Wall Street Protesters

[quote name='UncleBob']I know a co-worker who went to get another job locally.
They were going to have to take a $4/hour pay cut.
For our area - and not being a factory or coal mining job - we actually pay pretty well.

And I do agree - a large portion of the population aren't going to find a job that pays them what they think they're worth.
[/QUOTE]

I make enough, I have no interest in getting a pay raise. Make sure you tell them that when it comes time for your annual 4-6% raise or 8% if you were a Top Performer (or whatever Walmart calls the popularity lottery).
 
[quote name='nasum']a bit of false equivalence there. Register jockey =/= neuro-surgeon.

Look man, we all agree that it'd be nice for everyone to make lots of money so that they can afford nice things and have a nice life, but you can't just decide that everyone makes $65k a year and call it good. It simply doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE]

There's also no good reason why CEO's need to make 1,250 (Target CEO's 2010 compensation nearly $25 million, Walmart CEO makes more per hour than many of the "register jockeys" make in a year) times what their average "register jockey" makes. Also don't parrot me that bullshit, go-to market driven economy that they need to pay that much to retain the best leaders BS either.
 
[quote name='nasum']a bit of false equivalence there. Register jockey =/= neuro-surgeon.[/quote]
What false equivalence? I'm talking about the those that earn the least in society; not the most.

Look man, we all agree that it'd be nice for everyone to make lots of money so that they can afford nice things and have a nice life, but you can't just decide that everyone makes $65k a year and call it good. It simply doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
You mean it's not how capitalism works, but I'm not saying that everyone should make the the exact same wages throughout the spectrum. I'm saying that people deserve a living wage.
 
And living wage jobs used to be pretty plentiful before we lost most of our manufacturing jobs. Working fast food used to be something kids did, now the adults are fighting for the same jobs.
 
A technically flat or decreasing minimum wage, cutthroat job market and executives who earn a lifetime of salaries in one year mean nothing to a lot of people on this forum.
 
I think everyone agrees that everyone who is willing to work hard should be able to find a job that pays a living wage.

There'd be a lot of bickering over what a "living wage" is in terms of what standard of living is expected, whether that means being able to afford having kids etc. But I think most everyone agrees that anyone willing to work hard should be able to make a living wage--whatever standard of living each of us set as that threshold.

No one's happy that manufacturing jobs have left and lowered the number of living wage jobs for blue collar workers, or that wages have stagnated in general for the middle class and below.

There's just tons of bickering over how to do that, and the top 1% obviously has no interest in doing that as they benefit from cheap foreign labor and the stagnate wages domestically. And they've hoodwinked many of the population that's fucked over by those policies into voting for politicans who support big business.
 
I've stated numerous times that the gap between CEO and lowest employee in the organization is egregious, nice try though!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I just don't see it doing any good. Corporations aren't going to change. Any change will have to be forced change from Washington with changes to tax code, regulations etc.

And I just don't see these kind of disruptions doing anything to help on that front. If any thing it hurts since some many of these blue collar morons who are hurt by corporate practices vote republican, support the "free market" and already have a negative view of the occupy protestors. They'll just latch on to the "workers lost pay" angle and continue opposing changes that would benefit them and voting republican.

All that kind of crap is why I really don't give much of a crap about these issues. I feel bad for the blue collar workers that realize the problems with the system, but it seems most are indoctrinated into free market captialism bullshit and vote republican and quite frankly people that naive deserve to get fucked in the ass by the "free market" they support.[/QUOTE]

No it works. Read about strikes and labor unions at the turn of the century. They weren't all rank-and-file either (Molly Maguires being a good example). Congress and the legislature didn't enact labor laws just because they were good guys.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think everyone agrees that everyone who is willing to work hard should be able to find a job that pays a living wage.

There'd be a lot of bickering over what a "living wage" is in terms of what standard of living is expected, whether that means being able to afford having kids etc. But I think most everyone agrees that anyone willing to work hard should be able to make a living wage--whatever standard of living each of us set as that threshold.

