The warehouse owner will not pay a living wage tomorrow. No warehouse owners are going to up wages tomorrow. Not for 1 warehouse, not for 10, not for 100. The only methods, let me repeat that: the ONLY METHODS, to raise wages are political action and union organization with strikes.
The system that currently exists incentivizes profit maximization by minimizing operating costs in relation to product moved, every warehouse is going to pay as little as possible. Even if warehouses still burn down every few months they can just pass that cost onto consumers. Even if they did pay well, if burning warehouses becomes the culture then even well paying ones might get burnt down by burnt out employees or bad actors.
And don’t think “they can’t send all of us to prison” because we both know they can and would.
We’ve tested this with the Coal Mines in usa history. Coal miners can strike, and that made waves, but then when they got replaced a large group of them tried to destroy the coal mines, which btw can burn for over a century, causing casualties as a result and hundreds of arrests, and still the coal barons didn’t raise the wages by a single fucking hay penny. You know what did? An act of Congress.
Your argument is flawed. You literally sound like a Jeffrey Epstein class supporter.
“Even if warehouses burn, they will pass that cost onto consumers,” no they won’t. Consumers will riot if those prices get too high. You saw it happen to Netflix and many others. If warehouses start doing that repeatedly because their warehouses keep getting burnt down, consumers will refuse their services because they are too expensive, so, they will lose even more money and stability because nobody will want to work in such a dangerous place either, due to its reputation, raising the demand for the roles, the wages, etc., which shall lead the CEO to open its own head to the truth :)
This one was my favorite, it is what makes you sound like a Jeffrey Epstein class supporter the most:
“And don’t think “they can’t send all of us to prison” because we both know they can and would.”
You sound like a billionaire who is afraid of more Luigi Mangiones popping out. Dude, if they jailed us all, then, who is going to run the country? If they nuked us, who the fuck is going to keep the economy running? The traumatized people left behind? You think they will swallow it up, accept the fact that their loved ones died or are in jail, and simply continue working for someone like you or the pedophiles you are defending like some capitalistic greedy ass warehouse owners nobody gives a fuck about? Fuck no, lmao. What kind of perspective do you have about people? It’s so baby-like. Shit I used to say when I was 12, lowkey. “Jail us all” lmfao, imagine feeding, I don’t know, half of the country because they are leftist prisoners. About 150 million people in jail. Imagine feeding them, building the jails to house that amount of people with only the other half, 150 million people, mostly republicans who are rednecks that are proud of not using toilet paper and calling bidets “gay and woke” at your disposal, and for what again? Because they wanted a livable wage? Lmfao. Goodluck.
And no. Good warehouses will not be burnt down just because “burning bad ones became the culture.” They aren’t being burnt down now, they won’t later. Only those who don’t pay well will be burnt down, period. You are just trying to scare people away from doing what hurts the rich the most, probably because you are a serf.
Yes, dude. Thousands of people quit Netflix every time they raise their prices, myself and about 5 members of my family I know so far included. So many people online said and did the same shit.
Why would you even say this? It’s something so popular. It happens to gaming consoles services, streaming services, videogames themselves, like AAA titles raising their cost up to 70 or 80$ while their quality worsen; a lot of you complain and stop buying them. A lot of you boasted about not buying the Nintendo Switch 2, and so on. That is a form of rioting if you thought rioting meant going outside with a sign only, and it happens when costs rise and the service is the same or worse. I shouldn’t even be explaining this
??? Do you think rioting means going outside with a sign only? Whenever you quit a membership service because you disagree with their new policies, and a lot of people online fuel that sentiment by being really loud about it, then yes, it is a form of riot or whichever word you want to use, who cares? What the fuck. Arguing semantics, a word. Are you autistic or something? Or a Jeffrey Epstein class supporter trying to deviate the topic with nonsensical bullshit?
Words have meanings. Specifically, they’re only useful as a means of communication if both parties have the same understanding of that meaning. The word “riot”, for example, has a specific set of meanings; depending on your dictionary they’ll be along the lines of:
a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.
Or perhaps the more formal:
a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.
