Anyonme with any comments on the "Occupy Wall Street" movement which now not only appears to have spread Nation Wide and to a less extent World Wide bu that noe seems to be attracting people beyond just the working class.
Printable View
Anyonme with any comments on the "Occupy Wall Street" movement which now not only appears to have spread Nation Wide and to a less extent World Wide bu that noe seems to be attracting people beyond just the working class.
A prime sign that the populace isnt happy about the rich getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer.
Maybe if they were actually WORKING, instead of sitting on their asses protesting, they wouldn't be GETTING poorer!Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Wrong. Even if they'd work their asses off, some of them would be getting poorer. It's fucked up economics put into effect by fucked up economists who thought their theories would work in the real world. Well, they did, but only for a very few, and a few very crooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
That's the simple excuse, sure. But I think it has to do more with people not learning how to handle what money they have. Just because you CAN get credit, doesn't mean you SHOULD get credit. Borrowing money to buy a car so you can get to work is one thing. Borrowing money to buy a jet-ski is something else again. Buying necessities on credit may be necessary sometimes. Buying luxury items on credit is a bad way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
I just don't understand the mentality of those who want the rich to give them money. I'm not saying that there aren't crooked people out there, but there are a lot of people who have earned what they have through hard work. NOT by standing around protesting people who DO the work.
True, jet skis are a dumb investment. :)
However, I was talking about Switzerland, where things aren't (yet) so fucked up as in other places. Or Germany. I mean, when a perfectly rooted bus driver leaves Munich to come working in Switzerland because she barely gets along with the salary she's being paid in Munich, there's something wrong, isn't there?
It's not friggin' Zimbabwe or Mali or Bangladesh, it's Germany. The south, even. Bavaria, probably one of the richest regions in the world.
Wrong again. Most likely they didn't have to bend one finger to get that filthy rich. Most likely, they inherited it. And if not, they most likely had a lot to begin with. In today's economy, hard work very seldom gets you rich. There might be a very few exceptions, but they indeed are a very small number. Insignificantly small, even.Quote:
I just don't understand the mentality of those who want the rich to give them money. I'm not saying that there aren't crooked people out there, but there are a lot of people who have earned what they have through hard work.
Oh, and did you know that when it comes to make a career by hard work or to make that oh-so-hailed 'American Dream' come true, America is a very bad place to do it in, at least among the OECD-countries? Wonder why that would be the case ... maybe it's got to do with the US having the least equality of opportunities.
And if that's all not yet enough: Taking from the middle class and giving the rich (which is actually what happens now in a lot of countries) is very, very, very dumb and short sighted. Because in the end it's the middle class which keeps a country prospering and running. The very rich can go everywhere they want. Especially since their dough is already there anyway....
Perhaps there is, but the question is, What is wrong? Perhaps the cost of living is higher in Germany? Are there benefits to living in Germany that she might have to forego in Switzerland? Do they really pay that much more for bus drivers in Switzerland?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
All right, so some people inherited their money. But somewhere along the line, someone had to earn it, right? (I'm not talking about royalty, here, those who inherit there position and wealth for no other reason than the family name and history.) I mean, while I'm not rich by any means, I do hope that when I die I'll have enough to pass on to my kids, to give them a boost in life. What's wrong with that?Quote:
Most likely they didn't have to bend one finger to get that filthy rich. Most likely, they inherited it.
Depends on the work, doesn't it? Yeah, digging ditches isn't likely to make you a fortune, but working hard to get a good education will do more for you than spending several weeks protesting someone else who got an education. Every job I ever had, I started low and worked my way up. If I'd continued my college studies and gotten my bachelor's degree, chances are I would have gotten even higher. But that's my own fault, isn't it?Quote:
In today's economy, hard work very seldom gets you rich.
I wouldn't call people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs insignificant. They built their empires up from nothing, and have earned every cent they've gotten. Or people like Julia Roberts, who worked her way through bit parts and has become one of the premier actresses of our time. Even sports figures, most of whom I dislike, have had to work to get where they are. We can't blame them if people are willing to pay them ridiculous salaries to play games. No, I think the number of people who inherit their wealth and manage to keep it, or even increase it, are more rare than those who work to get it in the first place.Quote:
There might be a very few exceptions, but they indeed are a very small number. Insignificantly small, even.
I'll grant you that it's not easy, and yes, the economy now makes it even harder. My own kids are struggling, and I sometimes wonder how they'll ever manage to make it. But most of that is their own fault. They had the opportunity to go to school and they turned it down. Which rich person should I blame for that?Quote:
Oh, and did you know that when it comes to make a career by hard work or to make that oh-so-hailed 'American Dream' come true, America is a very bad place to do it in
I agree with you here, certainly. But taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor isn't the answer, either. Given the choice of working just enough to get by or working very hard to make something of myself only to have some bureaucrat come along and take it all away to give to someone else, which do you think would benefit me more? Why should I start a business and create jobs if I'm going to be punished for being successful? Why should I bother to develop an innovative technology, providing jobs for many of my neighbors, if it's only going to keep me in the poor house? If you're going to provide for everyone's needs, regardless of their worth, what's the incentive for actually doing anything worthwhile? As soon as you get a little ahead the government's going to come and take it away to give to someone more needy than you. You'd be better off sitting at home and collecting from the government. Until the whole thing collapses. In about two weeks.Quote:
Taking from the middle class and giving the rich (which is actually what happens now in a lot of countries) is very, very, very dumb and short sighted. Because in the end it's the middle class which keeps a country prospering and running.
I came across about the Occupy Wall Street movement:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrictMasterD
http://www.care2.com/causes/the-occu...ews-video.html
Lets just forgo a lot of the cliques shall we?
First off its true...the rich have only grown richer in the past 30 years, where as the rest of us have actually seen our incomes reduced.
As DailyFinance recently reported, a new study found that the recession's blows have fallen most heavily on lower-wage households. The study's subtitle says it all: "A Truly Great Depression Among the Nation's Low Income Workers Amidst Full Employment Among the Most Affluent."
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a new analysis of Internal Revenue Service data shows that over the last two decades, the wealthiest households in America experienced exploding income even as their tax burdens fell dramatically. And the recession has barely touched these lucky few.The reasons behind this imbalance aren't hard to find. Mainstream economists have long noted that automation and offshoring have resulted in massive job losses for the less educated, while government workers and the highly educated have secured high-paying employment that's largely protected from the effects of globalization.