No one's happy that manufacturing jobs have left and lowered the number of living wage jobs for blue collar workers, or that wages have stagnated in general for the middle class and below.

There's just tons of bickering over how to do that, and the top 1% obviously has no interest in doing that as they benefit from cheap foreign labor and the stagnate wages domestically. And they've hoodwinked many of the population that's fucked over by those policies into voting for politicans who support big business.[/QUOTE]

Good summary. I think the question about supporting a family is an interesting one. If everyone who can't afford children stops having them, wouldn't the bottom fall out from the economy?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Good summary. I think the question about supporting a family is an interesting one. If everyone who can't afford children stops having them, wouldn't the bottom fall out from the economy?[/QUOTE]

Hell no. Not the American economy at least.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Good summary. I think the question about supporting a family is an interesting one. If everyone who can't afford children stops having them, wouldn't the bottom fall out from the economy?[/QUOTE]

Tough question. I'd guess no give the problem is shortage of jobs and that we're trending toward over population already. In the US at least, any shortage of labor could probably be filled with increased legal immigration--I doubt any shortages would be of skilled positions.

Would also help with things like social security and medicare costs and so on.

So to me it's just more whether people think being able to have 1-2 kids is a "right" or not, and thus whether it should be included in a "living wage" or not.
 
[quote name='camoor']No it works. Read about strikes and labor unions at the turn of the century. They weren't all rank-and-file either (Molly Maguires being a good example). Congress and the legislature didn't enact labor laws just because they were good guys.[/QUOTE]

Oh I think strikes and unions can work as that's the employees refusing to work.

I don't think protestors disrupting business will have the same effect.

1. It doesn't have the same scale of impact on the corporation as a unions or across the board strikes by their workers.

2. It will piss off the workers who are losing out on wages and further alienate the occupy movement from blue collar workers who should be supporting their ideals as it's in their own interests.


But yeah, if there was a sudden movement back toward unions and major strikes ,yeah, that could have a huge impact.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Good summary. I think the question about supporting a family is an interesting one. If everyone who can't afford children stops having them, wouldn't the bottom fall out from the economy?[/QUOTE]

To second what camoor said.

How twisted is it to live in a country where people who love each other (even if both those people are working) cannot afford to have kids?

The typical con answer that those people should wait and just work harder is insulting and no answer at all.
 
I think that just comes down to whether you feel having kids is a right or not.

I'm not big on that, but I do think wages should be such that a home with both spouses working can afford at least one or two kids.

Child care is the complicating factor though as day care is absurdly expensive and drives the needed wages way up in a two working spouse household unless they have family who can watch the kids or one works days, the other nights etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']To second what camoor said.

How twisted is it to live in a country where people who love each other (even if both those people are working) cannot afford to have kids?

The typical con answer that those people should wait and just work harder is insulting and no answer at all.[/QUOTE]

To me it's a warning sign that the American dream is dying.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I think strikes and unions can work as that's the employees refusing to work.

I don't think protestors disrupting business will have the same effect.

1. It doesn't have the same scale of impact on the corporation as a unions or across the board strikes by their workers.

2. It will piss off the workers who are losing out on wages and further alienate the occupy movement from blue collar workers who should be supporting their ideals as it's in their own interests.


But yeah, if there was a sudden movement back toward unions and major strikes ,yeah, that could have a huge impact.[/QUOTE]

If the business owners can't get goods in through the ports they can't do business. Doesn't matter who is disrupting the supply chain (workers or protestors)

The very fact that we're discussing it, that the national media is discussing it, that dittoheads like eldergamer are pissed to hell, tells me that it's having a positive effect.

It's not like the UncleBobs or Eldgergamers of the world would ever understand anyway. They are stalwart in their slavish subjection to corporate interests.

Fine, who cares, I applaud the occupy movement for fighting the good fight regardless.
 
