Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This bakery will hire anyone

grist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#161

Post by ars »

xj9 wrote: post #136
ars wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's different about stealing cars for money for medications, versus stealing cars for money for bread They are totally different! Someone stealing for bread, i.e. to survive, will never consider crime if they don't absolutely have to. So they may have committed a crime, but they are not a criminal. But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal, i.e. someone who…

But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal Perhaps you'd like to become acquainted with addiction[1] and substance dependence[2]. They are real issues that people (those who you call criminally selfish) have to deal with, (generally) alone. Due to societal attitudes towards drug use and the overly harsh treatment of users by the criminal justice system, people suf…

They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to all, they can not claim ignorance.

On top of that addiction is no excuse to harm others by stealing or other activity. It might feel absolutely horrible not to have the drug, but it is not necessary in order to live.

Someone who is so consumed by their addiction that they have no self control left, and they steal, is someone who is not employable.

This doesn't mean they should be ignored - it's two different things. People should certainly help them, but at the same time they do not make good employees.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#162

Post by spopejoy »

cubano wrote: post #131
spopejoy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize it's fun to paint lawyers with the same brush, but let's be clear here: prosecutors are the ones gunning after constant guilty convictions, and the Roberts Supreme Court has stripped even the most basic ways to challenge their abuses.

Right...they sure are, and I know from direct experience. However, paid defense lawyers sure get a nice dividend from these recidivists. Cops get the jobs, status, and power they seek from arresting them. The prison industrial complex owes it's entire business model to them (as first-timers rarely get state prison time), and the last time I checked, DOC was the largest state budget item for CA and FL (I'll admit to m…

Agreed, the fact that we even talk about a "business model" for incarceration is horrific. Indeed much of NY state is economically dependent on corrections, it's ugly.

Still, lawyers aren't getting rich defending the masses of underprivileged felons filling our prisons. Defending these folks is a pretty honorable task.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#163

Post by ars »

toyg wrote: post #139
ars wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone else might say that a human being has the right to realize his potential in an activity You do realize that you saying "we should force this other person to hire someone so that he can realize his potential"? Why is that other person (the employer) the sacrifice here?

Because of where original capital came from, and where it should go in the future. You should check out a few XVII/XIX-century European philosophers like Rousseau, Proudhon etc.

You are still stuck in the past were to start a business you need a lot of capital. It's not like that anymore. Most business these days are about services - you need an idea, not capital.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#164

Post by ars »

dredmorbius wrote: post #132
ars wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might help, but it's still completely bizarre that you can't fire someone for any reason. An employee does not have a "right" to a job. You do work you get paid, it's transactional. It's not "your" job - it belongs to your employer.

Two points: first, there's an inherently unequal balance of power in the employment relationship, and it favors the employer. This has been recognized going back to Adam Smith if not before, quote from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations below. Second: the "right" to a job (or not) exists (or doesn't) because that's how the relationship's been defined in law. Law to which, again, employers…

> It's quite possible to envision a regime in which employers do assume a responsibility for their employees.

You are essentially advocating for a form of serf-hood where the person will always be taken care of, but they can never advance.

You also seem to have this idea in mind that business owners are rich landowners. The reality is far from that. Most business constantly run right on the edge of failure. The reason for that is competition - anyone who tries to earn more is squeezed out by others.

No one wants to go back to the old days where you have the worker and the master and a worker can never become a master. Which is essentially the world you are describing.

But the flip side of this ability to advance is that each person has to be responsible for themself - their employer is no longer their patron.

We have made progress in the last 200 years since Adam Smith. Workers can advance now - all they need is a good idea. You don't need tons of capital like before.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#165

Post by spopejoy »

dredmorbius wrote: post #127
spopejoy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize it's fun to paint lawyers with the same brush, but let's be clear here: prosecutors are the ones gunning after constant guilty convictions, and the Roberts Supreme Court has stripped even the most basic ways to challenge their abuses.

