Off topic, perhaps, but Picasso was trying to demonstrate how a static two-dimensional image cannot capture a living subject. The subject is moving. The viewer is moving. We perceive depth and distance. So when we look at a person what we’re really seeing is a collection of different images which our minds assemble into a whole.
It’s just bad writing, period. It would be bad writing no matter what the setting was, so please get off this “well, it’s not supposed to be realistic!” kick you’re on and try another tack.
And as I have said, that would be a valid criticism - if the answer was found in the book. But it isn’t. So saying only people who have read the book are allowed to speculate on what the answer would be is nonsense.
That said, I’ve had enough of arguing the point.
That’s a different type of criticism.
When someone criticized it for not being realistic, I’m going to call them on it. If they want to argue something else, like it’s bad writing, then they should argue that.
I think the dissing of Rand is more the dissing of Rand’s modern day acolytes. See, tea party.
I think people are criticizing generous application of the principles of Atlas to the USA we know and love by Rand’s acolytes.
If it was fiction and not really about the USA then why do so many of Rand’s acolytes treat it like it is exactly about the USA and feel that the world of Atlas Shrugged is manifesting itself in America right now (or at least since 2008).
It was tedious, long winded, hard to read more, played to the egos of a particular type of person and was fairly unconvincing but I didn’t notice very many spelling mistakes.
Was it unrealistic? Yeah, something like that. Scarlett Johansson. is kinda hot. Donald Trump is sorta a douche. So, I’ve admitted something that means you totally win the internet? Gotcha me, ya?
I’ll try to make this as simple as possible: It was unrealistic within the context of the story itself. Now, if all you can understand in the sentence I just posted is the word “unrealistic”, then perhaps you can have someone else explain the rest of the sentence to you.
So you don’t think an entire workforce threatening to walk off the job carries with it some power?
I’ve never understood people who believe that workers have no power whatsoever unless the government gives it to them. A threat of a strike is a powerful weapon without any government involvement at all. Workers represent a LOT of sunk costs - training, the downtime when a position is not filled, but most of all the loss of their skill and knowledge. Hiring new people costs a lot of money. Having a factory shut down for even a few days can cost millions. Losing an entire workforce or even a large portion of it can have devastating consequences.
Not only that, but if the company’s practices are so bad that the workforce is threatening to leave, just firing them isn’t an option because the next workforce will do the same thing. That business simply won’t survive if it’s that hostile to its workforce.
I know the left’s vision of labor relations assumes that workers are replaceable cogs in a machine, and every business would like to treat its employees like 19th century rail workers, but that’s just not reality. Businesses work their asses off to keep their employees happy - not because the businessmen are necessarily good people or because the government forces them to, but because the alternative is really freaking expensive.
That said, labor negotiations are, well, negotiations. That generally means you don’t always get what you want - and neither does business. That’s why it’s a wonderful thing that you always have the option to walk away if the terms aren’t satisfactory of if the job conditions deteriorate - just as the employer has the right to fire you if your work deteriorates.
In 2012, 1.6 million workers in America made minimum wage. There were about 127 million workers in the same year, so only a little over 1% of workers make minimum wage. ALL the rest of them have negotiated better deal despite no regulation demanding it, simply because they have bargaining power. Their bargaining power consists mainly in the value of their own labor, since only a small percentage belong to labor unions. That’s why the minimum wage workers are generally the ones who are the most replaceable and have the least bargaining power and leave labor value. About half of them are under age 25. Many are part-time workers.
When people with bargaining power pool together, their power increases. The proper balance of power between labor and management occurs when laborers are allowed to pool their bargaining power together, but the employer has the right to fire them if he decides that’s best - although it will incur a huge cost.
In Galt’s Gulch, anyone can strike. Anyone can choose to fire their striking workers.
As for who takes out the trash - why, anyone willing to do the job for a price that the rest of the people are willing to pay. If no one does it, it will pile up on properties until it starts to damage other people’s property, at which point it would be expected to be removed. So either all those rich people will be hauling their own garbage, or they’ll pay someone to haul it for them. Since a rich person’s time is valuable to them, they’ll be willing to pay quite a lot for garbage service.