Corporate Strategies Reduce Costs
Apple (AAPL) offers a classic example of the globalization phenomenon known as "wage arbitrage." Back in 1985, the company assembled its Macintosh computers in the northern reaches of Silicon Valley. Indeed, a photo of the assembled factory workers was included in the computer's box along with the manuals.
Now Apple's iPods and iPhones are manufactured overseas, while the software development, management and design are centered in Cupertino, Calif. The wage differential (arbitrage) between manufacturing wages in the U.S. and China has led the company to offshore low-value manufacturing while retaining high-value software, design and marketing functions in the high-wage U.S.
As many have noted, it's Apple's edge in design and software, not its manufacturing capabilities, that have vaulted the company to its elite status as a global powerhouse. Only a sliver of the revenues generated by iPod and iPhone sales goes to the factories in China. This strategy of offshoring low-skill work and paying a premium for high-skill labor has enabled Apple to both increase revenues and generate high profit margins.
Though many decry the decline of manufacturing in the U.S., it's really low-value manufacturing that has been squeezed out. High-value manufacturing (semiconductors, telecom equipment and energy equipment, for example) is actually on the rise.
Manufacturing Shifts, Incomes Follow
The consequences of these long-term trends favoring the financially secure, well-educated (and well-connected) top 20% can be seen in the U.S. Census Bureau's table "Average Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families."
The Census Bureau divides household income into quintiles -- 20% each, from the lowest to the highest, with an added column that breaks out the top 5% of households. To assess how well each household quintile has done financially since 1975, I took the raw data for 1975 and 2001 (the last year available in this series) and calculated how much each quintile gained in income, both as a dollar amount and as a percentage of their 1975 income.
The results are striking. The vast majority of income increases has accrued to the top 20% and especially the top 5%. Here are some of the numbers, adjusted into 2001 dollars. (Note that this is an "apples to apples" analysis that is adjusted for inflation.)
Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%
Middle 20% (a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%
Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%
Top 5% (a.k.a. "the wealthy")
• 1975: $134,735
• 2001: $280,312
• increase: $145,577
• percentage increase from 1975: 108%
The consequences of such massive income shifts are readily apparent. A 2009 survey found that 30% of American households earning $100,000 or more a year are living paycheck to paycheck, compared to about 60% of all U.S. households who are living without much of a financial cushion.
Perhaps it's a coincidence, but the fact that 60% of households are living paycheck to paycheck and the fact that the lower 3/5ths (60%) of U.S. households have not gained much ground in the past 35 years is noteworthy.
Not All Assets Are Equal
One factor in this financial decline that's rarely noted is that housing has risen greatly in cost, even when adjusted for inflation. The average home price in 1975 was $158,000 when calculated in 2008 dollars. The average (mean) house price in December 2008 was $301,200 -- almost twice the 1975 cost (90.7% higher).
Only the top 5% of households actually gained enough income to match the rise in housing costs. Even the "upper middle class" in the top 20% of households gained only 74% -- substantially less than the 90% rise in housing. The lower 60% of households' ability to afford a house was essentially destroyed by this asymmetric rise in the cost of housing.
Other data support the conclusion that the financial gains in the U.S. economy have largely accrued to the top 20% of households. Sociologist G. William Dumhoff has drawn an important distinction between the net worth held by households in "marketable assets," such as homes and vehicles, and "financial wealth." The key difference is that homes and other tangible assets are, in Dumhoff's words, "not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale."
Financial wealth such as stocks, bonds and other securities are liquid, and therefore easily converted to cash. These assets are what Dumhoff describes as "non-home wealth" in "Wealth, Income, and Power in America" on his website. As of 2007, the bottom 80% of American households held a mere 7% of these financial assets, while the top 1% held 42.7% and the top 20% held fully 93%.
If we look at these data together, it's clear that the majority of American households have little "non-home wealth" financial cushion, and thus it's no wonder that these same households are often living paycheck to paycheck. While many may be tempted to launch a partisan tirade to "explain" these statistics, trends that stretch back decades are structural in nature. Any comprehensive account must incorporate the complex economic history of the past 35 years.
Secondly...the rich do indeed still inherit a great deal of their money, despite only 9% reporting that their wealth alone comes from direct inheritance, most of the rest is already tied up in a trust or planed income vouchers or been signed over years earlier or rolled into stocks and counted differently to avoid taxation. Ultra rich people who actually worked a day in their lives like Bill Gates are most certifiably the exception to the rule when it comes to the wealthy of the world.
Did you know last year Wareen Buffet only paid around $20,000 in Income Taxes Thiis is NOT an exct ammount, but it is close), he demanded the IRS make him pay more, they repied "Thanks but no thanks"
His Secretary paid more then he did
I do not understand this complete faith that there are always jobs for anyone who wants to work - in the theeth of all evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Secondly...the rich do indeed still inherit a great deal of their money, despite only 9% reporting that their wealth alone comes from direct inheritance, most of the rest is already tied up in a trust or planed income vouchers or been signed over years earlier or rolled into stocks and counted differently to avoid taxation. Ultra rich people who actually worked a day in their lives like Bill Gates are most certifiably the exception to the rule when it comes to the wealthy of the world.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for taking the trouble to post this and all the rest, Denuseri. HUGS.
Preaching to the choir, thir. I've been out of work for two years now, though for the past year I haven't been actively looking, for health reasons. But I'm almost at retirement age anyway, and because my wife and I have saved all our lives we're not suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
But I'm not sitting out there complaining that people who ARE working are making too much money, either.
I work Full time. I am a single mother. I do not qualify for assistance because I work. In order to ask for assistance, I have to be unemployed or have about 4 more kids. I make crap money. but I work from home, so I can spend more time with my daughter, I don't pay child care, and I save on gas. If I were to go get a better paying job, I would lose most of it in taxes, fuel and childcare. I am not lazy, I am not uneducated and I totally and completely agree with the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I am attending a meeting today, as a matter of fact. :)
You cannot group everyone together in any situation. To say that everyone who smokes weed is a lazy, non-contributing member of society would be incorrect. To say that all Republicans are racist, religious fanatical, rich homophobes would be incorrect. To say that all Democrats are Socialist Liberals is incorrect.
My point is, yes, there are people in the Occupy Movement who are most likely lazy, self absorbed, uneducated and unemployed losers who want a free pass. BUT, there are also a lot of educated, hard-working, selfless individuals, who are trying very hard to get their lives on track and cannot, because every time they start to get back on their feet, the banks institute another fee, taxes get higher and they end up paying out more than they bring home.
