keep the elite rich supporting conservative politicians.

LOL. Sorry man, you're just making shit up like I'm about to do, but mine makes more sense. Here ya go: You see, personal responsiblity is about production. The more responsibility you take for your own damned life, the more value you add to society, the more money you can make if you want, and the better off everyone is just because you took the load off of society and onto yourself. It is a desirable condition that you are able to take care of yourself. Further, thinking "someone is going to take care of me" is a freakin FARCE. They might, but counting on it is simply irresponsible. Corporations SHOULD GET as many breaks as they can be responsibly afforded such that they keep the economic engine that feeds us all going. "keeping the elite rich"? Well of course once rich you want to stay that way. Wouldn't you? Are you jealous or something? Do you really want the responsiblity that comes with being rich? Have you really thought about it? Your thoughts here sound pretty dogmatic of the left. I used to think that way until I woke the fuck up.

In the 1800's we had the robber barons, able to use monopolies to aquire vast wealth on the backs of workers that were barely able to make a living wage. In such a climate, all you could do is pray for a better life.

"on the backs of the workers". *sigh* If you don't like the pay, do your own thing. If you don't have the skillz or inginuity to do your own thing, why do you deserve anything special? Seriously man. Why do the workers deserve anything but the absolute minimum their employer can get them to do work for? If the employees don't like the work or don't think it's a fair wage, why do they still work there? Why don't they leave? Why don't they start a business of their own and see what it's like from the other side? Seriously, everything you say seems to completely ignore the other side of the equation, as if those who own and manage companies are not human and didn't have to go through a bunch of shit that the others apparently weren't able or willing to do in order to get where they are, usually with significant risks. Somewhere along the line in each of them, someone decided instead of spending the thousand bucks on video games and pot, they'd risk it on an investment of some kind be it their education, stocks, starting a business, or making a product come to life. These folks who are willing to do that DESERVE the reward of their labors. Do the people who just show up at work, bullshit all day without really caring about much, and having no liability in what they do... why do they deserve more than what they negotiated for? Why don't they even know how to assess their own value to the company or negotiate for a better salary? Huh? I've spoken with a lot of "workers" about that shit and they simply don't care about none of it. It's too dang complicated for them, or they simply don't get it. There are a lot of people who are just happy to have something to do and don't really want to apply themselves beyond what they think they are. Growth and adding value don't really ever enter their minds. Yet somehow you find them entitled? Is that the case? This entire deal is about pushing everyone to be better at what they do, pushing them to break the mold they set for themselves. If you get sick enough of what you're doing, you can motivate yourself to overcome your limitations and break loose on your own, doing your thing. Grr. I just don't like what your statements represent. To me I hear from what you said "I'm not empowered to take control of my own destiny" which is IMO, a total crock. You are exactly in control of it. Know the system, beat the system. Win. Succeed. It's okay if you don't... you can try again or settle for what you have. I suppose you think losers at sporting events should also get trophies?

As proven government institutions are systematically destroyed, the hope is that people will be less empowered and turn to the informal network of churches for help, insitutions which promote a particular viewpoint.

My god you should like a talking point from moveon.org. You really think that government institutions are empowering? Really? Which one please? How is it "more empowering" than an individual motivated to succeed for his/her own best interest or that of his family? Do you really think you can compensate for people who are too stupid to understand that? Do you really think that it's "empowering" to make someone dependent on the goverment for anything besides general protection and like roads and such? How?

I don't think ID is less extreme, it's just a con job.

ID is just religious zealots pimping their agenda. It's completely retarded as science because it's absolutely untestable. I can see it as philosophy perhaps, but even there I think it's pretty goddamned stupid, but whatever if you're into it. I think it could be taught in schools in social studies, but it's incredibly offensive and puritanical to think of it taught as science.

Notice that the same people will depend on medical science when they get ill, but other kinds of science are ignored, like climate science and biology.

This is just religious zealots pimpin their agenda. I'm afraid we may get pimped on this one, but the stupid majority rules and such. Gotta love the mob.

 

[spidergoat]

I think people in the 1950's and 60's did accept science, it was supposed to be the savior of humanity. We needed students to know math so we could beat the Russians.