What you wont find as a definition is “a lot of people online fuel that sentiment by being really loud about it”, because that is not a riot.
I didn’t address the rest of your post because it is, I’m afraid, similar arrant nonsense. What you wrote is, at best, a cathartic fantasy, but not in any meaningful way rooted in reality.
I want higher wages and lower average work week hours for workers everywhere. The way to accomplish that is not arson, at least not on necessary supply stockpiles. Maybe CEOs would think twice if you had an Arson target that actually impacted their lives physically, like one of their cars or their office or where they bank, but definitely not a supply warehouse.
Their cars? Offices? The bank? Are you serious, bro? Here we go:
Car: Super cheap. Inside their mansions’ gareages which are surrounded by tall walls and security booths and cameras and so on. Some of them have their own teams of bodyguards. You’d need a team of armed people for this one, and for what? A car worth 0.0001% of his annual salary? Nice suggestion, bro. You sound very smart! Let’s continue.
Office: The office is in the warehouse. Setting that shit on fire will do what? It’s insured like the bank, and you will probably just burn paper and a computer. The data is still in the cloud. The damages would only cost the CEO a few thousand dollars, a small headache, and for what? What will that change exactly?
The bank. Bro. This one is the most stupid. What do you want one single dude to do there?
Now, the warehouse, however… So easy to get hired. So easy to take notes of where the cameras are, where the most inflammable items are, and plan the day and message you will broadcast to everyone a few minutes before to keep them safe. Bam, light the cardboard, watch for a few minutes to make sure it spreads, leave, clap your hands. You just burned millions worth of supply with your own hands alone. Now THAT hurts the CEO more. And if it keeps happening to the point insurance companies feel forced to stop covering arsoning, because, insurance companies are all about profit too, ask the United Healthcare CEO is you don’t believe me.
So. This was your masterplan all along? Focus on a car, an office, the bank…? I hope your heart is actually in the right place, because I have heard your name mentioned before, you’ve been called a troll, so, hard to know. But this won’t do, man. We need bigger balls than that.
CEO of Kimberly Clark is at least $11M USD, judging by his stock ownership in the company, cars and homes can easily rack up that amount, but more importantly is that its something he would have to look at in person and think “I could have gotten hurt”.
Love the spirit, but people will do both. They will burn his business, his cars, his office and his home. I am not sure why you care so much about only the business. You want to keep it intact so we give it to someone better? A better CEO/the workers? That’d be the most ideal, I’d agree with that, but current times won’t allow that to happen that easily, unlike the other, which is already starting. It’s something that takes decades, it doesn’t happen in one day. We might expect a story like the warehouse or Luigi’s every year now.
You can’t figure out why I think burning down a warehouse full of diapers, toilet paper, soap, and related products is a negative? Really? You’ve got no idea? Wow. I’m honestly astonished. Out of curiosity, do you think all of those supplies are infinite? Who do you think bares the burden if those supplies face shortages? Who do you think profits from it?
Then the goal should be to make paying low wages unprofitable. If enough warehouses burn, eventually insurance companies will consider warehouses that pay poverty wages to be uninsurable.
Yes, you can pretend that these costs can just be past on to consumers, but prices are already set as high as the market will bear. They can’t raise prices without eating into demand. If it was possible to easily raise prices and still have their goods sell, those prices would have already been raised.
People aren’t going to suddenly stop needing toilet paper and diapers any time soon, so no matter how much operational costs rise then the cost to consumers will continue to rise. Even if only one specific company was the target for a bunch of arson, that would just lead to different scummy companies filling the gap.
The point at which it is “too much for the market to bare” is the point when single moms and people in poverty can no longer afford basic hygiene, in which case me and most rational people are NOT going to sympathize with the arsonists.
The only method which will directly raise wages are political action and union organization with strikes.
Expressions of discontent like arson will not raise wages themselves, but they are a reminder to the financial class what the cost of continual suppression of union organizing is.
I’m not really convinced random acts of violent disruption of industry has ever resulted in progress. For every time that a violent movement was followed by an act of legislative progress, there are many time where violence wasn’t required at all.
