The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Arachno-capitalist on November 15, 2007, 04:12:13 pm
-
Rather than potentially hijack the "Today I am going to" thread I thought Id prematurely split to this.
Today I spent half an hour on the phone with my local Teamsters Union president. See, they sent a letter to my home that I do not currently occupy that said either I pay them hundreds of dollars in dues and fees or they will suspend/terminate me from my current employment at Anheuser-Busch. So I now understand why I havent been assigned work the past few weekends. I called him and immediately said what he was doing amounted to extortion. Either I pay this man hundreds of dollars, or I dont work. His response was that the wage I earn is due to his union's negotiation. My response was that I am currently earning Zero dollars an hour because of his union. And when I asked for him to gaurentee more shifts so that Id be able to pay his dues and earn saving, his response was "I have no control over whether you get work or not". This is obviously a lie. His union has prevented me from getting work in two ways. It has told my employer I cant work until I pay my dues, and second it has inflated my wage above my optimal range. I would be willing to work for half my current negotiated wage if it meant getting work every weekend as opposed to my current Zero dollars wage.
Either I pay this man hundreds of dollars or I cant work = extortion.
-
You have to pick your battles in life. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, this is one you can't win. Either pay the dues or get into a different line of work.
Speaking as someone who's worked at a lot of very different things - there are a lot of choices out there. It's easier to find a situation that fits you than to change a situation that doesn't.
-
yeah, don't unions basically own New York? I feel like I've heard that.
-
Sometimes we gotta take it in the pooper so that everyone else can have it a little bit less horribly.
But... ultimately... it is good that a lot of people have it a little bit less horribly.
Ain't no perfect system nowhere nohow.
Yes, unions like that are deifinitely corrupt in minor and petty ways but it is much better than how the system was without unions, where they could basically pay children a dollar a day to do most of the jobs and if the child died, the parents had to pay THEM the cost of training a new child.
Ain't no perfect system but, seriously, having a slightly corrupt union around to beat The Bastards back is a far far better option than, like, Triangle Sewing Factory fires, man.
-
One or two people getting shoved out of a position by an organization that functions so that the company can't undercut their employees... with the endgame being that the people who do work there earn an actual living wage? Hell yes.
Look, unions exist so that single parties CAN'T take the job for an extraordinarily below-value wage because they're just starting out or they don't have a family to support or whatever... which starts a wage-slashing spiral that "trickles down" into paying people a bag of wheat a day to do a job that, because of unionization, actually can provide for a lower-middle-class family of four or whatever.
When "competition" is a huge corporation that holds all the cards seeing who will do the job for the least, the entire of the workforce suffers.
When free-market competition reaches the endgame of consolidated power, of a few business interests running an entire segment of the economy and then colluding to supress any workers who demand anything less than the bare minimum for their talents.
Unfettered free-market competition devolves into totalitarian control of a marketplace segment once enough power is consolidated.
And yet, on a very very very micro scale, it APPEARS to you that in the very short-term, the union is suppressing your individual good. Because you only have the perspective of one person at once point in time.
When actually government regulations and unions and such that SEEM to be suppressing your earning potential in the short terms are the ONLY things protecting you in the long-term, Ennewhy.
They're protecting their members, collectively, from only looking out for their short-term needs in a manner that would actually be of a great detriment to them in the long term.
This is how economics work when you're actually out of the text book and not functioning from the assumptions of the betterment of large corporations that start with all the advantages.
-
I'd rather many people earn ten dollars an hour under the protection from a corporation by a union than one guy "opt out" of the union, leading more and more people to opt out of that union and... quickly... no one having protection from that corporation and all quickly being fucked.
That union needs to keep functioning to keep protecting you from the company you work for and, yes, you have a responsibility to contribute to the continuation of that protection through union dues.
To say that you are being "extorted" by the union is as if to say that you walk into a grocery store, walk out with ten dollars worth of food and... when they tell you to pay for that food or they're going to call the cops, you're being "extorted" for ten dollars.
The service of protecting you from the company that you work for and that would exploit you endlessly if it could has already been rendered by the Teamsters, brother.
You are trying to walk out with the fruit of that labour without contributing to it.
I know that you got some kind of Stockholm Syndrome hard-on for big business, believing that if you follow your captor's every word he will protect you and make you like them and shit, that if you play the game by their rules, you'll be allowed to win too...
But it ain't that way.
The business wants as much out of you for as little as humanly possible.
The union protects you from that.
Your dues make that union possible.
Deal with it, delay some gratification, man, this is how it works.
-
Epiphany Faint would be, like, the perfect name for a lame goth-rock band ever.
You need to sell this name to Hot Topic, m'man.
Millions shall be made.
-
Asherdan gets it!
Also, you two are having this exact same make-out session in that 'don't hurt me' thread, please at least keep your political arguments efficient, that guy was just trying to buy himself some comic books, now look what you went and did.
-
I imagined Epiphany Faint as... like... just the Vertigo Comics version of Death, y'know, chalkwhite skinned cute lil goth chick swooning onto a fainting couch. Maybe, maybe she'd be a little heavier than Death and have some unfortunate piercings but basically her.
EDIT: Heavier Than Death could be their opening act.
-
Epiphany Faint would be, like, the perfect name for a lame goth-rock band ever.
You need to sell this name to Hot Topic, m'man.
Millions shall be made.
And their album would be Sex Funeral.
A-CAP, I've avoided joining the actor's union for years. I can say I've likely lost work due to this, but I have always been upfront about it with my potential employers. Did you tell the people who hired you that you opposed the union and would be unwilling to pay the dues if they hired you? The time to oppose unionization is before you start collecting a pay check.
-
Dude... my grandfather was a teamster. He drove a coal truck in Chicago. My twin sister is a teacher. Do not come crying to me about the union.
Where I worked in Alaska, employees who took Union jobs had to pay their dues before they started work. I assume this is the same everywhere. Are you saying that you took a job as a truck driver in NEW YORK CITY without thinking you'd have to pay the Teamsters? Christ.
You'll have to either pay the dues, or find alternate work. The teamsters will not let you work as a truck driver unless you pay their union membership dues. Management will not give you shifts unless you're union. Seriously, arachnocapitalist, this is one battle that you will not win. I am sorry to tell you this.
-
My dad has been a union member for damn near 40 years. At times, he was able to put food on our plate because he was in a union.
Of course, now that I've moved in what would be considered more of a management-type job, my feelings have muted a bit. But the fact is that in many/most work environments, unions are necessary to keep abuses from happening. Because if they come to you and say, "You're going to have to work seven days this week, and oh yeah, the days are going to be twelve hours long, and there's a lot to do, so don't bother bringing lunch in because you won't have time to eat it," you either do it or they fire you and find someone else who will. And there's always someone who will. Unions keep them from doing that. They don't make all the rank and file workers millionaires, but they do help determine a realistic set of work rules to keep employees safely and productively employed.
-
Well, either way, no matter what kind of job you work... you seem far too sharp a guy than to have taken a job without realizing it was a union shop. That's the point that was being made.
-
Good luck with that, Don Quixote. On the positive side, there are plenty of microbreweries that aren't union shops and would be glad to employ a good brewer.
-
You took a job that specifically put you into a position of ideological indignation? On some level, so that you could bitch and moan about it? ...and then when the ramifications of your civil-disobedience against people protecting you from the savagery of a multi-national corporation came down hard on your head, you were surprised?
C'mon, man. That is a total Pat move and you know it.
Pat going into a MacDonalds and acting all indignant when they can't make him a vegan option.
It says "billions of burgers served" on the sign over the door, seriously.
Seems like a real waste of psychic energy, my friend.
If that's what floats your boat, I mean, have fun and all that but... yeah, the Quixote comparison is apt. One must choose their windmills wisely, you know, and somehow making your job one of those windmills doesn't sound like the best of ideas.
You are mad at them for protecting you in a way that you knew they were going to protect you and then asking for your share of the cost of that ongoing protection?
Billions of burgers served, dude. Windmills, dude.
-
I dunno man, if he is willing to go in and tell his boss he doesn't want any of the advantages of being unionized, and wants to have his pay lowered, I think he should go for it. That's the American Dream.
...or, wait...
-
It's your right to not join the union.