Maybe our government is supposed to evolve, in fact I think that's what the framers intended. Certain government institutions are empowering, just as emergency relief, education grants, small business loans, low income housing, welfare, emergency health care, environmental regulations...

Why do the workers deserve anything but the absolute minimum their employer can get them to do work for?

Fine, let's also turn it around and say why should employers pay workers anything less than what they demand as a group? But increasingly the workers aren't allowed to organize and negotiate, but the corporations are.

There are rich democrats, I wouldn't mind being one, and I wouldn't object to higher tax rates. I wouldn't have made the money in a vacuum, but due to the conditions everyone created, lets call it the commons. Used to be, we could cancel a corporation's charter if they weren't working in the public interest. I get what you are saying about a free market, you could always start your own corporation, ect., but is there any point at which the accumulated power becomes a threat to the power of the people? Doesn't higher wages (to a point both labor and management can agree on) create a middle class that buys more stuff, driving the creation of new businesses?

 

[wesmorris]

I think people in the 1950's and 60's did accept science, it was supposed to be the savior of humanity. We needed students to know math so we could beat the Russians.

The people who knew math knew it better because there were no calculators and if they didn't remember it the teacher hit them with a stick. I think your vision of "an age of reason" in america is quite twisted. During those times, black people rode on the back of the bus, beatnicks and hippies fucked around and philosophized while snugly removed from any real responsibilty, shielded by the economic boon of post-war america.

Maybe our government is supposed to evolve, in fact I think that's what the framers intended.

I agree, but that wasn't what you stated.

Certain government institutions are empowering, just as emergency relief, education grants, small business loans, low income housing, welfare, emergency health care, environmental regulations...

All of which are completely subject to the efficient utilization of the resources allocated to them. Government is by its very nature, the least efficient type of organization possible, as there is nothing to for them to gain by being more efficient as long as they can keep you bullshitted into thinking they "care" by playing on your sympathy for the "less fortunate". While in many cases such sympathy is warranted, it is generally degraded by its utilization for political manipulation. It is SO effective and easy to do that it's abused to dust. It's often utlized for instance, to demonize those who see it as wrong or innapplicable in a particular circumstance.

Fine, let's also turn it around and say why should employers pay workers anything less than what they demand as a group?

DEMAND? Negotiation is about leverage. If they have leverage they can make demands. It's that simple. If they can be replaced for less cost to the company than whatever it is that they "demand" then they should be replaced. That is what is fair and most efficient for the overall economy. If they don't have the leverage to demand a salary they find satisfactory, they should acquire the skills or take the risks to overcome that limitation. Why should someone who can be more economically replaced than capitulated have any leverage?

But increasingly the workers aren't allowed to organize and negotiate, but the corporations are.

I fucking HATE unions for the most part, as to me they represent leeches who sponge off the risk, toil and ingenuity of the people who actually PRODUCE in this world. There are exceptions to that generalization.

There are rich democrats, I wouldn't mind being one, and I wouldn't object to higher tax rates

.

Consider that higher tax rates inhibit corporate freedom, which inhibits profitability, which inhibits employment, which inhibits economic activity in general.

Oh, and seriously.. look at rich democrats. They are either complete hypocrites or suffer "white guilt" of sorts... almost exclusively.

I wouldn't have made the money in a vacuum, but due to the conditions everyone created, lets call it the commons. Used to be, we could cancel a corporation's charter if they weren't working in the public interest.

How has that changed? I can go start a limitied liability corporation tomorrow for pretty much any purpose if I'm not mistaken, as long as it's not something illegal and I have the cash to fund the startup.

I get what you are saying about a free market, you could always start your own corporation, ect., but is there any point at which the accumulated power becomes a threat to the power of the people?

At the point of impending monopoly.

Doesn't higher wages (to a point both labor and management can agree on) create a middle class that buys more stuff, driving the creation of new businesses?