Link to the article that denu posted in case anyone is interested. :)
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/...data-says-yes/
Than I am not sure I understand your position, which sounded to me like if you just up and work everything will be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
But not complaining that there isn't work either? We are depending on work - we can't all just go out and shoot a dear. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?Quote:
But I'm not sitting out there complaining that people who ARE working are making too much money, either.
Sometimes the best way to get a job is to have a job. Even if you have to temporarily take something at minimum wage. (I know, it's not always that simple.) My point is, actively looking for work is a far better option than complaining that you're being cheated by big business just because they make more money than you think is right. The way to correct the system is to get INTO the system, then make changes. The problem is, once people DO get in, and start making big money, they no longer see the need for change. We are, at our most basic, a greedy species.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
History has also proven that the system doesn't just change itself magically...not when the people who hold undue influence over it only change it to feed their own greed.
Case in point... (which btw corporations didn't even exist in any sense of today's understanding during the framing of the Constitution) have slowly over the decades increased their rights here and there and reduced their liability to be sued for damages or prosecuted when they get caught doing something wrong: now in a recent supreme court decision have gained the right to pay as much money in secret to support whichever candidate for any office anywhere they wish.
...funny how "we" the people cant do that huh?
You know how many such inequalities like this were corrected in the past?
I will give you a clue...it wasn't via change from within.
From what I know of what is happening around me, people who complain right now are complaining because they cannot get a job. I know in DK we have 3-100 applicants to each job, depending of what kind of job. When I was working we had another top in unemployment, and in my field we had more applicants for each job than we could possibly even answer. I do not see where you can conclude that people who complain do so out of lazyness. Where do you have your facts from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
A while back we had a demonstration in London with a million people, all from differen areas of society, and all ages. Are they all lazy?
A Danish politician - very new and inexperienced - happened to say in a debate that high unemployment was good, because you could keep salaires down. The others hushed her at once and started talking about something else.
I can tell you, from experience with people close around me, that the when the burden of hopeless unemployment is merged with the scorn of 'why don't you try harder', people go into depression and a suicide rate about 5 times the rest of the population. Because not only are you not wanted and cannot take care of yourself, but your human dignity is taken away.
It sounds like you have misunderstood the Citizens United ruling - which does indeed allow groups of people (incorporated or not) to spend their money to endorse or criticise candidates, in the same way that the individuals concerned can. It does not allow that to be done "in secret" - the statutory requirement to identify those paying for such broadcasts remains - nor does it allow them to do anything individuals cannot. In particular, corporations still can't give money to candidates, unlike individual people: all they can do is express their opinions publicly.Quote:
in a recent supreme court decision have gained the right to pay as much money in secret to support whichever candidate for any office anywhere they wish.
...funny how "we" the people cant do that huh?
The alternative, that releasing or promoting a film critical of a candidate would be illegal because that candidate is running for office, seems absurd for any developed country, let alone one professing to support freedom of speech. Libel laws permitting, I'm free to post rants on my blog about what an evil baby-eating monster Bill Gates is for pushing Windows on us all; I could club together with a thousand other Linux or Mac users to run that rant on the pages of the NY Times or as a Superbowl ad ... but suddenly, if Gates decides to run for Senator or President, that would be illegal - you really think that's right?
That's not what I'm saying at all! I simply said that they would be better served by working within the system. Yes, some are lazy. Like any group of people. Some are working, but barely getting by. Some have good jobs. The problem is that they seem to want successful businesses to give money back to their customers. They castigate those who make a profit. They don't seem to understand that, if you remove the lure of profit from industry, you won't have industry. There will be no incentive for businesses to keep on doing business.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
Do these people honestly believe we would be better off if everyone in the world got just what they needed to live (housing, food, medicines) and nothing more? That anyone who makes more money than they need for these things should have that money taken from them to pay for those 'less fortunate'? Where is the reason to even work, then? Why bother to strive for improvement? It all makes no sense to me.
]It sounds like you have misunderstood the Citizens United ruling -
No I didn't misunderstand it at all...one turn of events just followed the other I simply omitted the other factors that came with and after it placing the blame for whats happening now on the court in my post...and despite what the court likes to claim it was very well informed when they made their decision that things would not be as perfect as they were claiming them to be transparency wise.
Undisclosed campaign money that began pouring into political groups during last year’s congressional elections will, without reform, only grow and lead to scandal, a group of business leaders and university professors said yesterday.
An estimated $500 million was spent to influence congressional elections in 2010 by non-profit groups, trade associations, labor unions and corporations with no trace of where the money came from or how it was used, according to the report by the Committee for Economic Development.
“This lack of transparency poses a grave threat to our democracy,” concluded the report, which was signed by 32 business leaders and university professors, including representatives from Citigroup Inc. (C), Avaya Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU)
The group says the Federal Election Commission watered down disclosure rules against the advice of the U.S. Supreme Court, opening new routes for secret money to get into elections. It is calling on Congress to pass legislation to require disclosure of all money spent to influence elections and discouraging its members from giving to such groups.
“The system we have now takes good men and women who are elected and corrupts them,” said Edward Kangas, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, at a panel discussion yesterday about the committee’s reform proposal.
Executives from pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. and Pfizer Inc. (PFE), and from American Electric Power Co., also spoke at the event in support of more disclosure.
Citizens United
The Supreme Court, in a 2010 case known as Citizens United, allowed corporations and unions for the first time to spend unlimited money on ads advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.
In the decision, the high court expressed confidence that interested voters could easily discern the identities of those paying for campaign ads.
“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority.
Disclosure Requirements
The FEC, however, loosened requirements for disclosure of donors, making groups report the names of contributors only if they are paying for a particular ad, the group said.
“The FEC, the agency responsible for implementing campaign finance law, has eviscerated the disclosure regulations applied to campaign advertising,” the report said. “Instead of promoting transparency, the agency has added a new element of secrecy in campaign finance.”
The risks to companies of publicly supporting a political candidate became clear immediately after Citizens United when Target Corp. (TGT) made a $150,000 donation to MN Forward, a business advocacy group which in turn ran ads supporting a gubernatorial candidate who opposed gay marriage. Gay rights groups boycotted the company and Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized.
That incident showed that “there’s a big risk for companies to go out and be so public politically,” said Barbara Bonfiglio, senior corporate counsel at Pfizer. “It’s just not a place that too many companies are going to be comfortable playing in.”
