07 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackIf you weren't such a simple minded "free market" parrot you'd realize that there are something like 25-30 million under and unemployed in this country through no fault of their own, but through plenty of fault of the types of policies you espouse - the "free market" solutions that got us in to this mess in the first place. Raising taxes on workers and on people who can't find work is the type of idiocy you support but that is hardly paying much attention to the "reality of economics". Nor is a program to further lower worker wages until we reach the living standards of say Bangladesh so we can be more "competitive".
You cannot have a healthy economy when people are paid more than they produce, when every new policy we have we pay for by taxing only those that some deem to be rich, when half the country pays no income tax but whines that enough isn't done for them and when workers advocates constantly fight against free market solutions and the reality of economics. ...[text shortened]... n. But, I'd be more sympathetic if they actually went to work instead of camped out in parks.
The OWS hasn't chosen me or anybody else as a spokesman as they are a grassroots movement that has sprang from the people. You are perfectly aware of what they stand for though; a more egalitarian society (which the vast majority of Americans support). Randians like you don't support that which is why you hate and fear OWS.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIf people were being exploited and capitalists are making money hand over fists, then employment would be at or above the ideal rate. Somehow you complain that people are not being employed and everyone is being exploited. They are inconsistent and you never consider the obvious answer, perhaps the person without a job needs to improve themselves.
If you weren't such a simple minded "free market" parrot you'd realize that there are something like 25-30 million under and unemployed in this country through no fault of their own, but through plenty of fault of the types of policies you espouse - the "free market" solutions that got us in to this mess in the first place. Raising taxes on workers and o ...[text shortened]... support). Randians like you don't support that which is why you hate and fear OWS.
As you pointed out, employment is low and that is because at the rate which workers are demanding to be paid, people simply are not interested in hiring them. Unlike yourself, I don't blame anyone for this situation, I simply point out that if people who want jobs and can't get them could always demand less. When workers continue to expect to be paid more in salary/ benefits/ vacation days/ early retirement sometimes they find out that they aren't worth as much as they (or you) think.
I don't fear OWS they are just a symptom of the time where everything is someone elses fault. I do wonder why you fear the free market? It allows results and people to change their behavior without making moral judgment. I also wonder why you never turn around and look at inner schools with drop out rates many multiples of the unemeployment rate and turn around and either blame ordinary people for refusing to help themselves or realize that we can expect people who lack the discipline and education gathered from basic schooling to be employed.
It is time to realize that everyone time you are unhappy does not mean the system failed or needs to change. If you buy a house you can't afford, or have college loans that you don't wish to pay, or don't have a job becuase of excessive demands/ insufficient skills you have only one person to blame -- yourself.
No one should bail you out for your decisions and you aren't entitled to re-dos just because with the benefit of hindsight you would have made a different deal.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackRight, so your claim is that in the late 19th Century in Europe:
If people were being exploited and capitalists are making money hand over fists, then employment would be at or above the ideal rate. Somehow you complain that people are not being employed and everyone is being exploited. They are inconsistent and you never consider the obvious answer, perhaps the person without a job needs to improve themselves.
A ...[text shortened]... re-dos just because with the benefit of hindsight you would have made a different deal.
- People were not being exploited
OR
- There was full employment
?
07 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackCorporate profits are at an all time high, so your theory is at odds with reality. In addition, the work force is more educated now then it has ever been. Yet you keep blaming the victims of a failed system rather than the system itself.
If people were being exploited and capitalists are making money hand over fists, then employment would be at or above the ideal rate. Somehow you complain that people are not being employed and everyone is being exploited. They are inconsistent and you never consider the obvious answer, perhaps the person without a job needs to improve themselves.
A re-dos just because with the benefit of hindsight you would have made a different deal.
Unemployment is endemic in this system, blaming that on the unemployed is insane.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe don't live in the late 19 century. We have free libraries, free compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, housing assitance, anti-discriminatory laws, safety regulations, disability, unemployment, college loans and scholorships, bankruptcy provisions, minimum wages, collective barganing privleges and legal aid. We actually have 1000s of other programs which help people with different needs and that's good.
Right, so your claim is that in the late 19th Century in Europe:
- People were not being exploited
OR
- There was full employment
?
If the world isn't doing well, its not that society doesn't try to assist the unfortunate. There comes a point when people have to take responsibility for their situation and not reflexively blame those who contribue the most and there comes a point where society can't always give more and more to every without getting contributions from all.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are pleanty of corporations that are not doing well and there would be more employment if there was available talent at a reasonable price.
Corporate profits are at an all time high, so your theory is at odds with reality. In addition, the work force is more educated now then it has ever been. Yet you keep blaming the victims of a failed system rather than the system itself.
Unemployment is endemic in this system, blaming that on the unemployed is insane.
Despite your sympathy for the underdog, the unemployed aren't victims. They are simply people who want to much compensation for their skill set.
07 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackYour incredible economic ignorance is noted and notable. There's no such thing as unemployment in QQ World, just workers who are too greedy. Apparently they got really greedy during the Great Depression.