That's quite a condition (to a point that both labor and management can agree upon). How is it that things aren't exactly that way now? The money to start businesses generally comes from the empowering programs you spoke of above, or rich people who like an idea of a little guy who convinces them they can make them money. I'm sure I could have 10 million or more in six months actually if I was willing to do the legwork to get an air-tight presentation together. I could get in front of some very rich people I'm quite sure. With a sufficiently motivating pitch and the numbers to back it up, how could they pass it up? Of course what keeps me from doing it is that it's too much goddamned work to get all that together, and I don't want to be responsibile for that much of someone else's money. What's your excuse? Why couldn't any single one of those people leeching off of other people's hard work and risk-taking do the same damned thing? And you say they are in a position to DEMAND something? Yeah, only in the same respect that rioters have the right to DEMAND free big screen TVs and jewelry by breaking the glass on the front of the store and taking what they want.

 

[MetaKron]

Wes, I call bullshit. You're just too damned lazy to get off your ass and get that 10 million dollars together. Hell, even I think that you could do it and it would be completely legit, even without my help, but you're too damn lazy. What the hell are you still sitting on your ass for? I know you're sitting on your ass, no one reads these forums standing up. Get off that ass and promote something.

 

[wesmorris]

LOL. I've got plenty on my plate as it is thanks. I have a full time job and a side-business that's doing quite well thanks. And seriously, the responsibilty of that much of someone else's money on my hair-brained schemes? Ack. I don't want to take the chance of sleeping with the fishes for pissing off the wrong rich dude, or to be forever ruined by the loss. To be frank, I simply don't find the risk appealing given that I'm currently satisfied with my two jobs.

I get to play a reasonably important part of running two small businesses, one in manufacturing and one going and helping people with their computer problems. I really like what I'm doing and I'm getting paid well enough to find the greater risk intolerable. Were I to be in a more challenging position, the appeal of the risk would greatly increase. There is a possiblity I can make it happen within the framework of my current dayjob though... so I'll just have to see.

Oh, and I work on my ass for the most part, as most of what I do involves computers. So I can "get off my ass" without ever standing up.

Oh^2, and I've thought about it a lot, and I'm not sure I really want to be RICH. Well off? Yeah okay, but filthy rich? Hmm.. no, not really. I don't know if the grass is really greener on that side (okay, you could probably afford REALLY green grass, but you know what I mean).

 

[James R]

wesmorris:

DEMAND? Negotiation is about leverage. If they have leverage they can make demands. It's that simple. If they can be replaced for less cost to the company than whatever it is that they "demand" then they should be replaced. That is what is fair and most efficient for the overall economy. If they don't have the leverage to demand a salary they find satisfactory, they should acquire the skills or take the risks to overcome that limitation. Why should someone who can be more economically replaced than capitulated have any leverage?

Depends if you take the Economy as your all-powerful god, or not. There's a value judgment which is often ignored in our age of economic rationalism. What is good for The Economy is not always good for The People.

It would be great for the US economy, I am sure, to have everybody working in sweat shops for wages which are below the poverty line. But is that what we want?

I fucking HATE unions for the most part, as to me they represent leeches who sponge off the risk, toil and ingenuity of the people who actually PRODUCE in this world. There are exceptions to that generalization.

Largely, it is unions who have campaigned for things like fair pay.

Consider that higher tax rates inhibit corporate freedom, which inhibits profitability, which inhibits employment, which inhibits economic activity in general.

The end of this chain of reasoning is arguable. Personally, I don't mind inhibiting the "profitability" of the multinational companies if it results in a better society. How about you?

 

[Avatar]

 

[wesmorris]

First, I apologize for taking the economic sidetrack so far, but that is sometimes how threads go.

wesmorris:

It would be great for the US economy, I am sure, to have everybody working in sweat shops for wages which are below the poverty line. But is that what we want?

You'll need a better example I think. I'm curious as to what you'll come up with. As for your answer there, you should know well better. Seriously, would that really work? Could that situation be arranged in reality to begin with? I think not for both questions. The people with more responsibility or specialized knowledge must be compensated as their leverage allows. With everyone in sweatshops, our economy would absolutely suck. The best recipe for economic success is to drive efficient allocation of resources via demand. The dollar in this respect, is an incredible tool - the great equalizer. It's awesome to me that resources are unitized like that. An elegant, simplistic solution for a very complicated problem.

Further, the aspect of economy you seem concerned with is the responsiblity of law. IMO, it provides the moral element that keeps certain unnacceptable behaviors (those which endanger economic stability) in check to the best of their ability.

Largely, it is unions who have campaigned for things like fair pay.