It's your boss's right to not give you shifts.
If neither of you are willing to change your position then I don't think the reasoning behind these positions matters.
-
Good Lord, man.
Did free-health-care murder your parents in front of you, in an alleyway behind a screening of Zorro when you were eight?
These people are the thin line of protection between you and a bunch of greedy rich shits who would answer to no authority other than their shareholders' desires for two yachts in each of their five-garages. The one on the South Fork, the one on Cape Cod, the one in The Keys and so on.
Who would do anything, ANYTHING, to pay you as little as possible that they might have the budget for a mint julep in a gold goblet at the next Derby instead of the crystal stemware that they've had to suffer with since the people unionized.
Yes, the unions've been involved with unsavoury elements. They kind of had to be. It was the only way to get any edge against corporations who would bribe the local police to beat in their skulls for asking for a living wage and turn the firehoses on their own workers for demanding a piss-break.
And... yes... they've circled the wagons so that people so desperate for money or... much less frequently... trying to prove some weird only-in-textbooks ideological point can't erode that hard-won progress, sometimes literally blood-won progress.
There are narratives at play here much longer than my young life or your slightly-even-younger life, man.
Rich people do not want people like me or you joining them in their tax-bracket, friend, seriously. Seriously. They want all that shit and twice over, just for themselves and their descendants. They want us to be good fuck*ng morlocks and not bother the elloi, all right?
That is the plan. That is the deal. The deal is the hope of the new feudalism.
And the new feudalism concentrates power by rigging the system to do so and certainly not bring new people up into their little fuck*ng party, crashing their Mazzaratis and raping the help without consequence.
You and I are both on the other side of the door of that as far as they are concerned, man. Stockholm Syndrome aside.
One of the few things standing between us and the new feudalism are the unions, at least the ones that still have fuck*ng balls.
C'mon. The golden people don't wanna give nothing over to either of us, my friend.
And moreover, they'll cheat like hell so that we can't earn it, either.
-
Hokay, so I need to give some more details. When I joined I was aware the teamster socialists owned the shop. Also, I was aware of the law. As an employee I am not able to negotiate my own wage, because of the Teamsters. I am absolutely sure I would be able to get work every week if I was able to negotiate a reasonable wage with my employer and not the ridiculous wage negotiated by The Teamsters.
Yes I agree with the posts that I am able to find another job. That is in fact the argument used by Mr.Duffy, the union president. The point is that I have a deep emotional disagreement with how unions have treated me. I come from a family of welsh coal miners and electricians. I know that unions were important to my ancestors, however, in my specific condition, I challenge any of you to argue that I am better off because of The Teamsters, an organization known to have involvement with organized crime and has admitted to me personally they are extorting me.
I think that to prove your commitment to your principles, you should move to Wales and mine coal for starvation wages.
-
Speaking as someone in a non-union industry...
...who's spent more hours at work than away from work for the past three weeks with no days off...
...who has no health care plan because it's not offered...
...who has been technically the employee of a temp agency for as long as I've been with this company...
...who gets no paid leave, at all, ever...
...who gets paid slightly more than a shift lead at an In'n'Out Burger...
...who gets to spend part of my day training people in India who are taking the places of other Americans who used to have jobs like mine...
...who is only paid overtime because it is the law, and whose hours were limited to 12 a day only because it would cost too much to keep me more...
...who, with all of this overtime, is still making less than I did my first year as an IT tech...
...who could be terminated immediately with no severance and escorted from the building for posting the wrong thing on a message board...
May I be extorted, please?
Pretty, pretty please?
-
On a tangent, what is it with you Americans always referencing where your ancestors came from? You damn yanks are always 'I'm Dutch-Irish' or whatever. Ain't more than a few thousand people left in my country who have ancestors stretching back maybe six generations and the majority are three or four at best but most folk around here come from where they were born, not where their great-grandpappy got deported from.
Sorry that came out a lot more derrogatory than I intended but it's just a weird quirk that a nation famed for it's sense of independance is full of people so mindful of their ties to foreign lands.
Edit: Because 'yankee' has a different meaning there than it does here.
-
Maybe we wouldn't be if it weren't for the media constantly reminding us that the only native Americans are Native Americans. There's a Heinlein quote that's on topic - let me peruse the Intarweb...
Found it:
"This sad little lizard told me he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh, people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humoring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply."
This often comes up for me when people mention the resemblance of my surname to that of a well known Scottish patriot. In fact, my most recent non-American ancestors came from Ireland (presumably from some offshoot of the family moving between the Isles long ago). Not that we're any more Irish in character than Scottish. I have friends though that will break their heritage down into percentages - however scattered. Its kind of funny - what would someone 12.5% Italian and 25% German and 3% Polish etc etc have in common with anyone hailing from those countries. Would you look at someone like that and nod knowingly, "Aha, that explains the love of knockwurst I was wondering about."
-
Dude! I agree with you that many over-bearing unions are an anachronism that often cause more harm than good in today's society but you're earning zero dollars an hour because of yourself and the choices you have made.
Personal responsibility man.
-
It would only be extortion if you were having something that is yours by right taken away. Surely you of all people are not going to argue with me that you have a right to a job at this brewery?
-
Your... and only your... most short-term of goals? Yes, somewhat cramped. Duly noted.
The point is that what they're doing is fundamentally correct and you're being stubbornly bratty about it. Individual short-term self-interest is not the name of the game we are talking about here.
Pay your union dues, deal with the fact that helping everyone... including yourself... in the long-term is worth giving up a small amount of money in the short-term.
Or, alternately, get a different job in a non-union shop where you'll get to have all kinds of hours where you're being exploited.
To not pick one of those two Choose Your Own Adventure options and move on is to be ridiculously Pat-like and bratty. It ain't all about just you, my friend, no matter what economics books for by and of the fabulously-well-to-do people have to say on the matter.
Man oh man, am I with Lister. Bring some of that sweet sweet extortion my way.
-
Tax dollars are extortion?
Man. Social contract, man.
Y'all ain't an island. You're part of a society, you contribute to the upkeep.
You're part of a community of workers, you contribute to that community's upkeep. Be kind, rewind.
Till you can get your own planet, live with it.
-
you implicitly accept the social contract and that you have to pay taxes by utilizing public facilities and utilities like roads and bridges, relying on the police or firemen, etc.
I am imagining the climactic moment in your court case when you are somehow on the verge of winning, and then you bring up that taxes are extortion too.
it reminds me of in Futurama, when the lawyer would set himself up to win, and then mention that this case also set a precedent for flag burning or some such.
-
Did free-health-care murder your parents in front of you, in an alleyway behind a screening of Zorro when you were eight?
I am staying away from this whole masturbation-fest, but goddamn that was humorous.
-
This reminds me of a Bill Hicks joke. If you don't want to pay your taxes A-CAP, let Ayn Rand put out your fires. (paraphrased).
-
A-CAP, you've yet to tell us whether you informed your employer that you were unwilling to participate in the union or not. You say you were aware that your employer was a union house before you started working there and that you were also aware of the law (and, I think, implicit to this is that you planned to fight the issue if it came to a head). So did you make your employer aware of this? Did you refuse to sign any work-related paper work agreeing to abide by their policy? Or did you allow them to hire you, train you and pay you unaware of the fact you would likely become useless to them when the shit hit the fan? I like your Tony Soprano analogy, and if I were to go to that pork shop he used as a front, and applied for a job there, knowing full well that the pork shop was a front for Tony Soprano 1) it would be pretty silly to put myself into this situation when there are pork shops around that I know aren't run by Tony Soprano, and 2) it would be a blatant failure to disclose pertinant information to take a job at said porkshop with out telling the guy hiring me that I was about to start a war. If you believe unionization is so morally reprehensible, and you took a job at a place that's entrenched with the union, then why did you get in bed with them in the first place? It's like blaming the hooker that gave you syphilis. Yeah she's a dirty whore, but you knew when you fucked her that it might come back to haunt you.