However, they may be comfortable if their donations aren’t made public, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that advocates for limits to money in campaigns.
Electioneering Communications
In the 2010 election cycle, 308 non-party groups reported spending money to influence voters, and only 166 of those reported where the money came from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which reported $31 million in “electioneering communications” spending to the FEC, won’t name any of the companies or individuals who gave it the money.
Independent groups are already raising money for the 2012 elections, with their sights set even higher.
American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies -- created with support from Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, former aides to President George W. Bush -- set an initial goal to raise $120 million for 2012 and then doubled that target earlier this month.
They gathered $71 million in 2010, according to spokesman Jonathan Collegio. Crossroads GPS keeps its donor list secret.
Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, two groups founded by Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, former aides to President Barack Obama, are trying to raise $100 million to help keep the president in the White House.
As reported by: Alison Fitzgerald
ok I thought this was an occupy wall street thread, I think the people I've seen and heard from on wall street are dangerous, I'm hearing things like I want my fair share, well what the hell is your fair share? give me a number and we'll discuss it but the fair share I keep hearing is 100% I want my college paid for free, I want my student loans to be forgiven, and make the banks forgive everyone's debt. If that happens this great free country we live in falls on it's ass and mark my words, you will lose the freedom to speak, the country is headed towards a bad place and it been created by parents and college prof's (and yes I'm a parent and have said this myself) I want my kids to have it better than I did, not to have to work so hard and be able to get ahead.....we've made a bunch of whining pussy's who think because some lives in a nice house and gets paid more money, the whiner deserves the rich to support him too and if you disagree with them your cussed at and told how stupid you are.
just a note for some to think about: About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011, roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable because tax expenditures— special provisions in the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, yield net payments from the government. Provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children particularly affect households with income under $50,000 but other factors make higher-income households nontaxable.
Just 54 percent of all tax units will pay federal individual income tax in 2011, leaving about 46 percent paying no federal income tax or receiving a net refund. The significant fraction of tax units that do not pay income tax has become a topic of public debate. Some commentators have suggested that the large share paying no income tax is mostly the result of tax expenditures (sometimes referred to as "loopholes" or "tax earmarks"). If that were so, nearly all tax units would pay income tax under a reformed income tax with no tax expenditures. In fact, however, even with all tax expenditures repealed, standard income tax provisions that exempt a basic amount of income would still leave many units nontaxable.
this comes from http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...cfm?ID=1001547
Got you wrong again, then. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Thorne - the jobs aren't there!Quote:
I simply said that they would be better served by working within the system.
People just want a job, so they can live. They can't go out and shoot a deer.Quote:
Yes, some are lazy. Like any group of people. Some are working, but barely getting by. Some have good jobs. The problem is that they seem to want successful businesses to give money back to their customers. They castigate those who make a profit. They don't seem to understand that, if you remove the lure of profit from industry, you won't have industry. There will be no incentive for businesses to keep on doing business.
The business of business is to get them as cheaply as possible, and make as much profit as possible.
Thus the clash of interests.
Problem now is not just the crisis, but the fact that many busnesses automate their production, so less jobs.
The businesses get help when they don't do well. Why?? Acccording to other parts of the system you mention, this should not happen, businesses should weed themselves out. First check.
If businesses could not score a profit, do you think the world would stand still? No progress? No one wanting to do [I]anything[I]? A statement heard often, but never proven! Personally I don't think human beings are lotus eaters by nature.
It would never just be 'nothing more'. People are so much more than that!Quote:
Do these people honestly believe we would be better off if everyone in the world got just what they needed to live (housing, food, medicines) and nothing more?
There goes the American dream again: there are always jobs, always education, if you want it. In the teeth of all evidence!Quote:
That anyone who makes more money than they need for these things should have that money taken from them to pay for those 'less fortunate'?
Human beings will always want to work, one way or the other. We are not designed to sit on our buts all day long, staring vaguely ahead...? Moving about and doing stuff is built into us.Quote:
Where is the reason to even work, then? Why bother to strive for improvement? It all makes no sense to me.
Maybe not in the Lutheranian way (again taken from Christianity, even atheists carry the Christian values in them: In the sweat of your face you shall earn your bread) - not work for work's sake, but doing stuff.
Have I understood this correctly: it has become easier to buy yourself a politician?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs. Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them? Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?Quote:
Problem now is not just the crisis, but the fact that many busnesses automate their production, so less jobs.
I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.Quote:
The businesses get help when they don't do well. Why?? Acccording to other parts of the system you mention, this should not happen, businesses should weed themselves out. First check.
No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.Quote:
If businesses could not score a profit, do you think the world would stand still? No progress? No one wanting to do [I]anything[I]? A statement heard often, but never proven! Personally I don't think human beings are lotus eaters by nature.
I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.Quote:
It would never just be 'nothing more'. People are so much more than that!
But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it. And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.Quote:
There goes the American dream again: there are always jobs, always education, if you want it. In the teeth of all evidence!
Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.Quote:
Maybe not in the Lutheranian way (again taken from Christianity, even atheists carry the Christian values in them: In the sweat of your face you shall earn your bread) - not work for work's sake, but doing stuff.
Parto fhte Point is that the United States Governement AT TAX PAYERS EXSPENSE bailout out the banks, who are not making oney hand overfitst, their CEO's are making Multi mIllion dolars a year, are nickle and diming Americans to death with this feee, that fee, etc, if it wasn't for us TaxPayers these people in Banking would be part of the 9.1% umemplyment percentage,
It is a simple issue of US bailingthem out then they turn thewir back on who keept them afloated with FEDREAL LOANS using our TAX Dollars
Well, all I can tell you is that in other countries this is NOT the case. That is what unemployment means, that is what they count in %. As I said, I have personally experienced that enormous amount of applications to every job, which incidently, while interesting, wasn't paid all that much. And I have a first call view of life as unemployed, even in relatively humane countries as UK and DK, which is a night-mare than most people try desperately to scramble out of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
But, and this is said without rancour though with some confusion in your case, I understand that myth is stronger than mere facts.
The point about automation was only to list one of the reasons for unemployment.I guess it wasn't clear, but it was meant as an objective observation, not a hint that firms have to employ people. Although they may run out of customes somewhere along the line if they don't. It all has to hang together somewhere.Quote:
But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs. Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them? Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?
Apparently, some disagree. They are too big to fail. Big car industries and banks do get help - billions of $ of help. I fail to see how this mixture of public funds and private firms is supposed to work. Either let them fall, or nationalize them.Quote:
I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.