A Randian garbage collector would be someone who finds satisfaction in hauling garbage either because they’re good at it, or because it allows them to live in a good society with many advantages without forcing someone else to pay for their existence. And that’s all Rand asks of workers - do the job you say you’ll do for the price you agreed to do it. Don’t expect someone to give you more than you earn, and honor the commitments you made to your employer. The employer is expected to do the same. Both sides are working in their own self-interest, but because they are free people their relationship is defined by terms they both voluntarily agreed to.
Wow! Turns out that Ayn Rand was kinda libertarian, just like all the really smart and profound people! Like that Canadian guy, Kid Rock! No, wait, that isn’t it… Janet Granite! No, no…Sam Shale! Closer, on the tip of my mind…
But in Galt’s Gulch the factory owners can conspire together to fire anyone who might try to organize any sort of a worker’s union, which means that a worker’s union will probably never form, while the owner’s union is strong and thriving. The individual worker has absolutely no negotiation power because she/he is up against all the owners.
edited to add: Of course this applies only in the secret town of Galt’s Gulch, not the real world.
Too simple, I’m afraid. Yes, that’s a declarative statement, but can you back it up with any facts? So far, you have declared the speech to be not consistent with the world created. Two of us who have read the book disagree with that.
Remember: Man does not live on bread alone. Oh wait, I just quoted a crappy piece of literature that is sooooo not realistic, and certainly not self consistent!
But in GG, the workers can conspire together to not work for any company that does this. Or, they can band together and start their own factory.
But, more likely one of the smarter factory owners is going to realize that it’s to his advantage to break with the conspiracy and have a much larger pool of workers to recruit from.
looks back at the thread Allowed? I dinna thin’ that word means what you thin’ it means, to paraphrase from Princess Bride. 
I said nothing about ‘allowed’…merely pointed out that if people try and interject their opinions on the subject of a plot point in a specific book it might help a bit if they bothered reading it. If people want to look silly by doing so anyway though, well, that’s their lookout.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I think the dissing of Rand is more the dissing of Rand’s modern day acolytes. See, tea party.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so what you are saying here is it’s yet another hijacking threadshit? Yeah, I think I got that already. Or, to put it another way, who in this thread brought up Rand’s works in a modern day context a la the supposed tea party? Can you point me at the post number, because I must have missed it.
Do you have a cite that shows that near the number of people who have read Atlas Shrugged have read Anthem? I doubt it.
Really? You really believe this? Perhaps you should not read medical books and try to graduate medical school.
And the fact that you wrote this on a board devoted to fighting ignorance is absolutely astound. And friggin hilarious.
Let’s say this is true. What would happen to the business? They need productive workers, right? Disgruntled workers are not productive. One unproductive worker can be rather easily replaced, but what do you do if they are ALL disgruntled and unproductive. You can fire them all and hope for a better outcome with the new batch. And if they are happier and productive, then you’ve done the right thing and your problem is over. But if there is something about the deal/pay you offer people or the nature of the work, etc., that is at the root of the problem, you’ll just be right back at square one. But business need to remain operational and productive. So, some idiot owner who just keeps firing everyone will go out of business. The guy across the street who sees what’s going on can replace that business by offering workers a better deal. This is similar to what Thomas Edison did. He wanted a dependable source of labor so he offered a wage that was by far a better deal.
As I pointed out, they don’t have to fire any great number of workers to get their point across-just possible labor organizers. It’s not like the workers have anywhere else to go in the book…unless you are proposing that the disgruntled workers are free to leave for the outside world and that none of them will talk about where they’ve been and what’s being done there.
Of course, this begs the question of where all those factory workers came from in the first place. Who recruited all the workers needed for the factories/companies operating in the Gulch, and was as much care taken to pick the right workers as there was in picking the industrialists? I think it might take just a wee bit more than “Because…Freedom”, and those recruiters certainly didn’t have the time to wine and dine each worker to recruit them. Once again, I am talking only about the situations in the book.
Who said it was only “because… freedom”? That’s something you cherry-picked and keep using because you think it’s clever, when it’s factually incorrect.
Then please enlighten us as to how an outside worker might be recruited to drop everything and move to Galt’s Gulch, and what would motivate a disgruntled worker not to say a thing about Galt’s Gulch when(if) she/he leaves? Any elaboration beyond “No, that isn’t right, either” would be greatly appreciated.