I have mixed feelings about unions. I certainly know folks who have had positive experiences with union membership - people who had their back covered when they got injured on the job and stuff like that. In the arts, the actors union is, in my opinion, a bad thing. I've yet to see any value to it except for the most successful actors - and this is a tiny, tiny handful of people. There's barely enough work to go around to begin with, and the union designates that a certain portion of roles in professional productions must be unionized - then we've got artists paying dues when they could literally go years between gigs. I lost a well-paying role last year because I was unwilling to join. I mean, I've got a friend who's around 300 pounds and has one eye who was force to join the union - do you think she gets cast much? Recently a good friend joined the union, and was suddenly unable to do most of his non-stage voice-over work because the unions set impossibly high rates for this kind of work... He had asked the union rep who signed him up if he's still be able to do this work, and she said yes. She didn't bother to tell him about the impossibly high wages and that non of the stations or companies that hired him in the past could afford to hire him as a union actor. So he eventually had to leave the union because the voice over stuff was his bread a butter (and also he didn't particularly like having someone else tell him what a "reasonable" wage was - he was doing just fine financially before they stepped in and made it impossible for him to work). Now he's black listed - he is not allowed to act on stage ever again unless he rejoins the union and repays any accumulated dues and fees for the time he's out of the union. There's lot of other shit that goes on that is total garbage. I mean, I could go on and on.
A-CAP, I don't know how you originally got in cahoots with a union. From all that I've heard plenty of people get trapped before they're well informed about what it means to work in union house. Thankfully I did a lot of research the first time the union tried to grab me, otherwise I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my career would be over. So I'm really sorry if you got in this mess before you knew better - the union that ensnares my fellow artists is very, very eager to sign people up who are ill-informed about what they're getting into, so if you were in the same boat, I can really sympathize. It seems to me though, that when it comes to your current job, you did know better? To paraphrase Maya Angelou, "When you know better, you do better." If you don't fuck whores, you wont get that rash, you know?
Your spirit of protest is great, but it also kind of belies your age. I mean, pick your battles a little more carefully. If you felt this way, if you were taking this job on for the fight, why didn't you interview, get the job offer, tell them you were unwilling to join the union, have them take back their job offer, then sue the ##### off them? I mean, there's a straitforward case for you. (I'm sorry, I'm again assuming you didn't inform your employer, but I'm guessing you didn't - I think you would have mentioned it by now.) Instead, it's really looking to me like you either lied to your employer or omitted important information at the time you were hired. It's very optimistic of you to want to take on this fight, but seriously guy - you put yourself in a bad place. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's legal, but you tell us several times that you fully anticipated that it would come to this, and you still threw yourself into it. You could have easily oppose the union at a much earlier stage here, but now you're looking like you treaded into murky waters. It looks like you were willing to work in a union house, no objections, until they wanted your money. And that doesn't sound like ethics, that sounds like you wanting to hold on to your money. I'm not saying it isn't the otherway around - you've argued the otherside of it pretty clearly - but from the outside, it looks like you came up with a moral issue after the fact. I mean, if you'd raise your concerns at the moment you were hired, you'd have a nice case for yourself, and maybe some sexy little anti-union microbrewery would have hired you right off the hop because they supported you and they wanted your madd skilz. You're making yourself look like a whiny, money grubbing turd even though you have a fairly reasonable argument, based on when and why you were willing to raise a stink. No matter what you do about your current work situation, next time, take the lesson, raise your voice before they come for your wallet, or you make yourself look like a douche no matter how right you are. Don't work for an employer you don't morally agree with. Make sure you tell them they are losing out on a high value employee due to their support of things you don't agree with. I've done this over and over again, and a couple times I've even had people agree and make changes. Have some dignity, take pride in what you believe, be upfront about it. That's how you earn respect.
-
Holy hell, I wrote an essay. What the hell?
-
Upton Sinclair was wrong! People in the sausage is good!
-
sideshow, it is okay. Of course you are writing essays. It is merely the LFM virus spreading.
It's okay. I am awesome and it is awesome to be me, except for the panic attacks and being broke.
When someone says "taxes are extortion", I have to assume they're either just trying to rile up people or they're... unstable. In other contexts, A-CAP seems to have his head on straight so I have to assume at this point that he's willfully exaggerating his opinion just to argue.
However, thank you, lp. There is nothing to lighten the mood like a well-placed Batman's Origin reference.
-
side_show, I think it has been too long since I have said that I am basically in love with you.
no, I am not checking your facebook right now to make sure it still says "in a relationship." why would I be doing that.
-
I am staying away from this whole masturbation-fest, but goddamn that was humorous.
Tiny can to both lprkn and lfm.
I think that to prove your commitment to your principles, you should move to Wales and mine coal for starvation wages.
Shit yes. Wholehearted agreement over here. Tiny can.
Speaking as someone in a non-union industry...
...who's spent more hours at work than away from work for the past three weeks with no days off...
...who has no health care plan because it's not offered...
...who has been technically the employee of a temp agency for as long as I've been with this company...
...who gets no paid leave, at all, ever...
...who gets paid slightly more than a shift lead at an In'n'Out Burger...
...who gets to spend part of my day training people in India who are taking the places of other Americans who used to have jobs like mine...
...who is only paid overtime because it is the law, and whose hours were limited to 12 a day only because it would cost too much to keep me more...
...who, with all of this overtime, is still making less than I did my first year as an IT tech...
...who could be terminated immediately with no severance and escorted from the building for posting the wrong thing on a message board...
May I be extorted, please?
Pretty, pretty please?
That is eloquent and very well stated. Tiny can.
-
Everybody, quick!
L-Money's totally flashing her cans!
-
...And you don't even need Mardi Gras beads! Gratuitous cans for everyone!
-
I can only approve of this thread taking a turn for the sexy. After all, if we're gonna be masturbatin', much better to do it over Linnea flashing some can and not weirdo Teamsters, right?
-
better to do it over Linnea flashing some can and not weirdo Teamsters, right?
You have your... interests, I have mine.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to google some pictures of Jimmy Hoffa.
-
What Ash said. See, I'm a manager now in a union organization. It blows. It's not winnable because the Union in my case maintains the pretext that what they do they are doing to protect the business and serve the customers, and it's a load of crap. They exist to serve themselves, and they spend more time looking for ways to nickel and dime the company then they do serving the business or the customers.
In your case, you are dealing with an organization that has a long history of corrupt behavior including violence, shakedowns, murder, and kickbacks. Standing up to such an organization can buy you some tire iron marks or an eternal gig inside a concrete column someplace - not that they would do that to you when starving you out makes more sense. And they appear to be 100% capable of that, probably through intimidating whoever is making the work schedule. Bottom line is you can't win without nukes and you don't have 'em.
If you can jump to management, that would solve your immediate problem to some degree. Any chance of that?
I think that this country briefly benefited from unions when workers were being exploited. Now, they've priced US made goods out of the market to a large degree so the exploitation is simply moved overseas. Since the unions only seem to care if American workers get exploited, its all good to them. I think that 1) workers have choices, and they can and should vote with their feet. Two identical companies with a quality, desired product will succeed or fail on the a) the cost of the product and b) the commitment of their employees to the business. A company that treats it's employees well will succeed in the market place over one that doesn't, everything else being equal. 2) There have been enough labor reforms and laws and protections put in place to make Unions a hindrance to companies being able to compete. Look at the Steel and Automotive industries. They were killed by inability to compete on cost in this country, and a lot of that is due to the contracts awarded union labor.
That said, I admire the indignant idealism that drives your desire for your perception of justice. If you have a family and no other prospects for work, I would admire it more. If you are on your own and/or other jobs are out there, I would say your energy is misspent. I disagree with your take on taxes- after all, to some degree they support those structures government has put in place to protect workers outside the union environment - and Sideshows comment about actors and unions is the most telling reason Unions may be no longer necessary. They really only serve the most successful? What's the point of that? the most successful don't work for scale. They name their price in many cases. The same is true for professional workers. It is interesting to think about how that works - if I were the best hold digger in the world, would I be able to name my price? Probably not. Attorneys can. Why?
-
But when you let blind competition work its "magic"... the workers get paid less and less and less and pretty soon, we're a third world nation that just happens to have a small elite class sucking its blood like a tick in... a generation and a half at best but maybe even quicker. Hell, we're already headed in that direction at a slower pace, as it is, y'know.