That said, the extremely wealthy do need to understand we are capable of organizing against them with threat of violence, but to burn down our own necessary supplies is stupid.
It’s less about violence itself leading to progress and more about violence expressing the capacity for violence, which necessitates taking negotiations seriously.
Powers do not generally make concessions out of the goodness of their hearts. Even democratic polities very easily become complacent if the monopoly on power is never meaningfully challenged. And when strikes and demonstrations become ritualized, it becomes easy for the polity to see them as harmless or meaningless.
I would posit the reverse - no grassroots change has ever been effected against the will of the elite without the credible threat of violence to back it. This doesn’t mean that the whole town has to be burned down before change is possible. If the elites have an ounce of competence, it may never escalate directly to violence, as an ounce of competence shows that the willingness to unlawfully gather in the face of state forces permitted and expected to use violence, even a peaceful gathering, is itself a challenge to the state monopoly on violence, and thus a crisis moment to anyone who can see further than their next hamburder.
But in the all-too-common case of sub-competent or outright incompetent elites, some amount of violence becomes necessary as a means of communication.
As I said elsewhere on the same topic - I’d never recommend burning down a warehouse, by risk-reward ratio alone. But that’s also not the same as saying that it’s meaningless or doesn’t have a positive effect on the rest of our negotiating position.
As MLK Jr. said, a riot is the language of the unheard.
I’m not here to wipe your ass for you. You’re on the internet, fucking google it. It’s nobody’s responsibility but your own to make you not look like an ignorant fuck about history.
The historical union movements that created real change were concurrent with campaigns of arson and violence. Some bosses had to have their head caved in with a lead pipe before they agreed to bargain with the union.
The warehouse owner will not pay a living wage tomorrow. No warehouse owners are going to up wages tomorrow. Not for 1 warehouse, not for 10, not for 100. The only methods, let me repeat that: the ONLY METHODS, to raise wages are political action and union organization with strikes.
Survival of the fittest: if warehouses that pay living wages survive, and those that don’t, don’t, then evolution happens :3
The system that currently exists incentivizes profit maximization by minimizing operating costs in relation to product moved, every warehouse is going to pay as little as possible. Even if warehouses still burn down every few months they can just pass that cost onto consumers. Even if they did pay well, if burning warehouses becomes the culture then even well paying ones might get burnt down by burnt out employees or bad actors.
And don’t think “they can’t send all of us to prison” because we both know they can and would.
At some point, profit maximization naturally involves increasing worker pay if low worker pay is causing warehouse fires.
We’ve tested this with the Coal Mines in usa history. Coal miners can strike, and that made waves, but then when they got replaced a large group of them tried to destroy the coal mines, which btw can burn for over a century, causing casualties as a result and hundreds of arrests, and still the coal barons didn’t raise the wages by a single fucking hay penny. You know what did? An act of Congress.
Your argument is flawed. You literally sound like a Jeffrey Epstein class supporter.
“Even if warehouses burn, they will pass that cost onto consumers,” no they won’t. Consumers will riot if those prices get too high. You saw it happen to Netflix and many others. If warehouses start doing that repeatedly because their warehouses keep getting burnt down, consumers will refuse their services because they are too expensive, so, they will lose even more money and stability because nobody will want to work in such a dangerous place either, due to its reputation, raising the demand for the roles, the wages, etc., which shall lead the CEO to open its own head to the truth :)
This one was my favorite, it is what makes you sound like a Jeffrey Epstein class supporter the most: “And don’t think “they can’t send all of us to prison” because we both know they can and would.”