There are pleanty of corporations that are not doing well and there would be more employment if there was available talent at a reasonable price.
Despite your sympathy for the underdog, the unemployed aren't victims. They are simply people who want to much compensation for their skill set.
For every job that opens, there are presently 5 applicants on average. That's reality.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackI'm confused. Are you saying that you credit government welfare checks and subsidies with allowing full employment?
We don't live in the late 19 century. We have free libraries, free compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, housing assitance, anti-discriminatory laws, safety regulations, disability, unemployment, college loans and scholorships, bankruptcy provisions, minimum wages, collective barganing privleges and legal aid. We actua ...[text shortened]... re society can't always give more and more to every without getting contributions from all.
Maybe you should just answer the question.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou're confused? He thinks you can get the economy humming by workers getting less income.🙄
I'm confused. Are you saying that you credit government welfare checks and subsidies with allowing full employment?
Maybe you should just answer the question.
Apparently no one has told him that consumer spending is about 75% of GNP. If workers make less, they will spend less and the economy will shrink.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackIf the world isn't doing well, its not that society doesn't try to assist the unfortunate.
We don't live in the late 19 century. We have free libraries, free compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, housing assitance, anti-discriminatory laws, safety regulations, disability, unemployment, college loans and scholorships, bankruptcy provisions, minimum wages, collective barganing privleges and legal aid. We actua ...[text shortened]... re society can't always give more and more to every without getting contributions from all.
Maybe the logical way to rephrase this is that whatever benefits ordinary people enjoy in a Western democracy, these are not directly or indirectly responsible for the collapse of western economies in recent years. The cost of providing them is not a causal factor. The cause lies elsewhere.
What other logical meaning can the paragraph have? Welfare costs are not the problem. We have been able to adfford them for at least a century while our economies thrived.
Public sector crises have been caused not by increasing welfare costs but by a catastrophic collapse in tax revenues, caused by a collapse in economic activity and aggravated because citizens as well as corporations will not pay to support their social responsibilities.
The origins of that economic collapse may be moral, but concern the immorality of unregulated and poorly regulated capitalism, primarily in the finance sector. The profits of business and the savings of citizens have been handed over to speculators who gambled dishonestly with our money, scraping to themselves all the upside gains, and leaving all of the downside risks to be carried as social collateral damage for which they contribute next to nothing.
Gambling with our money they could never lose but could take the winnings and pocket them. This time the banks gambled everything and it was our everything they gambled.
Trouble is that to restore our economic lives, we have to invest again in financial security and specifically in banks and it would be great if, instead of being distracted by attacking our neighbours, who get some miserable pittance more than ourselves, we concentrated on the real enemies who are the masters of our universe and make them socially accountable and socially responsible.
We need banks, corporations and politicans. We need them to serve our needs. We need to put a stop to their arrogance and greed and impose social controls and regulation far stronger than before, not revert to the free market claptrap that got us into this mess. It has been tried since at least Reagan and Thatcher. It has failed dismally. Face the facts.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI taught in what was considered an above average public school. Over 90% of my students came into high school below grade level. It is not surprising that we don't end up with 100% employment and it is clear to me that a big portion of the fault is the people who don't develop skills.
Your incredible economic ignorance is noted and notable. There's no such thing as unemployment in QQ World, just workers who are too greedy. Apparently they got really greedy during the Great Depression.
For every job that opens, there are presently 5 applicants on average. That's reality.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI do not know what your question is because i thought i answered it. I simply was arguing that government has endless programs to help people and at some point we have to look at people who despite everything won't develop marketable skills.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you credit government welfare checks and subsidies with allowing full employment?
Maybe you should just answer the question.
I think it is inconsistent to complain about unemployment and outsourcing. If jobs can be done elsewhere for cheaper rates than here workers are too demanding -- it is their right but then don't complain you don't have a job.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackSo your solution to our economic problems is to reduce our wage rates to the lowest in the world? And then magically everybody will have a job?
I do not know what your question is because i thought i answered it. I simply was arguing that government has endless programs to help people and at some point we have to look at people who despite everything won't develop marketable skills.
I think it is inconsistent to complain about unemployment and outsourcing. If jobs can be done elsewhere for ...[text shortened]... workers are too demanding -- it is their right but then don't complain you don't have a job.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraConstitutional limitations of authority do limit what a legislature can do. It is not a matter of giving them no authority, but of severely limiting it.
Like I said, unions should not be able to bribe either. Only people should be allowed to donate, up to a small amount... say $20.
The only thing preventing the sale of legislators is banning the sale of legislators. They will always have something to sell, namely legislation. If they have no power then you don't need any legislators in the first place.
Banning bribery is totally ineffective. Politicians don't need the mechanism of campaign contributions to accept bribes.
A time tested and popular method of political activism is organizing around an issue, raising money from small individual contributions and spending it on publicity, and support of a candidate favorable to the issue. That might be gun control, or protection of the 2nd amendment.
Certainly if a corporation has a view on legislation, it ought to be able to do whatever individuals do to advocate for or against an issue.