Unions aren't killing American commerce, allowing imports from countries that allow barbaric labour practices does, allowing "American" corporations to outsource all of their business apparatus into countries where people can't stand up for their human rights... to the point where "buying American" is only American in that the stockholders are American multimillionaires becoming billionaires.
Union protectionism isn't perfect and it can really really suck on the occasional personal scale... but its the least of many many evils.
If there's an even lesser evil out there, that's fine, but I ain't throwing out the baby with the bathwater on that idea until its presented.
You let businesses go into a downward spiral of total-free-market undercutting each other without government pressure and union pressure and general public moral pressure against such bullshit, the endgame is a new feudalism and faster than you'd ever want to believe.
The American dream is going to finally devour itself, I know, I know, but... jeez, its still worth fighting against, even if only because its the right hopeless thing to do.
-
One big problem is that all those that wrote about economics on the left or the right never predicted the level of global economy that's emerging. Without any global government that is capable of creating and enforcing labor law on a global scale, all you have left is the market to regulate itself, whether you are a market economy believer or not. The market tends to regulate to it's own interest, which is growth and profit. "Blind" competition is hardly blind. It's about creating a product that meets some kind of real or perceived need, at the lowest price possible. That's what it is, at it's simplest, and the cost of production is one of the biggest elements in being able to compete. Period.
What's left is country A to make market decisions on the global level. If country A is not a country whose government controls to a large degree the economy, all they can do is attempt to erect policy barriers - import restrictions, tariffs, duties, and the like. However, since it's a free economy globally to a great degree, country A is allowed to by a product from country B even if it is manufactured under slavelike conditions. Companies unfortunately do this constantly and without transparency, regulation and punishment when necessary, there are almost never repercussions except the bad publicity in the media. Which usually happens after the product sells a ton (and the kids who toiled to make them are crippled or dead).
Are American workers to blame? Is this the legacy of the booming WWII economy that expanded the manufacturing sector by orders of magnitude, giving blue collar workers (many immigrants) the American Dream? A dream that itself has evolved to the point where, two generations later, blue collar work isn't good enough for many Americans? I don't know. I do know that many labor and professional unions are 'protecting' workers that really don't need protected, and negotiating contracts for workers that break the back of the employers to the point where they were forced to send production or assembly overseas because of cost. Add that to the need to compete with 100% foreign made goods on cost and it's a recipe for disaster unless you can prove better quality...and even then, there is a segment of the consumer market that buys strictly on cost due to their personal economy...and that segment is expanding as the middle class shrinks - downward.
-
I'd chalk it up to the actions of ignorant politicians, either simply short-sighted or more often simply bought-off.
When the middle class dies, when the middle classes die, everything that made the idea of America valuable basically dies with it.
When the middle classes die, entire societies, entire civilizations fall.
I don't care about ideology, I don't care about theory... as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the idea of upward economic mobility blows away into dust at the benefit of only the veryvery richest... whatever's causing it, that's wrong.
If it means stronger unions, if it means a second rise of unions for the skill sets that are now the true working class jobs, if it means massive economic protectionism, it needs to happen, it needs to be done.
When you play down to your competition, you're fucked, if sports have taught me anything useful ever, it's that.
And if being a shining beacon of light means a few motherfuckers only can have two summer homes instead of five, then we need to do that. We need to do it, though we won't, of course. Our leaders are bought off and we the people are brainwashed... brainwashed by the Nikkei, brainwashed by Dow Jones, brainwashed by the FTSE, Nasdaq and secure loans... brainwashed into a Stockholm Syndrome that our captors will protect us if we just follow orders and their obscene largesse will somehow "trickle" down from their coffers.
Well, there's something trickling down from them and... it is yellow... but it ain't gold.
And they're asking us to open our mouths a little bit wider, we've missed a few stray drops.
I dunno.
There's no answer, there's no solution that anyone call pull off in one paltry mayfly of a lifetime. Violent revolution tends to just put the same kinds of monsters into commands, just different faces and different talking points, but the same kind of oppression and all those goddamned dead bodies along the way.
I haven't the stomach for that.
And non-violent revolution... there is no alternate form of communication, now, all the forms are owned by all the people who are profiting from the death of the middle class. Big Brother didn't need to be one voice or one set of eyes, no, a flood of ten thousand viewpoints all cancellling each other out into an unintelligible white noise machine was all that was required.
Even if there was a Gandhi now, we'd be too busy to hear him, too overwhelmed already and... they wouldn't even have to kill him these days, you know. A sex scandal would do so much more nicely, not just killing the leader but making the ideas laughable with the memory.
They wouldn't have to kill Jesus these days, you know, they'd just make fun of him until H/he couldn't accomplish a thing. Lump H/him in with the motherfuckers who put aluminum in their hats to protect themselves from alien mind-beams and then... there you go. There you go. It is accomplished, you see.
Ah.
The big picture is so completely fucked, y'know.
At least its something to write about.
-
Oh, in the small ways, in the personal ways, in the temporal and fleeting ways, many things are awesome. Many many!
But the big picture, the future, the long-view just looks like a long stretch of neon signs spelling out "Danger" until there are no signs at all.
A lot of why I'll probably never be a father is that I have no faith in that future, in that confused overwhelmed future.
It's just... the fix is in and, yes, I know that I have decent odds personally of carving out a small place to weather that out until I expire and whatever but... maaaaaan, the fix is in and I kind of can't imagine the kind of widescale action it would take to turn this ship around, now.
The idea that there's an event horizon to black holes, you know, and once you're past it... struggle all you like, you are gonna be one with the singularity.
Part of the reason I have a hard time enjoying individual and temporal pleasures is that I... have this issue with my empathy circuit kinda being welded permanently "on" and... I get overwhelmed by how terrible things are for so fuck*ng many, even more than my personal struggles and discomforts.
I'm... I'm just venting.
Thank you for letting me vent here, venting it into public even if y'all wanna just skim it...
It's nice. It helps a little bit. Thank you.
-
I officially have lost track of what it is you are talking about. But I picture you sweating profusely and rapidly looking from side to side while you say it.
I also picture you with, like, 30 locks on your door like the Nicholson character in "As Good as it Gets".
Also, sometimes, Travis Bickle.
-
I think my dad summed the problem with the Trickle Down concept up best.
"who do you think is going to go out and spend their tax return-- the guy who works at McDonald's, or the guy who already has a Yacht? Why would the guy with a yacht get excited and go out and spend that money? it's just more money in the bank to him."
-
Nah, 'Loha... imagine a lot more, like, what Dude Lebowski would just kinda dreamily ramble out when he was too stoned to really care if anyone thought he was crazy. I am actually a lot lot more like that. Like that one dude in a cluster of hippies who reads too much and bums out his friends who just wanna smoke dope and make sexy time with people who don't shave nothin' and be free.
S'all, s'all.
-
The man with the yacht is more likely to use that money to invest in companies that hire people like the other guy.
I... look, I ain't gonna let this become A Thing. A Thing ain't good for nobody here.
But man. I never thought I'd find someone who genuinely believed that theory. I pretty much chalked that one up to one of those lies that politicians and rich people pretty much say just because the truth is just too ugly and obvious but nobody actually believes. Like that war can bring peace and so on.
Pretty much, I've never seen a rich person do anything like that. Generally, they buy huge gaudy unnecessary things made in other countries or buy property that just shuffles the wealth amoungst the same class of large-landowners.
Rich people don't need to invest. They're already rich.
They were born that way, thinking they were gods, that God blessed them with money.
Poor people invest because they think it is like buying a lottery ticket and con-men let them buy those lottery tickets on credit.
The only people that got rich in the California gold rush were the people who sold the prospectors cheap shitty picks and cheap shitty bluejeans and cheap shitty food. You can still rise through the classes by cheating people, this is true enough, but what if you don't want to cheat? What if you don't have the resources to start such a con?
That was the story of the Great Depression. That is the story of... basically now as well.
Hollywood, of course, is slightly different. You can get rich out here every once in a great while through genuine creative expression but, really, you might as well just buy lottery tickets, the odds are somewhat better and at least you're supporting public education. But remember:
Pauly Shore's mom runs a comedy club and that's why someone who completely sucks got famous anyway.
-
Like that one dude in a cluster of hippies who reads too much and bums out his friends who just wanna smoke dope and make sexy time with people who don't shave nothin' and be free.