You sound like a billionaire who is afraid of more Luigi Mangiones popping out. Dude, if they jailed us all, then, who is going to run the country? If they nuked us, who the fuck is going to keep the economy running? The traumatized people left behind? You think they will swallow it up, accept the fact that their loved ones died or are in jail, and simply continue working for someone like you or the pedophiles you are defending like some capitalistic greedy ass warehouse owners nobody gives a fuck about? Fuck no, lmao. What kind of perspective do you have about people? It’s so baby-like. Shit I used to say when I was 12, lowkey. “Jail us all” lmfao, imagine feeding, I don’t know, half of the country because they are leftist prisoners. About 150 million people in jail. Imagine feeding them, building the jails to house that amount of people with only the other half, 150 million people, mostly republicans who are rednecks that are proud of not using toilet paper and calling bidets “gay and woke” at your disposal, and for what again? Because they wanted a livable wage? Lmfao. Goodluck.
And no. Good warehouses will not be burnt down just because “burning bad ones became the culture.” They aren’t being burnt down now, they won’t later. Only those who don’t pay well will be burnt down, period. You are just trying to scare people away from doing what hurts the rich the most, probably because you are a serf.
Ah yes, the fanous Netflix riots. They were mostly in Narnia, weren’t they?
Yes, dude. Thousands of people quit Netflix every time they raise their prices, myself and about 5 members of my family I know so far included. So many people online said and did the same shit.
Why would you even say this? It’s something so popular. It happens to gaming consoles services, streaming services, videogames themselves, like AAA titles raising their cost up to 70 or 80$ while their quality worsen; a lot of you complain and stop buying them. A lot of you boasted about not buying the Nintendo Switch 2, and so on. That is a form of rioting if you thought rioting meant going outside with a sign only, and it happens when costs rise and the service is the same or worse. I shouldn’t even be explaining this
Make up your mind.
??? Do you think rioting means going outside with a sign only? Whenever you quit a membership service because you disagree with their new policies, and a lot of people online fuel that sentiment by being really loud about it, then yes, it is a form of riot or whichever word you want to use, who cares? What the fuck. Arguing semantics, a word. Are you autistic or something? Or a Jeffrey Epstein class supporter trying to deviate the topic with nonsensical bullshit?
Words have meanings. Specifically, they’re only useful as a means of communication if both parties have the same understanding of that meaning. The word “riot”, for example, has a specific set of meanings; depending on your dictionary they’ll be along the lines of:
Or perhaps the more formal:
What you wont find as a definition is “a lot of people online fuel that sentiment by being really loud about it”, because that is not a riot.
I didn’t address the rest of your post because it is, I’m afraid, similar arrant nonsense. What you wrote is, at best, a cathartic fantasy, but not in any meaningful way rooted in reality.
And this is what you call a ‘riot’?
I want higher wages and lower average work week hours for workers everywhere. The way to accomplish that is not arson, at least not on necessary supply stockpiles. Maybe CEOs would think twice if you had an Arson target that actually impacted their lives physically, like one of their cars or their office or where they bank, but definitely not a supply warehouse.
Their cars? Offices? The bank? Are you serious, bro? Here we go:
Car: Super cheap. Inside their mansions’ gareages which are surrounded by tall walls and security booths and cameras and so on. Some of them have their own teams of bodyguards. You’d need a team of armed people for this one, and for what? A car worth 0.0001% of his annual salary? Nice suggestion, bro. You sound very smart! Let’s continue.
Office: The office is in the warehouse. Setting that shit on fire will do what? It’s insured like the bank, and you will probably just burn paper and a computer. The data is still in the cloud. The damages would only cost the CEO a few thousand dollars, a small headache, and for what? What will that change exactly?
The bank. Bro. This one is the most stupid. What do you want one single dude to do there?
Now, the warehouse, however… So easy to get hired. So easy to take notes of where the cameras are, where the most inflammable items are, and plan the day and message you will broadcast to everyone a few minutes before to keep them safe. Bam, light the cardboard, watch for a few minutes to make sure it spreads, leave, clap your hands. You just burned millions worth of supply with your own hands alone. Now THAT hurts the CEO more. And if it keeps happening to the point insurance companies feel forced to stop covering arsoning, because, insurance companies are all about profit too, ask the United Healthcare CEO is you don’t believe me.
So. This was your masterplan all along? Focus on a car, an office, the bank…? I hope your heart is actually in the right place, because I have heard your name mentioned before, you’ve been called a troll, so, hard to know. But this won’t do, man. We need bigger balls than that.