(afterthought, to be fair the exception I mentioned that comes to mind first was the inception of the first unions I'm aware of during the industrial revolution in the US. Inhumane treatment of workers like beating, starving or making them stay when they want to quit is unnacceptable, but that's why there are laws against that stuff)

Yeah I understand that. What exactly however, consists of "fair pay"? If you are willing to work for me for no money, why shouldn't I let you? The fact is, you wouldn't. Your compensation is directly correlated to the leverage (even if quite friendly) you can apply in negotiation - maybe you just get satisfaction from the work and don't need money? Are you in demand or not? If not, then why am I paying you? If so, then I'll pay you as little as I can to retain your service. YOU are the one who established what I can pay you with your leverage. You can simply not do it if I'm not willing to pay you enough (e.g., I don't think I can afford you).

The end of this chain of reasoning is arguable. Personally, I don't mind inhibiting the "profitability" of the multinational companies if it results in a better society. How about you?

Like I said, that's what laws are for. Unfortunately, they are seemingly generally manipulated for individual gains rather that "the good of society". Then again, please tell me which authority establishes what consists of "a better society"? What if you disagree with them because for instance, they think "a better society" consists of ID being taught as fact to all children? What if they insist for instance, that the source of global warming is irrefutably humanity without scientific fact to irrefutably support the case?

Oh, and is "a better society" established through everyone losing their jobs because you shut down a company you suspect my have killed an innocent deer? Just using a ridiculous question to gauge your response.

 

[MetaKron]

LOL. I've got plenty on my plate as it is thanks. I have a full time job and a side-business that's doing quite well thanks. And seriously, the responsibilty of that much of someone else's money on my hair-brained schemes? Ack. I don't want to take the chance of sleeping with the fishes for pissing off the wrong rich dude, or to be forever ruined by the loss. To be frank, I simply don't find the risk appealing given that I'm currently satisfied with my two jobs.

I get to play a reasonably important part of running two small businesses, one in manufacturing and one going and helping people with their computer problems. I really like what I'm doing and I'm getting paid well enough to find the greater risk intolerable. Were I to be in a more challenging position, the appeal of the risk would greatly increase. There is a possiblity I can make it happen within the framework of my current dayjob though... so I'll just have to see.

Oh, and I work on my ass for the most part, as most of what I do involves computers. So I can "get off my ass" without ever standing up.

Oh^2, and I've thought about it a lot, and I'm not sure I really want to be RICH. Well off? Yeah okay, but filthy rich? Hmm.. no, not really. I don't know if the grass is really greener on that side (okay, you could probably afford REALLY green grass, but you know what I mean).

Well, at least you're doing something with your time. Back to my other browser window now.

 

[Raithere]

Sorry, but I just have to spout off on this one.

...one of the ways the right encourages the rights of corporations over people. You see, promoting personal responsibility is just a euphamism for "every man for themselves", while corporations get every break they need to keep the elite rich supporting conservative politicians.

The corporations are the people. And the overwhelming majority are not the elite rich. Stop buying into the leftist propaganda and get a look at reality you twit.

Most corporations are small businesses. The corner bakery, the dry cleaner, and the deli you frequent are privately owned. Even the McDonalds, the Starbucks, and the Blockbuster Video stores are franchises, owned privately by people willing to take the risk of owning and running a business.

These are primarily people of moderate means, just trying to do well enough to support themselves and their handful of employees. These are the people breaking their backs to make their businesses a success and in the process manage to provide several other people with jobs. These are the people with the 80 hour work week because when you own your own business you can't afford to just forget about it when the clock ticks 5PM.

These are the real laborers in this society, not the fucker shlepping burgers who quit high-school, walks in 15 minutes late every day, calls in sick if his brother comes down with a cold, treats customers like shit, and wonders every day why he can't earn his boss's big 50k salary. Never mind that the owner's 50k salary works out to $12/hour when you figure the hours he puts in and that the shlep wouldn't even have a job if the owner hadn't risked what he did have on starting a business in the first place.

Now I know you find the corporate giants scary but even these are publicly owned and the large majority of owners and employees are certainly not pulling down 5mil a year. Even most of those pulling down the big bucks only have those big bucks because they worked their fucking asses off in the first place.