That used to be me, but now my friends are more angry, literate drunks. It is funner, more stuff happens. I still get the dope.
A man of any means can take a transfer payment and either: Invest, Spend, or Repay. I guess he could also burn the money but I dont think that happens too often. In the event the "rich man" or "poor man" Invests or Spends then the receiver can use that money to buy capital or labor. Buying capital results in spending and eventually ends up in the hands of laborer who creates a product or service. Buying labor does this directly. If the money is "left in the bank" then that bank has more reserves to offer for home loans and car loans.
The only way money doesn't end up in the hands of a laborer is its destroyed or hidden in a mattress.
Con-men let people invest? What? What does that even mean?
You are right and wrong, and if you don't know why thats fucked. Just like LFM, only he is more vaguely right and not so straightforward-which makes him less wrong. You are both ignoring a lot of things.
-
I don't know, I know a lot of people who have ungodly amounts of money in the bank, whose parents had ungodly amounts of money in the bank, whose grandparents had ungodly amounts of money in the bank. This money is not really doing anyone any good. From what I can tell this money goes to buy Mercedes Benzes (from the dad of one of the other guys, natch), sunglasses that are too big and have Swarovski crystals all over them for these guy's girlfriends, Lacoste shirts, and pot. Their kids, too, will have ungodly amounts of money in the bank.
-
I don't know, I know a lot of people who have ungodly amounts of money in the bank, whose parents had ungodly amounts of money in the bank, whose grandparents had ungodly amounts of money in the bank. This money is not really doing anyone any good. From what I can tell this money goes to buy Mercedes Benzes (from the dad of one of the other guys, natch), sunglasses that are too big and have Swarovski crystals ugly glass all over them for these guy's girlfriends, Lacoste shirts, and pot. Their kids, too, will have ungodly amounts of money in the bank.
Fixed that for you.
-
I... look, I ain't gonna let this become A Thing. A Thing ain't good for nobody here.
I think that ship has sailed.
But man. I never thought I'd find someone who genuinely believed that theory. I pretty much chalked that one up to one of those lies that politicians and rich people pretty much say just because the truth is just too ugly and obvious but nobody actually believes. Like that war can bring peace and so on.t
Pretty much, I've never seen a rich person do anything like that. Generally, they buy huge gaudy unnecessary things made in other countries or buy property that just shuffles the wealth amongst the same class of large-landowners.
Rich people don't need to invest. They're already rich.
They were born that way, thinking they were gods, that God blessed them with money.
So you are saying that the money just 'is', at some point someone was selected at random to receive wealth....
That's absurd. Bill Gates story is pretty well known, he didn't start out rich. I'll go with you if you are saying maybe some luck is involved, but for the most part there is preparation, opportunity and willingness to work hard that results in the majority of 'wealthy' people's wealth. Now it may have happened generations before, but that's neither here nor there. Wealth is taxed, and also wealthy people eat and consume, and buy things - and when they do, their wealth is transferred to others. Sure that rich guy has a yacht. That means he probably spends money to maintain it. Possibly to crew it. He purchases fuel. He purchases supplies. He pays for insurance, dock fees. He is redistributing his wealth, and the majority of it is not going to other wealthy people. Wealthy people aren't pumping boat fuel or selling boating supplies. Or scraping barnacles off his boat...and if they are wealthy doing those things, odds are they earned their wealth the old-fashioned way.
The best part? Maybe this guy is SO RICH he overpays for everything. Or tips really well. Remembers all the people who do things for him at Christmas.
And this doesn't even account for the contributions he makes for having his money in a bank. That's money the bank invests for him. They make loans for new homeowners or small business with some of it. They support government funds with some of it. Some of it goes to investments that support new or emerging businesses. And of course, the proceeds are taxed.
But that's not what you see. You see Thurston Howell the 3rd wiping his ass with a $50 bill. And for some absurd reason, you are under the impression that that's YOUR $50 bill, as though you or someone was else was somehow entitled to it simply for existing in a different socio-economic class. Go do something to earn that $50 and someone will exchange YOUR good or service for their wealth. OR, get wealthy and purchase someone's good or service with your wealth.
Poor people invest because they think it is like buying a lottery ticket and con-men let them buy those lottery tickets on credit.
People who make good investments almost always have something to show for it. Most companies offer retirement programs that include investment and people who use these wisely almost always do better than they would on old-fashioned pension plans or worse, social security. Your statement indicates distrust or fear of the whole investment/ banking industry. Yet wisely saving and investing and home ownership are two excellent ways to improve your financial position if you are able and the two things that most middle class people can work toward and achieve. The issue is not 'con-men'; the issue is educating people about long term financial planning. It does work.
The only people that got rich in the California gold rush were the people who sold the prospectors cheap shitty picks and cheap shitty bluejeans and cheap shitty food. You can still rise through the classes by cheating people, this is true enough, but what if you don't want to cheat? What if you don't have the resources to start such a con?
You could use your talents and abilities to create something that people want or need. Microsoft. Google. Coca-Cola. Mad Magazine. Achewood. You are writing a book. Have you figured who you are going to cheat out of their money for it? Is the 375 page 'con' believable enough? Who are you fooling besides yourself? Your effort is either masturbatory, compulsive, or intended to make you some profit. In most people's cases, it's a combination. I suspect that's the case for you too.
Who did Onstad cheat? Is he making a living?
The only resource that most people lack to start a business of their own is confidence. Taking a chance is hard. You could lose. But if you never take that chance, and spend your time cursing your fate instead, it's just empty bitching.
That was the story of the Great Depression. That is the story of... basically now as well.
The Great Depression was global. It affected the world; probably started a year before it hit the US and was a result (in the US)(Probably) of poor monetary policies, a normal contraction of the economy, a major drought, and consumers unwilling to spend money or increase their debt (what we now would call low consumer confidence). It was probably exacerbated by new foreign trade policies that affected many other countries by making it more expensive for them to export goods or commodities to the US. It led to the rise of polarized leftist or rightist governments in many countries, which definitely contributed to the development of socio-political conditions that led to WWII. It was NOT due to Levi Strauss overcharging prospectors for pantalones and pickaxes; it was significantly more complex and far reaching than that.
Hollywood, of course, is slightly different. You can get rich out here every once in a great while through genuine creative expression but, really, you might as well just buy lottery tickets, the odds are somewhat better and at least you're supporting public education. But remember:
Pauly Shore's mom runs a comedy club and that's why someone who completely sucks got famous anyway.
So you are saying the all the people that paid to see movies or appearances by Pauly Shore were somehow coerced by his mom? "Conned" as you say above?
You are right in that Hollywood is it's own thing, and the economics of Hollywood aren't always rational, but what he have seen is that there is something for everyone in the world of entertainment, and if some people threw a dollar Pauly's way, good for Pauly. I don't think he did anything illegal for his living, I assume he paid his taxes, so like him or not, he's playing the same game we all are. He just got better dice.
There are certain entertainers I don't spend a dollar on. There are others I do. That's a market like any other. You want to somehow prove to us that that is bad, but is it? What is the alternative you propose?
-
I've always figured the only way we are going to get out of this rut is with education (Posssibly even education) or bringing about better working conditions in other countries.
Bottom line for me is that if you do a job that someone who didn't have the good luck to be born in a highly developed country can (and will) do for less than a tenth of your wage then you're not going to be doing that job for very long. Tariffs and other nationalistic protectionist techniques just won't hold up in the long run. Even if we ignore the whole 'corporations are greedy life-destroying bohemoths' angle why does someone over here have more right to earn a living than someone in some shithole third-world nation if they are doing the same job?
I don't think they do and so if we want to be competitive there are only two solutions that I can see:
1) Become more educated so that people over here can do things that people over there can't. This will require government money since we are talking about trying to give high quality life long education to people aren't exactly flushed with cash. This is the only way I can see to get people out of working factory jobs their whole life. I'm not shitting on factory jobs and similar work, I've done my share of that, but realistically there's always going to be people who will exploit those who work for no money and we don't want the people being exploited to be us.