What? But if people are self-employed, they do not need any other job - believe me! Sound like a very good solution to me, privately as well as nationally.Quote:
No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.
I got a bit lost here again. What is wrong with being satisfied with what you have?Quote:
I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.
I understand this is hard to take in, but NO, there aren't always jobs. Not even crap jobs! In DK and UK people are lining up for shitty jobs! The system says you have to take any job offered, but they do not have any to offer. The system has been privatized to firms who get paid for every person they find a job for, and they cannot find any. (That is in DK.)Quote:
But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it.
I think it is time for the politicians to face the facts: that there has to be a congruence between number of workable people, and jobs. Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.
It is time for new thinking.
I do not even know where to begin with education... just two facts, one is that some are poor enough that children are needed to help make money. The other is that statistics show that poor people get little education, while children of rich people get lots of education. Do you really seriously believe that they are all - well, you did not like the expression lazy, so what do I call it? Stupid? Uninterested in their future? BTW, I saw a program which showed that many children in ghettoes are in fact uninterested in their future, beacsause they do not expect to reach 20 yrs of age.Quote:
And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.
There is a difference between 'labour' and entertainment - for many people, anyway. Work can mean doing really useful things, as opposed to making gadgets nobody really needs, or pushing paper around.Quote:
Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.
Inventors of all kinds, researchers of all kinds, helpers of various kinds (animals, old people, sick people etc.) making your own radio station, writing books, clearing up beaches and streets, (yes, people do this voluntarily!) planting more trees (yes, they do it without being paid) gardening your own vedgetables, looking after your children and old people, making your own clothes (some are really deft at this) art, making bdsm gadgets ;-) and so on and so forth.
Are we here to work, and buy? Or to live, in our own right?
working with racist problems, haressment against disabled people,
I find the "too big to fail" spectacle alarming myself - surely when a company has become so big that its problems threaten us all, it is so big that the company itself is a problem for us all - perhaps it cannot be allowed to fail, but nor can it safely be allowed to continue as it is: each and every bailout should have come as one part of a breakup like AT&T, to restructure the problem company into pieces which can survive and operate in future without threatening us in that way.
No, automation removes existing jobs from the market over time - and at a faster rate when there is lower unemployment, because of supply and demand. How many people work maintaining horse-drawn carriages now, or stoking coal-fired steam engines? Virtually none, of course, compared to 1911 - but equally, back then there were almost no diesel or jet engines being maintained, no oil rigs being crewed... Old jobs become obsolete, new ones take their place. Meanwhile, unemployment holds down wages - which makes additional automation less economically attractive. Right now, I can buy a little device which will mow my lawn for me unattended for something like $1000 - or I can pay someone $30 to do it manually each time. With unemployment the way it is, the guy who mows it hasn't put prices up for a while (though since he has only shown up twice since May, unemployment may be his fate anyway) - so automation hasn't cost him that (part of a) job. A few years down the line, unemployment will have dropped, he'll be wanting $50 and that machine will cost $500, so it will be time to replace him.Quote:
Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.
The total number of jobs has actually increased greatly. One part of the problem is a growing population: the US needs to create something like 100,000 new jobs every month just to employ the new people who join the workforce - and over the last century, it has indeed managed exactly that: there may be millions unemployed right now, but there are several times as many employed people as there were a few decades ago as well. Many millions of new jobs have been created - but so have millions of new people wanting to fill them. Sadly, there are already people (in the UK at least) who do indeed go through life without finding or even seeking employment
One thing really disgusted me recently, in a little news feature (here in the UK) about the economy. To illustrate the plight of "poor" people, they featured two women on low incomes, said how much money they were getting, then talked to them about how they were cutting costs and struggling. The disgusting detail was that the one with the job - hence actually paying tax, though only a little of it - had a lower income than the non-working one paying nothing to the government. To camouflage this fact, the presenter quoted the first woman's income annually and the second weekly, no doubt knowing most of the audience wouldn't convert to compare the two directly. I think that's what Thorne is getting at: when she is being handed a better income and lifestyle on a plate without making the slightest bit of effort, why would she even try to imitate the one with the job and work hard to earn it? For all our politicians' fine words, we still have "non working households", where income is something the government gives you for nothing and work is something other people do. The government provides them with housing - rent-free because they're on welfare - waives the tax on that housing for the same reason - then gives them free spending money to live on as well. Economic suicide!
I'm not offended, but I do try not to use myths instead of facts. However, I am limited by my environment, and in all honesty by a certain amount of laziness. I have no idea what conditions are like elsewhere, even elsewhere in the US, except from reading scattered reports on line. I am only familiar with my own area of central South Carolina. I applied for several jobs over the last few years, jobs which required technical skills and a good education. At my age, even possessing those skills, the likelihood of getting such jobs is slim. And yes, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of applicants. But at the same time, you can walk into almost any McDonalds or Burger King or the like and be almost guaranteed a minimum wage job if you want it. Most don't even want to consider working in such places, though. In my case, while I was collecting unemployment, I would have had to get a job making more than double the minimum wage just to offset the amount of unemployment I was getting. There was no incentive for me to take such a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
In my little corner of the world, though, there always seem to be SOME jobs advertised. My DIL works for a Jobs Company, similar to Monster, and they always have new clients coming in looking for qualified help. But the key word is "qualified". Our failed educational system doesn't exactly make people qualified.
Yeah, but how many Mom & Pop groceries can one neighborhood support? How many lawn care "specialists"? There still has to be a customer base, even if you're self-employed.Quote:
What? But if people are self-employed, they do not need any other job - believe me! Sound like a very good solution to me, privately as well as nationally.
Nothing wrong with it. The only question is how you got there.Quote:
What is wrong with being satisfied with what you have?
Automation makes for NEW kinds of jobs, jobs which require some skill and education. And perhaps the solution is to convince people that they should NOT have children. Like by NOT having the government reward them for adding more kids to the welfare rolls.Quote:
Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.
I haven't seen a whole lot of OLD thinking, sadly. ANY thinking, rather than just reacting, would be an improvement.Quote:
It is time for new thinking.
We aren't here to DO anything. That implies some kind of externally imposed purpose. We are HERE. That's all. What we MAKE of that is up to us. Very few of us are capable of surviving in the wilderness. And the wilderness is incapable of supporting too many anyway. So we must work to live, if at all possible. One benefit of being human is that we do, for the most part, try to take care of those who are not able to work, for various reasons. Where we need to draw the line is in supporting, indefinitely, those who don't WANT to work.Quote:
Are we here to work, and buy? Or to live, in our own right?