Lee Iacocca, didn't come to this country with his pockets stuffed with gold he was lucky to have pockets at all. He started working at the age of 10 and kept working. Bill Gates didn't win the lotto, he had the foresight, drive, and dedication to make a risky venture the world's biggest business success and helped 10,000 others to become millionaires along the way.

If it weren't for people like this the poor burger shlep wouldn't even have a job, he'd be out hoeing potatoes in his back yard hoping he could trade a bushel for a bucket of milk and some eggs. He wouldn't have Nikes on his feet, he wouldn't have air-conditioning, he wouldn't have a home of lumber and brick but of mud and straw. He'd also likely starve to death after a drought or a hurricane wiped out his crop.

So he wasn't born with a silver spoon up his ass, boo-fucking-hoo. He wants the government to give him the money instead of giving corporations a break? Too fucking bad. Not making the money he thinks he should and want to know who's to blame? Take a really good look in a mirror. Get some balls, get an education, lean some skills, instill yourself with dedication and diligence, and get ready to work your fucking ass off because that's what it takes. No government policy can change that and no corporation is stopping you.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Apparently ID is even in court now

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8172

The proponents of ID testified.

part of their evidence:

He cited only one peer-reviewed journal article that he claimed dealt with the concept of ID, which he published in 2004, though admitted that the article contained no outright mention of irreducible complexity or, indeed, ID itself.

 

[jayleew]

I think almost everyone would rather make a living themselves than take a pitifully small handout. This is a common misconception about welfare. Many welfare recipients ARE working at jobs that cannot support their families.

You could be right for today, but those (especially teenagers) that I know are not like that. And the teenagers are not learning good work ethics. It is the same attitude of making money in the least painful way and not willing to work harder to make more money, so that they can make money later in a lesser painful way. I'm talking about our future.

What is destroying the American Dream, better called the MIDDLE CLASS, is the destruction of labor unions by the republicans, as well as the exportation of our manufacturing jobs. Working at McDonalds for less than a living wage will not allow anyone to rise above the poverty level.

There needs to be a healthy balance. Too many unions and the corporations might collapse.

Our capitalistic society is a worthy system, but it creates a group of elites with a disproportionate influence in our government. What we have to do is election and campaign reform, not welfare reform.

Correct. But, the root of the problem is the attitude of the people. How do you reform that?

 

[spidergoat]

I doubt that corporations would collapse if they had to work with unions, after all the workers depend on the corporation for their income. When I said "demand" earlier, I meant negotiate. They have their demands, and the corporation has theirs, and they come to a comprimise.

Take a really good look in a mirror. Get some balls, get an education, lean some skills, instill yourself with dedication and diligence, and get ready to work your fucking ass off because that's what it takes. No government policy can change that and no corporation is stopping you.

What about the airline worker who did get an education, did learn some skills, and did work their fucking ass off, only to be told upon retirement that their pension fund is gone and there's nothing they can do about it?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

good work ethics...

what's that. Work hard and don't complain?

Companies don't exist for the benefit of the workers...

Workers do exist for the benefit of the company...

in such a skewed system you have to allocate more power to the worker. Otherwise you just give companies carte blanche.

 

[jayleew]

I doubt that corporations would collapse if they had to work with unions, after all the workers depend on the corporation for their income. When I said "demand" earlier, I meant negotiate. They have their demands, and the corporation has theirs, and they come to a comprimise.

If all corporations had to be in check by a union, corporations would have to bend over backwards as the wages and benefits would eventually exceed the corporation's budget. The worker needs to compromise with the corporation and ask the boss for a raise or better working conditions, sometimes, unionized if the corporation is truly screwing the workers and not listening. But, are they screwing the workers? In a market economy, with federal mandates? If the corporation is following the laws, the wage and benefits needs to be between the corporation and the worker. The worker is in control of where he works in today's economy. There are jobs all over, so many jobs that we need Mexicans to pick up the slack. If you aren't making enough, don't work there! Make your destiny and don't give up until you reach it, or die trying. That is the American Dream that we are losing in today's youth. We want so much for our kids not to go through what we did, that they are spoiled and don't know what personal responsibility is.