2)It also seems logical that helping workers in other countries would end up helping ourselves, the union movement may not be suitable to our current situation over here but it sure as hell is needed (or something like it) in places were some poor schmuck is working 18 hours days for 10 bucks a day. It would take a lot of work over a long time but if workers in other countries could expect rights and benefits comparable to those that we have come to expect here then it would ultimately benefit our workers as they'd become more competitive on a global market.
-
Con-men tell people that certain stocks and bonds and real-estate investments are basically winning lottery tickets... it drives up the value of things they already own, they sell, the rubes go broke. Rinse repeat.
Maybe the con-men will even collect a commission on those cons.
Maybe the con-men even convince the rubes to borrow money from them for it at insane interest.
The stock market in anything other than long-long-long term investments is a con job.
Also: I understand the economic theories that have been covered in this thread. I took economics classes in college. I just have never seen any evidence that any of that stuff works in the really-real world. In books written by and for rich people, of course it sounds airtight.
All the big lies do.
Capitalism is like a frothing insane attack dog.
Good to have around for protection, useful at times, but for Christ's sake, have it on a short strong chain and have a stun gun on your hip at all times because it WILL try to turn on you, every goddamn chance it gets.
-
???
dude there were two strong lines of argument presented a little above. i cant see an idea in reply to either in what you just posted. WTF
-
The man working mcdonalds is likely to use his tax return to pay debt. The man with the yacht is more likely to use that money to invest in companies that hire people like the other guy. Its really not that hard to understand.
I mean, I don't know. Considering until a year ago my dad was Head of Consumer Lending (ie: loans and credit cards and stuff, I don't know what his actual title was) at one of the largest banks in the US, I would tend think that he would understand it if it were that obvious. I typically assume that he basically knows more about how these things work than I do, or ever will.
-
Hey Inev! My dad used to have that job too, or something very like it. Like you I generally accept that he is a better judge of financial matters, leaves me free to make stupid but enjoyable mistakes at my leisure.
-
see, but, A-CAP, the way you have lined it out every dollar ever spent ends up in the hand of a laborer. Put in the bank? Lent to a laborer. Spent on frivolous crap? A laborer made it, sold it, etc. Invested? Goes to the laborers at the company.
So if you actually believe that, don't all tax refunds have the same effect?
-
So then why does it make a difference who the tax refunds go to?
-
The only time money doesn't arrive at people who deserve it is when its extorted from them.
This is where the issue is. In my view, money doesn't naturally arrive where it is deserved. It seems to me that companies are good at one thing-- maximizing their own profits, and therefore those of their shareholders. This is not bad. This is what they are made to do. This is what they are good at doing. There is no reason that they are obligated to take care of their workers; in fact, there are a lot of disincentives to this. I will look for my copy of Fast Food Nation, where several managers of Fast Food chains were quoted as saying that they were encouraged to keep their turnover of workers high, since training is cheap and easy, while raises and benefits for workers who stay a long time are not. This, too, is just the way the world works. Companies follow their economic incentives. If it is economically advantageous to be "green," or to treat their workers well to attract more skilled labor, they will do it. But not until it reaches the point of being what is Good for them.
What the issue is, as far as I can tell, is that LFM and I think that the job of Unions and the Government is to work to counteract that. Tax breaks for companies that are better for the environment. Laws to mandate minimum wages and maximum hours, outlaw child labor, &c. The second the government and unions stop doing their work, companies will start doing what is in their own interests, which are not the same as the interests of low-level employees or "everyday Americans." There needs to be a delicate balance, of course, and the problem lies in knowing where that balance is. Maybe bloated bureaucracies and mob-connected unions and elected officials gunning for votes are not the best way to do this, I would agree that there has to be a better way, but right now that is the system we have.
-
When profit is allowed to be the prime mover, all dignity is lost.
Shareholders are protected by levels of management and an apathetic media from the sins against common human decency from which their larger dividends came.
If you let people do almost anything to make more money, they will. They simply will.
I refuse to trust anyone who would ever call another human being "the help".
Only large powerful organizations like governments and unions can even start to protect us from the robust power of unfettered big business, spreading their moneys out wide to buy off the people who would let them get away literally with murder for a buck.
Wealth creation should not be our only goal, our primary goal or even one of our primary goals as a country or as a species. At best, its a pleasant side effect if it happens anyway.
I know someone else said it first and better but, yes. Yes, humanity should be our fuck*ng business.
If people are exploited, if people are suffering, if people are in need, all of the other theories and speeches and mechanisms for funneling the fruits of labour into the hands of those who are already rich... all of it, it's all just lies and sins and numbers in books.
What are our priorities, for Christ's sakes?
Wherever there's an argument for social darwinism based on material advantages that existed before birth, I hope I can be there to argue against them with strange analogies.
The economic system you're all talking about would work fine if everyone started as a blank slate, instead of 99.999% of us being born in the hole and 0.001% of people born with the advantage of the tools of self-perpetuating wealth creation.
We could fix a whole lot of problems if we put an estate tax of 98% on any inheritance over... say... three hundred thousand dollars.
The playing field is not level from the start and therefore the game is broken.
And therefore I demand a different game. Doesn't mean that my wish will be fulfilled but, goddamn it, just because it won't happen doesn't mean it's not right.
If it's humane, it's right. Doesn't even matter if the math works. We're people not numbers.
We're a species over the course of generations and centuries, we're not just indivduals.
Suffering could be greatly lessened if we were all even slightly less selgiraffe, myself included.
That's all that matters. Everything else is just the failed magic spells of confidence men.
-
This is where the issue is. In my view, money doesn't naturally arrive where it is deserved. It seems to me that companies are good at one thing-- maximizing their own profits, and therefore those of their shareholders. This is not bad. This is what they are made to do. This is what they are good at doing. There is no reason that they are obligated to take care of their workers; in fact, there are a lot of disincentives to this. I will look for my copy of Fast Food Nation, where several managers of Fast Food chains were quoted as saying that they were encouraged to keep their turnover of workers high, since training is cheap and easy, while raises and benefits for workers who stay a long time are not. This, too, is just the way the world works. Companies follow their economic incentives. If it is economically advantageous to be "green," or to treat their workers well to attract more skilled labor, they will do it. But not until it reaches the point of being what is Good for them.
OK, granted that in some low-end industries where the skill set is minimal and the consumer expectation for quality is low, that almost certainly happens frequently.
WHERE MARKET FORCES COME IN:
1) Many of the low paid workers have a natural desire to do better for themselves and/or will naturally evolve beyond what they are doing (i.e., graduate from High School) and naturally move on. They 'demand' or 'need' more - more money, more prestige, more responsibility, more job satisfaction. And so they 'seek' and 'consume' those things elsewhere.
2) Companies with higher levels of needed skills and higher levels of consumer quality expectation will invest in and cultivate their workers through training, appropriate compensation and benefits. Otherwise, they will lose their best workers, quality suffers, and they lose commerce.
Markets are at work not only between the businesses and between the consumer and the creator of a good or service, but also between the employers and the workers.
Just as I pointed out earlier that the best hole-digger in the world will probably not make more than an average hole-digger, the best burger flipper in the world is also not likely to make much more than an average one. The plentiful nature of the resource (i.e. average demand, high supply) drives this. Now look at a highly skilled/trained profession, or one where experience is valuable. Actuaries, say - not a ton of them out there, the really good ones can make incredible money. Because the supply is small, and the skill they bring is valuable to the companies that need them, the need/demand makes the payment rational in the market. The good news for the best burger flipper and the best hole-digger is that perhaps they can move up in their respective businesses. Maybe not far - but the enterprising ones can start their own businesses and engage the market on their own terms.
So tell me, Inev, if the money doesn't actually arrive where it is deserved, where is it deserved? Can you or LFM maybe construct a model where the flow of goods and services in one direction and the flow of wealth in the other makes sense to you? Here's what I think the ground rules would be based on the thread so far:
1) The model eliminates poverty (and not in relative terms!) (this, I think is impossible but it seems to be a goal of at least one of you)
2) The model provides for appropriate central services as needed to support and protect a significant population (i.e. Public Health, Governance, Police, administrative codes and enforcement)
3) The model allows for interstate and international commerce in a global environment with varying levels of economic development, instantaneous communication, and fairly rapid and reliable transportation of goods OR 100% economic isolation.