Thorne, you got to stop taking those curmudgeon pills. Being a grumpy old man may seem like fun, but if you carry on like this you'll get religion, and then you'll be sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
The bottom level jobs - shelf stacking, burger flipping etc - are already full of college graduates and people who used to have executive jobs till their firm got outsourced or downsized. They're not working their way up, they're treading water desperately. When the simplest job is offered there's a line for it. I don't know enough about the US to say, but in this country the growing problem is not the newly unemployed, it's the people who've never had a job in their lives and know there is no realistic prospect of their ever getting one, because no matter what qualifications they work for, there will be people with the same pieces of paper plus work experience in the line ahead of them.
Even our conservatives have stopped repeating the old line about how there are jobs if people look for them, because they have been hit over the head often enough with government figures showing that there aren't.And that's why business can't be the only thing that matters. Because there are lots of important things that can't be done efficiently on a profit-making basis. For example, it's why no civilised country relies on profit making systems to provide basic healthcare: that has to be done by a system where the point is keeping people healthy, and the profit and loss account is just part of the administrative background, not the basis of policy making.Quote:
But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs.
If that's too contentious, how about considering why the Department of Defence isn't run as a profit making business? After all, that's supposed to be the way to make any operation efficient, right?
It's been done, but the record shows it's not an efficient solution. Subsidising employment (either directly, or indirectly by pumping government money into a business so it won't lay off staff) also has a poor record, usually because the bosses pocket the money and then fold the business. But in this country we have what's called tax credits for people in work but not earning enough to live off, and it's been pointed out that this amounts to subsidising employment: if it wasn't there, businesses at the bottom end would have to pay more. (Not - before you say it - because people won't take low paid jobs, but because there comes a point of low pay when you're financially worse off working.)Quote:
Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them?
There are always costs and problems with being in business, and one of the tasks of government is to make business carry all the load it can but not more than it can. A mandated payroll, if there was one, would be effectively another tax, and would have to be figured in along with the rest of the tax load.Quote:
Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?
The Great Depression happened because the banks were left to fail. Would you let the only hospital in town close because it couldn't pay its bills? When the private company running our railways was failing, they didn't pour money into it with no oversight, they nationalised it.Quote:
I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.
The mistake wasn't rescuing the banks, it was rescuing them with public money without getting any public control, so they just went right on doing the same things wrong that got us into this mess.You mean, if it's not being done by corporations, it doesn't exist economically. If people are working for themselves, not making profits for shareholders, they might as well be unemployed for all the good they're doing.Quote:
No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.
UK governments, right and left, make a priority of supporting small businesses with tax breaks and legal help. Not just because every big business was a small business once, but because small businesses soak up unemployment faster than big ones. They keep their staff longer when times get hard, because they work as a team, and they hire sooner when the economy picks up, because they're more flexible.I take it you're not a Star Trek fan ;)Quote:
I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.
You don't believe people will ever work for nothing? Right now, all over the developed world, a large percentage of the population are working full time cooking and cleaning and tending children without a cent of pay, and nobody (except for some feminists) thinks that odd because it's what women are supposed to do. And yet according to conventional economic rules, it shouldn't happen.
And looking at it from the other end, the people at the top of the economy have more money than they can find ways to spend even though there are whole industries devoted to wasting their money for them. By textbook economics, they should have stopped working long ago, they have no economic incentive. But some of them work harder than the guy on an hourly rate.I grant you that the government and the private agencies whose statistics say otherwise might all be lying. What I want to know is, where do you get the facts that contradict them all? Or is it just a gut feeling?Quote:
But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it.
There, every liberal in the country will agree with you. My oldest son is working as a teacher in New Jersey, because any school that can afford it hires from outside the US. Because in order to make "No Child Left Behind" work without actually spending any money, US teacher training was cut down to "this is a blackboard, this is chalk, but you won't every use them because all you have to do is stand in front of a class and try to shout down the riot."Quote:
And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.
See, this is the kind of thing that makes debate so dificult. thir talked about giving people the basics of life, you jump to giving them jet-skis and parties.Quote:
Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.
There's a textbook to write on this, but I'm on my lunch hour and already half an hour over, and my boss knows about it because I'm self employed. More later.
That totally annoys the hell out of me too. When my brother already had three kids and was doing a doctorate while his wife stayed at home for two years coz of the kids they'd actually been better off if he had stopped working on his doctorate and not done any work at all.Quote:
The disgusting detail was that the one with the job - hence actually paying tax, though only a little of it - had a lower income than the non-working one paying nothing to the government.
How fucking stupid is that? Work should always pay off, compared to not doing any work.
Now, several years later and thanks to his doctorate, they both earn roughly 200k a year and pay more in taxes each year than he ever got as subsidies while he was on his doctorate.
I never used to take the pills, but my granddaughters corrupted me, and if I forget to take them now I'm sometimes accused of being almost tolerable! [shudder]Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Here in the US most banks are members of the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) which insures the deposits of their clients (up to a certain maximum.) During the Great Depression there was no such safeguard, and depositors lost everything when the banks failed. Now those depositors are protected, at least to a degree. But I agree, letting the banks carry on with business as usual after failing so spectacularly is a fools game.Quote:
The mistake wasn't rescuing the banks, it was rescuing them with public money without getting any public control, so they just went right on doing the same things wrong that got us into this mess.
No, not at all. It's just that, with small businesses, people tend to work longer hours and wear far more hats than if they were working for someone else. You mentioned that you are self-employed. Do you hire an accountant to keep your books? Do you hire someone to sweep your floors? What about a purchasing agent? Chances are, even without knowing just what kind of work you do, there are many things which a manager in a large business would hire someone to do, that you do for yourself, even during lunches and after business hours. That does nothing to help the job market, of course.Quote:
You mean, if it's not being done by corporations, it doesn't exist economically. If people are working for themselves, not making profits for shareholders, they might as well be unemployed for all the good they're doing.
Actually, I AM a fan, I just don't mistake the Star Trek Universe with current reality. Sure, people work for nothing. Charitable organizations depend upon it. But most of those who do aren't dependent on working for a living. They do it for amusement, to have something to do, maybe to increase their social status, or even maybe because they think it's the right thing to do. Regardless, it's because they have the TIME to do it, and enjoy it to some degree. But those same charitable organizations will tell you that those kinds of people are rare indeed.Quote:
I take it you're not a Star Trek fan ;) You don't believe people will ever work for nothing?