I guess so. But it's impossible for the movement to disrupt the ports for any long amount of time.

If they could shut them down for weeks like a strike can, then sure it could have some impact.

But it's illegal and police will clear them out in a day so it ends up being nothing more than a costly nuisance to the corporations. Nothing that the will get them to change practices.

I do agree that it's at least getting more press for the cause. I just don't think most people look at it positively. The occupy movement has a pretty negative stigma as is--and not just among the UncleBobs and Eldergamers of the world.

They're not getting much support from the working class in general, and this type of disruption won't help on that front IMO. It's fine for those of us who agree with the platform and are anti-corporate greed etc. But that's just preaching to the choir.

Those type of practices will just further rile up all the working class knuckleheads that buy into the BS the republicans and corporations feed them about the free market and the American dream etc. as they'll just focus on workers losing pay, the occupiers being a bunch of bums and hippies etc.

But as I said above, I don't really care. That type of blue collar simpleton deserves to be fucked by the system they support.

I just hate that the occupy movement just isn't really doing anything that's going to lead to any kind of change IMO. Nothing they're doing is going to affect any elections like the Tea Party affected the 2010 elections. Nothing their doing thus far is going to get any corporations to change their practices. It's getting some publicity, but that's it--and it's mostly been negative publicity.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I knew you were going to se a bullshit tactic like that. That's why I said DESERVE a raise; not some random worker that shows up late and takes too many smoke breaks.[/QUOTE]

Can't say - I don't go and look at what any of my co-workers make and I don't tend to judge their work habits.

[quote name='camoor']The very fact that we're discussing it, that the national media is discussing it, that dittoheads like eldergamer are pissed to hell, tells me that it's having a positive effect.[/QUOTE]

It only works if it's being discussed in a neutral or positive light. It's not.

Also, as far as "disrupting the supply chain" - at worst, it might make some small-time company go out of business (hey, more unemployed... good job!) - but the majority of the people in the 1%, it's not going to even tickle their pocket book.

[quote name='dmaul1114']The occupy movement has a pretty negative stigma as is--and not just among the UncleBobs and Eldergamers of the world.[/quote]

Hey, now, I have a mostly-positive view of the Occupy movement. I don't agree with everything that comes out of it (and with so much coming out of it, I'd be surprised if there was anyone who did)... But I was still impressed and encouraged by the potential the movement showed....

I just hate that the occupy movement just isn't really doing anything that's going to lead to any kind of change IMO.
Click to expand...

...until this.

Same argument I've made before... they're protesting corporations who, frankly, could care less and aren't going to listen and whom they have virtually no power over. Any suggestion that they should consider attempting to make changes via government is met with scorn and dismay.
 
[quote name='camoor']If the

The very fact that we're discussing it, that the national media is discussing it, that dittoheads like eldergamer are pissed to hell, tells me that it's having a positive effect.

It's not like the UncleBobs or Eldgergamers of the world would ever understand anyway. They are stalwart in their slavish subjection to corporate interests.

Fine, who cares, I applaud the occupy movement for fighting the good fight regardless.[/QUOTE]

Boy, are you clueless about me.

A dittohead? Shit, MF I voted for Obama in 2012, Clinton in 96 and 00, and Gore in 04. But, I've never registred as a Democrat. Always indepdent. Hell, I once concidered even voting for Nader.

Slavish subjection to corporate intrests?

I just dont like how the Occupy movement is going about things. The hiipes and drum circles really turn me off.

You can protest, but go home at the end of the day. You dont need to camp out and ruin public parks.

They have such a mixed, screwed up message. Today we're against corporate greed! Tomorrow we're against banks! Day after that, Fur!

With no specifics. Yes corporations are greedy. So? Do you want them to give you money? Change their wages? Stop CEO bonuses? Be specific MF!

Unfortunately the only way to generate permant change is either through the ballot box or through the judicial system. Sue, Sue, Sue.