4) If not economically isolated, the model allows for interdependency, particularly of energy resources.
5) Since this is America we're fixing, Individuals must be allowed to develop/accumulate legally earned wealth. You can tax them, but if they are rational players and you overtax them, what will happen?
OK, that's fairly wide open. I'm interested more in what you say than countering it, and let's call this a free swim - let everyone participate. Discussions are welcome, flames are not.
Blue books open, and.....................begin.
-
LFM vs AD Round II
When profit is allowed to be the prime mover, all dignity is lost.
I can't disagree more. Profit can be personal as well. A man utilizing his own talents or a commodity he owns to create wealth for himself is arguably far more possessing of his dignity than one forced grudgingly to work as hard as he can only to receive that which he needs. Soviet-style communism afforded little dignity. Immigrants who came to this country, worked hard and prospered held their heads high because they knew that they were given an opportunity to succeed, they seized and they created success. They were proud, sure, but the most important thing was they came here, in many cases, to recover their dignity and they did.
Shareholders are protected by levels of management and an apathetic media from the sins against common human decency from which their larger dividends came.
Are you kidding? Every level of management costs shareholders money. Think they want the money diluted by levels of management? What they are protected by are the laws that require communication and availability of information, and of course, their vote. If you are referencing a specific company, do so - generalizations are not argument. Name the company that stands against common human decency.
If you let people do almost anything to make more money, they will. They simply will.
And that is what is beautiful about this country. People are free to choose how to make money and are protected by laws from unscrupulous business people. If you are actually basing your argument on the simple premise that crime is bad, I'll be agreeing with you but you never say that - I get the idea that you believe that what business does in general is immoral, unethical or illegal. But you never say anything specific about that either.
I refuse to trust anyone who would ever call another human being "the help".
That's just people not comporting dignity to others. I don't like it either. But that statement doesn't amount to argument either. I agree that we should treat everyone with dignity and respect.
Only large powerful organizations like governments and unions can even start to protect us from the robust power of unfettered big business, spreading their moneys out wide to buy off the people who would let them get away literally with murder for a buck.
Examples? Unions have been involved in organized crime, murders and corruption to a level I think you won't find in any company. This is well documented.
Wealth creation should not be our only goal, our primary goal or even one of our primary goals as a country or as a species. At best, its a pleasant side effect if it happens anyway.
Wealth creation benefits everyone. You can't create wealth without employing people. If by this statement you are implying that there should be a responsibility on the part of business or government to compensate employees for work, protect them from injury, provide benefits that allow them to provide basic necessities for their families, then, yes, to some degree I agree with you. But WITHOUT WEALTH DEVELOPMENT none of these things are possible, either on the business' side or the government (because no wealth = no taxes).
What should be the goal? And once you state it, how do you accomplish it without capital to spend?
Dreams are free, but making them come true costs.
I know someone else said it first and better but, yes. Yes, humanity should be our fuck*ng business.
If people are exploited, if people are suffering, if people are in need, all of the other theories and speeches and mechanisms for funneling the fruits of labour into the hands of those who are already rich... all of it, it's all just lies and sins and numbers in books.
What are our priorities, for Christ's sakes?
Wherever there's an argument for social darwinism based on material advantages that existed before birth, I hope I can be there to argue against them with strange analogies.
And strange they are. Lots of broad generalizations there.
The economic system you're all talking about would work fine if everyone started as a blank slate, instead of 99.999% of us being born in the hole and 0.001% of people born with the advantage of the tools of self-perpetuating wealth creation.
But you've proposed nothing. And the economic system I'm talking about has worked for a few hundred years, while others have come and gone, leaving literally millions dead.
We could fix a whole lot of problems if we put an estate tax of 98% on any inheritance over... say... three hundred thousand dollars.
So everything your dad worked for, that he built for his family, for you, say, would automatically be handed over to the government? What does the government do with the money?
The playing field is not level from the start and therefore the game is broken.
Elaborate.
And therefore I demand a different game. Doesn't mean that my wish will be fulfilled but, goddamn it, just because it won't happen doesn't mean it's not right.
It does amount to a large waste of time if even you don't believe it will happen.
If it's humane, it's right. Doesn't even matter if the math works. We're people not numbers.
Where is the inhumanity occuring?
We're a species over the course of generations and centuries, we're not just indivduals.
If someone 3 generations ago in my family developed wealth that I can now enjoy, why can't I then? How do you justify your assertion that the government should be allowed to seize that wealth? I agree that we move more as families than individuals, but I disagree that arbitrary redistribution is the answer. In fact, this is why communist revolutions are so bloody. In every case, the wealthy and the intellectuals had to be killed first, to eliminate argument.
Suffering could be greatly lessened if we were all even slightly less selgiraffe, myself included.
Well, OK. But again, a little meat on that bone would be helpful.
That's all that matters. Everything else is just the failed magic spells of confidence men.
Except that they aren't confidence men and no magic is at work - just the natural behavior of industrious people with needs who can meet their and their families needs through application. And for those who can't, I agree that a reasonable social safety net with provisions to build the capacity of those who need it is a good idea.
-
My father worked his ass off all his life and if he died today, he would only leave me whatever's left of the mortgage back home. An uncaring corporation gave him a heart condition from chemical exposure that they continute to deny and he had to retire in his early fifties.
He had to work from his teens just to get by and that's why he doesn't have a college education, why he had to toil in a goddamned gun factory just to keep his head above water and "improve" himself, even though on an intellect scale kinda dealy, he's a full-on genius. 180s-type IQ.
The system was fixed against him from the start, he had to drop out of part-time college just to make enough money to feed his children and thirty years later, they left him weak as a kitten and he'll probably die in his sixties because of those bastards or bastards just like him.
This is what I'm talking about: if people don't have the money to get education, to get opportunity to learn and to grow, the time and space to explore their ideas, there is no movement, there is no opportunity.
There are at least fifteen million dollars in patents toward constructing Remington rifles cheaper and better that belong to the company because he was in a shitty-as-hell work-for-hire situation, because he didn't have any choice, because my brother and I had to eat.
If you do not have the resources up front to diddle around and collect degrees and have time to think, all the hard work and good ideas are fuck*ng doodley-squat. A sparrow's fart in a hailstorm. Dupont or possibly whoever owns Remington now owns all that hard work because if he didn't sign over those ideas, he was fired and the house was repossessed.
Over a barrel, by the nuts, etc.
The "choices" that all of this academic twaddle about the free market are predicated on... do not exist for most people, for most Americans, and the number for which those choices exist shrink away by the hour.
By the fuck*ng mortgage foreclosure in Riverside County. By the job moved to Bangalore. One by one. Scam allowed by scam allowed.
The vastest majorities of us are just getting by and have no goddamned safety nets.
In my personal household, my brother and I have degrees from Fancy Private Colleges and my girlfriend has a masters in teaching and we all almost went bankrupt because of a back injury that I had, that mimicked a heart problem, and the health insurance that I did not have because I did not and could not afford it.
And I have fancy words, for Christ's sake, I have a Big People Degree and shit, this tool that was supposedly supposed to work magic in the field of competition and it doesn't mean a thing.
This thing that both of my parents spent ten years paying down, that I'm still paying a portion of down, nothing.
Without safety nets, all of this means absolutely nothing.
The vast majority of Americans are had by the fuck*ng balls and... no, there is not opportunity, there is not upward mobility. All the hard work in the world means nothing if a little dumb luck comes along.
We are all running scared and only able to take what we are offered, out of fear and desperation.
There is no innovation there. There is no trickle-up trickle-down hossshit. Just people running scared for anything at all.
Buying more cheap goods from China just to get by which kills more American jobs in the process, which makes more of us scramble to fuck*ng dollar stores to eat, which kills even more American jobs.
It is a goddamned snowball, friend. It is a goddamned downward spiral.
This was still a big country when those immigrants came over here and there were still basic communication and transport limitations that forced people to hire people locally and buy locally... and improve conditions if the workers fought for a fair wage, fought for rights like health care and so on.
Now, there is Bangladesh. Now there is Nanking. Now there is anywhere else and the people who had the means to start off on top from birth can gut this entire society to get just a little bit more, at the detriment to most.