Why do you think WalMart is so against unions? They would lose so much money paying benefits and wages! If my employer is not treating me fairly, but is within the law, I can either leave or join together with coworkers IF they are being "mistreated within the law" as well. I work for a corporation that would go under if I asked for a raise because it is a medium-sized business. I haven't got a raise in five years and I have no benefits. So, if I want to work here, I had to go out and get a second job to compensate for the living wage. I wish I could work only one job and be able to live, but what am I going to do? Burden the government to pay me what I should be paid? Should my employer be mandated by a union to pay me so much that they would collapse? Unions demand, because they carry a threat. Too many unions would kill businesses that make up the majority of the economy. Unions have their place, but there needs to be a balance.

What about the airline worker who did get an education, did learn some skills, and did work their fucking ass off, only to be told upon retirement that their pension fund is gone and there's nothing they can do about it?

There is always a risk involved with a market economy. It is truly a sad situation, and one that no one wants to be in, but it is the worker's decision where they put their money they work their ass off for. They knew the risk. It is just too bad they couldn't have put the money they were giving the government for SSI, into an investment fund and have that to fall back on.

It's the worker's money, so they should have the choice where it goes after they are taxed.

 

[Raithere]

I doubt that corporations would collapse if they had to work with unions, after all the workers depend on the corporation for their income. When I said "demand" earlier, I meant negotiate. They have their demands, and the corporation has theirs, and they come to a comprimise.

What do you mean "if"? Corporations do work with unions.

What about the airline worker who did get an education, did learn some skills, and did work their fucking ass off, only to be told upon retirement that their pension fund is gone and there's nothing they can do about it?

You're describing the criminal (or criminally negligent) actions of individuals or small groups of individuals, not corporate policy. You'll find politicians stealing from public coffers too. Nothing you can do about it but monitor diligently and punish those who commit the crimes.

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

good work ethics...

what's that. Work hard and don't complain?

Work hard, complain, then do something about it. Throw the tea in the harbor if you are willing to accept the consequences of failure in the persuit of a better tomorrow.

Companies don't exist for the benefit of the workers...

Workers do exist for the benefit of the company...

in such a skewed system you have to allocate more power to the worker. Otherwise you just give companies carte blanche.

The American worker already holds all the cards, but it's just easier if someone else deals them for you. This attitude will destroy this country as it is, and give birth to a socialist rebuplic.

 

[Raithere]

good work ethics...

what's that. Work hard and don't complain?

Companies don't exist for the benefit of the workers...

Workers do exist for the benefit of the company...

in such a skewed system you have to allocate more power to the worker. Otherwise you just give companies carte blanche.

Ergo the wide scale policy of employee stock options. Any good company policy does indeed exist in part to benefit its employees. It never behooves a company in the long run to abuse or take advantage of its employees, the corporation will always run into problems this way. Instead it is much better to treat them well... even better to let the employees become owners themselves.

Again, fable and fantasy; have any of you ever worked for a major corporation?!?

From personal experience I can tell you that you receive more benefits, better salary, more perks and protections working for a large corporation than you will ever find in the small business market. Unions or no.

~Raithere

 

[spidergoat]

There is always a risk involved with a market economy. It is truly a sad situation, and one that no one wants to be in, but it is the worker's decision where they put their money they work their ass off for. They knew the risk. It is just too bad they couldn't have put the money they were giving the government for SSI, into an investment fund and have that to fall back on.

and

You're describing the criminal (or criminally negligent) actions of individuals or small groups of individuals, not corporate policy. You'll find politicians stealing from public coffers too. Nothing you can do about it but monitor diligently and punish those who commit the crimes.

The Federal Bankruptcy Court is going to let United Airlines terminate its employee pension plans. Employees are going to get their pensions from a federal agency, but some of them are going to get maybe half of what they were promised. Yet declaring personal bankruptcy has just been made more difficult.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I've been at the bottom of society regularly and have worked many times the bottom jobs. Things are much clearer there. A good job can cloud the truth a bit. The size of the corporation doesn't matter I think.

They are paying you a decent salary, they give you a bonus, they pay for your health insurance. etc. etc.

So they kick you out on the street the next day when they do not need YOU anymore.

You might still need THEM. And none of this is your fault.

How skewed is that?