CEO of Kimberly Clark is at least $11M USD, judging by his stock ownership in the company, cars and homes can easily rack up that amount, but more importantly is that its something he would have to look at in person and think “I could have gotten hurt”.
Love the spirit, but people will do both. They will burn his business, his cars, his office and his home. I am not sure why you care so much about only the business. You want to keep it intact so we give it to someone better? A better CEO/the workers? That’d be the most ideal, I’d agree with that, but current times won’t allow that to happen that easily, unlike the other, which is already starting. It’s something that takes decades, it doesn’t happen in one day. We might expect a story like the warehouse or Luigi’s every year now.
You can’t figure out why I think burning down a warehouse full of diapers, toilet paper, soap, and related products is a negative? Really? You’ve got no idea? Wow. I’m honestly astonished. Out of curiosity, do you think all of those supplies are infinite? Who do you think bares the burden if those supplies face shortages? Who do you think profits from it?
Then the goal should be to make paying low wages unprofitable. If enough warehouses burn, eventually insurance companies will consider warehouses that pay poverty wages to be uninsurable.
Yes, you can pretend that these costs can just be past on to consumers, but prices are already set as high as the market will bear. They can’t raise prices without eating into demand. If it was possible to easily raise prices and still have their goods sell, those prices would have already been raised.
People aren’t going to suddenly stop needing toilet paper and diapers any time soon, so no matter how much operational costs rise then the cost to consumers will continue to rise. Even if only one specific company was the target for a bunch of arson, that would just lead to different scummy companies filling the gap.
The point at which it is “too much for the market to bare” is the point when single moms and people in poverty can no longer afford basic hygiene, in which case me and most rational people are NOT going to sympathize with the arsonists.
The only method which will directly raise wages are political action and union organization with strikes.
Expressions of discontent like arson will not raise wages themselves, but they are a reminder to the financial class what the cost of continual suppression of union organizing is.
I rather like OG Teamster-style shit, myself. Bummer that we can’t do more of it, but in a surveillance state, I understand why.
I’m not really convinced random acts of violent disruption of industry has ever resulted in progress. For every time that a violent movement was followed by an act of legislative progress, there are many time where violence wasn’t required at all.
That said, the extremely wealthy do need to understand we are capable of organizing against them with threat of violence, but to burn down our own necessary supplies is stupid.
It’s less about violence itself leading to progress and more about violence expressing the capacity for violence, which necessitates taking negotiations seriously.
Powers do not generally make concessions out of the goodness of their hearts. Even democratic polities very easily become complacent if the monopoly on power is never meaningfully challenged. And when strikes and demonstrations become ritualized, it becomes easy for the polity to see them as harmless or meaningless.
I would posit the reverse - no grassroots change has ever been effected against the will of the elite without the credible threat of violence to back it. This doesn’t mean that the whole town has to be burned down before change is possible. If the elites have an ounce of competence, it may never escalate directly to violence, as an ounce of competence shows that the willingness to unlawfully gather in the face of state forces permitted and expected to use violence, even a peaceful gathering, is itself a challenge to the state monopoly on violence, and thus a crisis moment to anyone who can see further than their next hamburder.
But in the all-too-common case of sub-competent or outright incompetent elites, some amount of violence becomes necessary as a means of communication.
As I said elsewhere on the same topic - I’d never recommend burning down a warehouse, by risk-reward ratio alone. But that’s also not the same as saying that it’s meaningless or doesn’t have a positive effect on the rest of our negotiating position.
As MLK Jr. said, a riot is the language of the unheard.
You haven’t looked at union methods of the past, have you?
feel free to elaborate
They involved a lot of fires and death to the ownership class.
Yeah? That one time at that one place? You remember. Totally.
I’m not here to wipe your ass for you. You’re on the internet, fucking google it. It’s nobody’s responsibility but your own to make you not look like an ignorant fuck about history.
The historical union movements that created real change were concurrent with campaigns of arson and violence. Some bosses had to have their head caved in with a lead pipe before they agreed to bargain with the union.