If the free market, if innovation, if hard work and good thinking are the actual rule... why SHOULD you benefit from the built up largesse of your ancestors? How COULD that be right?
It is a built-in advantage. It is a place of comfort that you can start from, take risks from, grow from. Most people do not have this.
I am by no means a communist. Small business CAN work the ways that you people are saying. Farms and local stores and so on can work like that, when they are beholden to the community's trust and owned by people who live quite near to their business.
Where there is actual accountability.
When a business is owned by someone an ocean away or half a country away or by someone in a gated community that their customers and employees are not even allowed to enter, it breaks down. It breaks down fuck*ng fast.
When we can deny the humanity of the people we're making money off of, go deaf dumb and blind to it, all rules are off.
Wal-Mart is owned by people in castles in Arkansas, the products are all made by starvation labour in Macao or whatever... and the distance allows the business to do all of that, to pay people minimum wage so that they can only afford Wal-Mart bulk prices... all without ramification. They don't have to see it so they don't have to worry about it.
Capitalism breaks down when monopolies form, okay? Capitalism breaks down when the forces of competition are no longer real. There ARE no forces of competition against a Wal-Mart, there is too much buying power consolidated. Too centralized.
The snowball is entirely out of control, in that example.
When there are too many advantages up front, there is no real competition at all.
Only dukes and serfs.
The first steps, I'd imagine, would be massive trust-busting, on scales that we probably can't even fathom... along with large changes to tax code so that they no longer favour the already wealthy, they no longer let the ball roll out of control... along with massive changes in tarrifs that shut down the transnationals' abilities to skirt our laws by hiring out of nations.
Break those fuckers down.
Pour those billions and possibly trillions of dollars, firstly into a national health care system on par with the rest of the civilized world, at least, hopefully better. Be a fuck*ng shining beacon of hope.
Pour those billions and possibly trillions of dollars back into the public educational system so that we CAN actually have children armed for the future again... not minimally educated just enough to be able to run a fuck*ng cash register, an interestingly convenient byproduct of tax cuts for the rich...
It's almost like there's a dual goal there, you know. Like maybe only allowing us the education necessary to be fuck*ng useful peasants is kind of the fuck*ng plan. You know, maybe, just maybe.
Pour those billions and trillions of dollars into high speed rail and alternative power, to free us from the yoke of other nations. Make our jobs through giant Works projects again.
This was what got us out of the Depression, y'know.
fuck*ng manning up and standing up to the corporations and the fatcats, taking a chunk of the obscene wealth created by desperate times back and making this place a better place.
We've done it before, I pray to whatever fuck*ng God there is that we could do it again, maybe.
Small-scale capitalism is fine and beautiful when it is about inspiring small personal meritocracy.
Once money is consolidated enough to become a self-perpetuating wealth system, once money is centralized enough to rig the system, the value of that notion breaks down.
Mixed-model economics is the name of the game.
If you have enough money to start with to change the rules of the game from the beginning, of course you fuck*ng win. Duh.
But confusing that with the idea of a "Free Market" is lunacy.
Unions and government oversight and massive taxations of the more obscene concentrations of wealth need to exist to prevent the "free market" from getting so big that it gets to make up the rules, from reaching that critical mass when it is an alive thing unto itself.
Much of Europe has a handle on this shit, you know, so does Canada to an extent and so does parts of Far East Asia to extents.
It is not impossible.
We just have to think long-view enough and compassionately enough to get beyond our own personal survival-trip greed thinking.
Of course, since the military-energy complex and the media and the federal government are all owned by the same oligarchs at this point...
I have no fuck*ng clue on how to effect such a plan, of course.
My short answer would be: "Basically what FDR was trying to do, again, except this time with feeling."
-
You're bitter and your family history has you angry.
I don't have much money.
I'm currently in a situation where my wife and kids are getting ready to move back to Ohio while I stay here, to work until I find a well-paying job on the mainland.
My parents didn't have a lot of money. My dad was in business for himself; he worked probably 80 hours a week as an entrepreneur.
I could easily stand here and yell something incoherent about how it's a rigged game and etc.
But it isn't. No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere. Your father made choices, my father made choices, now I'm making choices and so are you.
Getting a mortgage without mortgage insurance (about 1-2 dollars a month) is a bad choice. That will leave your heirs with a nasty debt.
Running a company where employees are sickened by the work they do and not giving them the protection and assistance they need is immoral, unethical and addressed frequently by the courts. I hope your father exhausted all options to hold them accountable if they are.
I went to graduate school while working full time with a newborn baby in order to better myself, enhance my career. Then I made a choice to step away from that career when I was "offered" something I didn't want with the alternative being to find another job. I don't feel like I wasted my time - I do wish I was still using my degree, though.
I found another job. I don't like it but I stay at it because it meets the needs of my family at the present and because it's the best current alternative. I continue to look for and apply for other jobs that are better. I am not content to stay where I am, and no one should be if they feel that they can do better.
I don't deny that bad things happen to people. What I refuse to acknowledge, ever, is that, here in the US, anyone is restricted to one course of action in their life. What I do acknowledge is that there are those for whom the uncertainty of taking such a chance scares them too shitless to make a move - but blaming the 'system' or 'heartless corporations' or 'market economics' for most people's personal circumstances removes far too much personal responsibility and really belies something that is proven over and over again - that America's economic engine and general attitude make it possible for anyone to be successful.
My dad immigrated here when he was 19. He had very little but his mind and abilities. He worked menial jobs, studied, endured several kinds of -isms, and made a fair success for himself and if not an idyllic life for us, we were not poor and really didn't want for anything we truly needed.
I doubt he could have succeeded anywhere else the way he did, including the country from which he came. One thing I love about America is that we have so much freedom, so much choice and so many opportunities. I perceive neither an unfair playing field nor a rigged game - just people unwilling to do what it takes to play and, for a few, win.
-
I just got back from dinner and drinking with my family while you all argued on the internet.
I don't want either of you running my country.
-
the glass is half full
Well, to be sure, my cup runneth over not.
However, Happy Thanksgiving to my very most favorite varmint shootin' gun totin' So Cal livin' Dad, Husband, and messageboard troublemaker.
-
I just got back from dinner and drinking with my family while you all argued on the internet.
I don't want either of you running my country.
Sorry about that, after a nap, I see I was pretty drunk and was just trying to make the yelling stop. I just meant be happy. I kind of agree with LFM, but in a glass half full kind of way, if that is possible. But also, spend time with your family and friends, or do some relaxing or... something besides this, on this (well, yesterday) the greatest holiday of all. Maybe then, the glass would be fuller LFM.
(here is a shirt my redneckish texas alcoholic friend had, it is funny (funnier if you knew him):
Some say the glass is half full
some say the glass is half empty
I just wonder whose drinking my beer.)
-
Hey, for what its worth, I had an awesome Thanksgiving too.
My mom was out here (just dropped her off at the airport) and she made a huge feast for my brother and myself and our girlfriends and a few of our friends. We then played Rock Band at a friend's apartment for, like, three hours straight.
Imaginary Drums is a goddamned difficult thing.
Imaginary Bass, however, is kinda doable.
These postings about the damned human race and its ultimate fate are only a small part of my life. There is a lot of listening to good music and hanging out with my people in there too.
And anyway, half-empty, half-full, as long as we agree that the glass has been poisoned by the upper class, that's all that matterinos, right?
(...mostly kidding, mostly kidding...)
-
And anyway, half-empty, half-full, as long as we agree that the glass has been poisoned by the upper class, that's all that matterinos, right?
(...mostly kidding, mostly kidding...)
See, now that is a happy holiday post. Glad you had a good day too.
-
this is a thing where... I agree with LFM on some of this stuff, and I agree with what 'dawg is saying on some of this, but I do not really feel like going through everyone's posts quoting things.
the version of the glass-half-full thing I've always heard is:
"the glass is half full"
"the glass is half empty"
"gimme that... *gulp gulp* now it's completely empty! stop yapping and drink up!"
-
I would totally vote for Inev to run the world.
Just saying.
-
awesome, I knew it!
also: where did your little hat go.
-
I reverted back, the crappy MS-paintness of it's insertion was beginning to bother me. Plus I don't wear that hat very often now.