All your drumming, chants and hand-painted signs aren't going to do anything.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Boy, are you clueless about me.

A dittohead? Shit, MF I voted for Obama in 2012, Clinton in 96 and 00, and Gore in 04.[/quote]

Uh......
 
But back to the discussion, what the protestors need to do is get the unions to back them, so that rather than just a protest, you have the union members walking off the job. That would show solidarity and send a clear message to the company in question.
 
[quote name='Clak']But back to the discussion, what the protestors need to do is get the unions to back them, so that rather than just a protest, you have the union members walking off the job. That would show solidarity and send a clear message to the company in question.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100% with that. That's the type of strategies they should be pursuing.
 
perhaps, but so are 'tea partiers,' yet their influence on political stances and rhetoric is undeniable.
Click to expand...
They got their message out there better then the occupy groups. EVERYONE was talking about the tea party groups. EVERYONE has an opinion on them one way or another. The occupy movement hasn't caused a fraction of amount of discussion on a national scale that the tea party did.
 
You have to be for something and have a cause that you can stand up and say "do this". The tea party was fighting the health care bill. Occupy needs something similar.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's quite the accomplishment, eg. So tell us, how did the '12 election turn out?[/QUOTE]

Shit my dates are wrong. I blame it being a half hour away from bedtime and half a glass of wine already into me.

You get the point though. I have voted Democrat at least Presidentally for the last several election cycles.

For some people here it's an you either back Occupy 100% or nothing. Red Vs Blue, Liberal vs Democrat, no middle ground or gray space in between.
 
[quote name='Clak']But back to the discussion, what the protestors need to do is get the unions to back them, so that rather than just a protest, you have the union members walking off the job. That would show solidarity and send a clear message to the company in question.[/QUOTE]

Except most union workers aren't associated with one company though.
IBEW? AFL-CIO?

The unions did march here with Occupy Portland. Once. And then havent been heard of since.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=131960000569254500
 
[quote name='eldergamer']For some people here it's an you either back Occupy 100% or nothing. Red Vs Blue, Liberal vs Democrat, no middle ground or gray space in between.[/QUOTE]

I've never understood this principle. Why go all in on so many different avenues of thought when there are so many other variables and possibilities? Just seems closeminded to me.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Except most union workers aren't associated with one company though.
IBEW? AFL-CIO?

The unions did march here with Occupy Portland. Once. And then havent been heard of since.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=131960000569254500[/QUOTE]
Eh, they are more often than you think. If a shop is unionized the employees there and probably working for that company alone. Now if it's a trade union (plumbers, electricians etc.) that's different since they're usually contractors.

But if the unionized employees from a single company got together and decided to walk out and stand in union with a protest that would help greatly.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']because in our terrible government system when you get to the polling box your options are c(R)ud vs cru(D)[/QUOTE]

+1.

We're not a democracy. Just like China isn't communism.

When Bush can win without winning the popular vote, it directly proves we're not a democracy.

We also can't vote for anyone we want. The choices are still picked by the same handful of people.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']They got their message out there better then the occupy groups. EVERYONE was talking about the tea party groups. EVERYONE has an opinion on them one way or another. The occupy movement hasn't caused a fraction of amount of discussion on a national scale that the tea party did.[/QUOTE]

Occupy is a true grass roots movement.

Tea Party was bankrolled by corporate interests and coopted by MSM.

Taken in context, the accomplishments of the occupy movement are much more impressive.
 
[quote name='elessar123']+1.

We're not a democracy. Just like China isn't communism.

When Bush can win without winning the popular vote, it directly proves we're not a democracy.

We also can't vote for anyone we want. The choices are still picked by the same handful of people.[/QUOTE]

We'll technically, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. Or a Democratic Republic. We don't directly vote on the laws or the leaders of the land. Our representive does.

And technically, the popular vote doesnt decide the Presidency either. The electoral college does.
 
Was just watching last nights daily show and I thought this was a very good observation.