Cite on Roberts? See also: Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Appeals. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/rampant-pro... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski

Read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" for cite after cite. My copy is lent out to a friend and the internet isn't bringing up specific cases. Excellent, irrefutable and seriously depressing book.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#167

Post by MichaelGG »

dredmorbius wrote: post #126
MichaelGG wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking "drug convictions" into account is a form of discrimination. If the FDA revoked the licensing of Prozac or the DEA scheduled it tomorrow, suddenly tons of people would be guilty of drug-crimes. It'd criminalize being depressed. The same is true for the current state of drug laws. We're criminalizing people with anxiety, with existential pain, stress, curiosity, etc. What's different about stealing cars for mon…

Discrimination in job applications is perfectly legal outside specifically protected classes in the United States, including under various state laws. The nationally protected classes are race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age, veterans status / military service, bankruptcy or bad debts, genetic information, and citizenship status (exclusive of work eligibility). Under various state laws, there may or m…

Many drug convictions, outside of pure merchants (non-patients) are medical conditions and thus should be protected from discrimination.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#168

Post by xj9 »

ars wrote: post #161
xj9 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But someone stealing for drugs demonstrate a level of selfishness that does make them a criminal Perhaps you'd like to become acquainted with addiction[1] and substance dependence[2]. They are real issues that people (those who you call criminally selfish) have to deal with, (generally) alone. Due to societal attitudes towards drug use and the overly harsh treatment of users by the criminal justice system, people suf…

They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to all, they can not claim ignorance. On top of that addiction is no excuse to harm others by stealing or other activity. It might feel absolutely horrible not to have the drug, but it is not necessary in order to live. Someone who is so consumed by their addiction that they have no self control left, and they steal, is someone who is not emplo…

They were selfish to start using the drug. The dangers of drugs are known to all, they can not claim ignorance.

Drug use includes a risk of addiction, not a guarantee. Just like a lot of activities, there is a choice to be made considering the risks involved. For some people, the level of risk is acceptable. Unfortunately, brain chemistry is very complex and users rarely take the time to understand what they are doing to themselves. The result is often an unexpected rollercoaster of self-destruction.

they do not make good employees.

On that point I agree. I'd be willing to look the other way at drug-related charges for a fully recovered junkie, but someone who is in the middle of the recovery process (or possibly hasn't started) would be a no-go.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to stop demonizing drug users. Addiction isn't an excuse for criminal behavior, but it shouldn't be a crime or carry so much social stigma.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#169

Post by dredmorbius »

ars wrote: post #164
dredmorbius wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: first, there's an inherently unequal balance of power in the employment relationship, and it favors the employer. This has been recognized going back to Adam Smith if not before, quote from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations below. Second: the "right" to a job (or not) exists (or doesn't) because that's how the relationship's been defined in law. Law to which, again, employers…

> It's quite possible to envision a regime in which employers do assume a responsibility for their employees. You are essentially advocating for a form of serf-hood where the person will always be taken care of, but they can never advance. You also seem to have this idea in mind that business owners are rich landowners. The reality is far from that. Most business constantly run right on the edge of failure. The reaso…

"You are essentially advocating..."

No. I am not.

The rest of your comments are similarly utterly groundless.

Re: This bakery will hire anyone

#170

Post by toyg »

ars wrote: post #163
toyg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of where original capital came from, and where it should go in the future. You should check out a few XVII/XIX-century European philosophers like Rousseau, Proudhon etc.

You are still stuck in the past were to start a business you need a lot of capital. It's not like that anymore. Most business these days are about services - you need an idea, not capital.

If that's the case, what is VC for? hey, it's right in the name!

You still need capital. Maybe not upfront, but you will need it to survive and scale up. VCs currently act as a "poor man's wealth redistribution" mechanism, funneling capital to bright young things that might not otherwise get access to it.

Post reply on HN