No MONETARY pay, I agree. But they have clothing, a roof over their heads, three meals a day. SOMEONE is paying for that, probably by working. These caregivers are (generally) getting some form of compensation (though probably not nearly enough for what they do!)Quote:
Right now, all over the developed world, a large percentage of the population are working full time cooking and cleaning and tending children without a cent of pay
Well, let's not forget that there are some men out there who do such things, too. Traditionally women have taken on that role, but that is changing. Most US households depend upon two incomes anyway, so the kids are being sent to daycare and school.Quote:
and nobody (except for some feminists) thinks that odd because it's what women are supposed to do.
And those industries hire workers to help the rich waste their money. Nothing wrong with that!Quote:
And looking at it from the other end, the people at the top of the economy have more money than they can find ways to spend even though there are whole industries devoted to wasting their money for them.
I remember when my grandmother wouldn't call our house because it was a toll call, and she lived through the Great Depression, learning that you pinched every cent until it screamed. Spending ten cents on a phone call was scandalous to her, even though she could afford it. It's the same with those who have worked hard all their lives to get ahead. It becomes a habit, one that can be hard to break. Plus they feel they have to keep making money to support their kids, who are spending it almost as fast as the parents make it.Quote:
By textbook economics, they should have stopped working long ago, they have no economic incentive. But some of them work harder than the guy on an hourly rate.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my data comes from the local newspaper, the local unemployment service and the internet services that help people find jobs. I have no formal training in economics, nor any real interest other than what I need to know to keep my own finances in order. I will grant that there aren't always new jobs posted every day, but there are several posted each week, and this is a relatively small community.Quote:
I grant you that the government and the private agencies whose statistics say otherwise might all be lying. What I want to know is, where do you get the facts that contradict them all? Or is it just a gut feeling?
Just my point. Schools have become little more than babysitting services, with each teacher passing on the problem students to the next teacher in line. THIS is what needs fixing, and it will take money, but it will also take dedication and determination. Stop worrying about little Billie's feelings being hurt because he isn't learning as fast as Suzie. Stop slowing the pace of teaching to the lowest common denominator. Stop sending disruptive students home (which is what they want anyway) and start teaching kids that there are consequences for bad behavior, and that they are responsible for their own actions. I know it's a radical concept, but it worked for my kids.Quote:
US teacher training was cut down to "this is a blackboard, this is chalk, but you won't every use them because all you have to do is stand in front of a class and try to shout down the riot."
No, I'm saying that those who can afford jet-skis and parties don't NEED to be given the basics. It's those who are getting free housing, free food and free healthcare from the government, then going out and buying luxuries with the money that they do have that annoy me.Quote:
thir talked about giving people the basics of life, you jump to giving them jet-skis and parties.
Now see, you're not using "work" the way an economist or politician uses it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
You and I think that "work" is something that takes time and effort and produces a useful result. An economist says it's what you get paid for. If you're studying, no matter how hard you may think you're working, from the point of view of a conservative you're goofing off, beause you're not getting paid. So you ought to starve.
UK governments tie themselves in knots over volunteer workers. On the one hand, our society couldn't run without them, and our conservatives like them because it's a cosy tradition. On the other hand, the tax and welfare offices don't know how to account for them because unpaid work is a contradiction in terms.A piece of logic that's apparent to every government that looks at it logically, but conservatives cannot get their heads around it because they can't get past the horror of someone being paid by the government to read books. The fact that society is far better off in the long run as a result is not as important as the fact that someone is getting SOMETHING FOR NOTHING and this has to be bad.Quote:
Now, several years later and thanks to his doctorate, they both earn roughly 200k a year and pay more in taxes each year than he ever got as subsidies while he was on his doctorate.
"If you're studying, no matter how hard you may think you're working, from the point of view of a conservative you're goofing off, beause you're not getting paid. So you ought to starve."
Nonsense - you're making an investment in your own future, and these days almost certainly borrowing to do so. More than that, though, you don't actually receive any government money to live on, just a loan (unless you're actually a researcher doing government-funded research - in which case, of course, you're working for the government, not studying) - all the government provides is a subsidy for the actual tuition and the interest costs on your loan.
"A piece of logic that's apparent to every government that looks at it logically, but conservatives cannot get their heads around it because they can't get past the horror of someone being paid by the government to read books. The fact that society is far better off in the long run as a result is not as important as the fact that someone is getting SOMETHING FOR NOTHING and this has to be bad."
Also nonsense throughout - they aren't getting something for nothing, it's over a decade since that stopped being the case (and remind me, which party was it that made that change? Not a Conservative one!) and, in theory at least, the government is getting a better qualified and skilled workforce thanks to that subsidy. Overall, last time I looked the higher income earned by graduates meant they more than repaid that investment to the government in the extra tax on that higher income - though the value of a degree has been eroded significantly in recent years with market saturation, so that may no longer be the case.
More than that, though, if you go back and read the passage you quoted, Lucy's brother is not being paid by the government - rather, he's actually being penalised for doing that rather than sitting there doing nothing .. far from 'paying him to read books', they essentially offer him extra money not to become better educated. Being on that path myself, I sympathise - and to be honest, a large part of the appeal of a PhD to me is that it makes an effective ticket out of here and away from a regime far too eager to take from those who work and give to those who don't.
I am not sure what is compared here: subsidies (?) versus unemployment pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
Anyway, in DK some complained that people got too much pay in unemployment money (none of the complainers unemployed, obviously) and so, it was claimed, they would not work, because the low paid jobs they could otherwise get would lower their income if they took them.
This may be right for some, dependign on how much they got in unemployment, so the government promptly deceided to lower the pay to the lowest common denominator, the lowest paid jobs. Thus making sure that noone had enough. Personally, I think it would be more natural to raise minimum vages. A job you can live on is not too much to ask.
It belongs to the story that in DK at least (not entirely sure how it is organised in other countries) your unemployment, as well as wellfare, health services and the like is a part of the deal you have with the national tresure: you pay taxes ( a LOT of taxes) in return for help when you need it. It is a public insurance. What happens with right wing governments is that they take the money, and then do not deliver the product, or they lower the service while rasing the taxes (though not for the wealthy.). This, IMO, is theft and embezzlement.