"If you are black and you are poor it is your own fault. If you are white and you are poor it is Chinas fault, or the the goverment or those black people sucking up all the welfare's fault."
 
[quote name='speedracer']You have to be for something and have a cause that you can stand up and say "do this". The tea party was fighting the health care bill. Occupy needs something similar.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's that simple. Both parties have something to be 'against,' but the Tea Partiers succeeded because their gripe was 100% consistent with the whether-the-tea-partiers-ever-existed-or-not gameplan of the GOP to kill PPACA. It was easy to say that the GOP are capitulating to the Tea Party (and they are in rhetoric and blithering idiocy), but in terms of policy, largely, the GOP is going about its daily routine.

Occupy, on the other hand, is against widening gaps in inequality, the favorable treatment of the ultra wealthy in Washington, and both parties' responsibility for maintaining and nurturing that relationship (at the expense of us plebes). So it's not just 'anti-Republican,' it's anti-elite. I'm tempted to say Anti-Washington, but I don't think that's quite right either. They want higher taxes, they want harsher regulations - so it's not like they're against the federal government's right to exist (unlike those on the right). They just want politicians to return to being servants of the people - all people. And none of us here are foolish enough to think that this fits in with the gameplan of anyone in Washington, except perhaps Kucinich and Sanders.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Shit my dates are wrong. I blame it being a half hour away from bedtime and half a glass of wine already into me.

You get the point though. I have voted Democrat at least Presidentally for the last several election cycles.

For some people here it's an you either back Occupy 100% or nothing. Red Vs Blue, Liberal vs Democrat, no middle ground or gray space in between.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. If the most conservative Paulistinians like UncleBob can back OWS, why can't you? Seems like a 60's culture war thing is preventing you from doing so.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']We'll technically, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. Or a Democratic Republic. We don't directly vote on the laws or the leaders of the land. Our representive does.[/QUOTE]
Representative democracy and Republic are the same thing. The distinction only existed briefly at the time of our founding because they needed to discern themselves from direct democracy. Then democracy and republic went back to meaning the exact same thing until the 1980's when the Republican spin machine decided to revive it as part of a messaging game - Republic sounds like Republican, Democracy sounds like Democratic. Its also the same time they started saying Democrat party, when there is no such thing.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']We'll technically, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. Or a Democratic Republic. We don't directly vote on the laws or the leaders of the land. Our representive does.

And technically, the popular vote doesnt decide the Presidency either. The electoral college does.[/QUOTE]

I know, which is why we're not a democracy.
 
Chief executive pay has roared back after two years of stagnation and decline. America's top bosses enjoyed pay hikes of between 27 and 40% last year, according to the largest survey of US CEO pay. The dramatic bounceback comes as the latest government figures show wages for the majority of Americans are failing to keep up with inflation.
John Hammergren, CEO of healthcare provider McKesson, earned $145m last year. (Photograph: George Nikitin/AP) America's highest paid executive took home more than $145.2m, and as stock prices recovered across the board, the median value of bosses' profits on stock options rose 70% in 2010, from $950,400 to $1.3m. The news comes against the backdrop of an Occupy Wall Street movement that has focused Washington's attention on the pay packages of America's highest paid.
Click to expand...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/14-11

Another reason why occupy is important.
 
What the fuck do you even do with that much money? Oh right, buy stock in more companies so you can be on other boards when you retire and help pick the next class of CEO lottery winners...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']What the fuck do you even do with that much money? Oh right, buy stock in more companies so you can be on other boards when you retire and help pick the next class of CEO lottery winners...[/QUOTE]

Or apparently buy paintings. I was listening to either Diane Rehm or Talk of the Nation last week and they were interviewing a guy that wrote a book on all the ways the wealthy dodge paying taxes. One of the most clever was that they will buy expensive pieces of art, keep them in their private collection except for 3 or 4 days a year where they are lent to a museum for public display. In return they get huge cuts in their taxes because they are allowing the public to use their art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top