One problem is, of course, that the money comes from two different systems: unemployment from the public and vages from private firms. The muddle between these systems is unbelieveable.
I think Lucy's comparison is between unemployment benefits and the small amount of money you get as a funded PhD student; mine, which led to hers, was between employment and welfare. Our current mixed government has announced a plan to ensure nobody will lose out by taking a job rather than staying on welfare, which should never have been the case anyway: taking a job which pays X should not lose you more than X in benefits. They've also announced a plan to stop the richest parents getting welfare payments for having kids; I found the complaints about that quite depressing - you really think I should pay taxes to be given to someone on two or three times my income as a reward for managing to have unprotected sex?!Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
The "right/left" divide seems to vary between countries. Here in the UK, it was the left-wing government which kept putting taxes up, particularly on the poorer working people, fuel and energy taxes in particular, as well as introducing a heavy tax on pensions. The new government, a coalition of the other left-wing party and one which used to be right-wing and seems to be all over the place now, put taxes up again, but claims to have a plan to lower them again years from now if and when the enormous budget deficit shrinks to manageable levels again. They've also increased overall spending by 9.3% over last year, amidst hyperventilation and shrieking about imaginary "cuts" even in services which have seen big funding increases. (Disturbingly, they managed to find billions of pounds to give to Ireland, billions more for Greece and hundreds of millions for both India and Pakistan...)
I'd love to see some simplification and a savings system for unemployment: rather than a big chunk of your salary being taken as extra spending money by the government, then getting money from it if you lose your job, have some of that money go into a savings account you can then draw on when unemployed. Politically easier to justify - it's your own money you're getting as unemployment income now - and people should feel safer with an actual personal safety net while they work, instead of taxes and vague promises which might be broken if it suits the politicians. Moreover, depositing extra savings would help boost bank lending (more capital to fund investments) and reduce the problems we've seen recently.
Just thought I'd post this article, with special reference to the last sentences:
Who Are the 99 Percent? Story #13
We are lucky. My husband has a full time salaried position with the county government that pays slightly less than $22K a year, and the SSI three of our four children receive for being autistic means I can stay home and be there for them. I tried working, when there were more jobs, but we had severe discipline and anxiety problems. Our girls seem to fall apart right now when I’m not home. So I stay home.
We own a trailer, and rent a lot in a trailer park. In the past year, people have been moving out because they can’t even afford mortgages on cheap mobile homes. In the summer, if you looked out the window, you would see a procession of guys pushing lawn mowers down the streets. Those were residents who were looking for odd jobs because they had hit rock bottom, and mowing lawns was preferable to outright begging. They never seemed to get work, maybe because nobody could afford to hire a lawn mower.
I was raised upper middle class, sent to private schools, went to a private undergraduate institution (graduated cum laude), did my master’s work at the University of Oxford, and after working in an industry that imploded (mortgages) wound up as… a professional telemarketer. My husband was told, when doing his paralegal studies degree, that the average paralegal starts at $35K to $40K and can make up to twice that amount. Statistics showed this to be true. His college did also have a near-100% placement rate… but when he graduated, few law firms were hiring. He got hired by the county department of probation at a salary usually associated with entry level receptionists. He was one of the lucky ones.
There are homeless children in the school our daughters attend.
And yet we are told, “Hard work pays off. If you are not successful, you have only yourselves to blame.”
And the children who have no home? No food aside from what they get in the school cafeteria? What are they being told?
WE ARE THE 99%. WE ARE NOT FAILURES. WE ARE NOT LAZY. WE ARE NOT STUPID, OR SPENDTHRIFT, OR FREELOADERS IN SEARCH OF HANDOUTS. WE ARE HUMAN.
occupywallst.org
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/who-are-...#ixzz1bcNpHW83
The hyperbole doesn't help - on those criteria, they aren't 99% ... more like 9%. Factor in raising three disabled kids on welfare and they're probably more like 0.09%. (Having those four kids without a decent job between them doesn't sound too bright either: OK, the mother did have a job for a while, but it sounds as if the father has never made more than the $22k? In my book, having four kids is indeed "spendthrift", to use the wording they use to deny it! Some people can afford that, this family obviously can't - but chose to do it anyway.)
Right now, we're all being squeezed hard. Our central banks are complacent about runaway inflation (they can afford to be: the Bank of England, at least, has 95% inflation protection build into its staff pension scheme now!) while it effectively hands those of us still managing to hold on to jobs a big pay cut each year. (I'm no longer among them: after reduced working hours for a while now, my job comes to an end next month.)
The trouble is, these people are still protesting in the wrong place. It isn't Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange that set suicidal interest rates then printed hundreds of billions of Mugabe-money: it's the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, and the governments which appoint their management. It isn't any company which threw away hundreds of billions (and now plans to up that into multiple trillions) trying to cover up dishonesty and incompetence in Greece, but "our" governments. Why aren't the protestors outside Parliament, Congress, the White House?
As I understand it, the 99% are the people without vast fortunes.Quote:
Originally Posted by js207
Now here you have an interesting topic: are children for those with money? What about the low birth rate? Should we have a law or rule against having children if your income is low? Would the Chineese way (if they still do it) of everyone being limited to one be fairer? If you have a handicapped child, should you be allowed another, or is that it? What if you start out ok, but then loose your job or your business crash after good times are turned into bad times? If many cannot afford children, who will look after (pay) for people getting old?Quote:
Factor in raising three disabled kids on welfare and they're probably more like 0.09%. (Having those four kids without a decent job between them doesn't sound too bright either: OK, the mother did have a job for a while, but it sounds as if the father has never made more than the $22k? In my book, having four kids is indeed "spendthrift", to use the wording they use to deny it! Some people can afford that, this family obviously can't - but chose to do it anyway.)
At one time children - or the continuation of the species, or the future, if you like - was anybody's business. Now it sort of blows in the wind.
As for me, I think there should be a law against having more than 2 children, not for economical reasons, but because we are far too many people.
I do not think it matters much where they are, exactly. The protest is (if I get this right) against the grotesk gap between rich and poor, and the reasons for it.Quote:
The trouble is, these people are still protesting in the wrong place. It isn't Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange that set suicidal interest rates then printed hundreds of billions of Mugabe-money: it's the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, and the governments which appoint their management. It isn't any company which threw away hundreds of billions (and now plans to up that into multiple trillions) trying to cover up dishonesty and incompetence in Greece, but "our" governments. Why aren't the protestors outside Parliament, Congress, the White House?