Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: JOBS aren't the Problem ...

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 13, 2012, 7:02 p.m. EST by elf3 (4203)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Jobs aren't the problem it's the cost of commodities and basic survival items - food, water, oil, gas, electric, communications, housing, bank loans. They are busy robbing us blind yet we're so willing to work work work even harder to overpay these mega monopolies for inflated prices. Let's work less, let's have less jobs - let's just get rid of monopolies, then we can work less hours a week and still be able to meet those basic needs that are being pillaged from us. It's not jobs stupid - it's monopoly prices.

Corporations determine how many hours you will work by the prices they place on basic goods, and the amount they are willing to pay employees... Oil, electric, gas, water, communications, food, - your basic survival has been pre-constructed. You have no destiny anymore not the way things are going. It is the end of upward mobility. How many hours do you work to come up with what you have to shell out - for the 57 percent of Americans that make under $26,000 a year - your 40 hours don't even meet the basic survival needs. How you live your life if you are in this bracket / income caste - is working for someone else on a treadmill that never stops moving: well, unless you also want to stop eating or having a roof over your head or work even more hours at the jobs that are being outsourced in droves and paying less than ever to boot.

We need competition and fair markets that aren't rigged for multi-national billion dollar monopolies.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

Think... how to beat this mutha? You don't sound very last of the Mohicans to me, dude. Where's your celtic pride?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Unless, of course, you don't have one.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

if you can get one it will solve the immediate problem but not the impending one: in our current monopoly reliancy system there will always be a shortage of jobs and a set price on resources and land. They have algorithms to make sure they maintain an equilibrium of reliance so they can maintain an abundance of wealth. It will not matter now even if jobs come back to the country - they've figured out the mathematics of keeping you subdued and your upward mobility in check. Soon we will be like Africa - it's just being done slowly if we all lost our jobs at the same time they would have a rebellion on their hands. Some people in Africa have jobs too yet they still are starving. It's the illusion of hope that one day they will get work and pull themselves out of it.

A fish in a bowl waiting for someone to change the water, or food, hoping that they don't add more fish, or ration the food. We'll all be so busy blaming each other and fighting for scraps, we won't realize the real problem that exists far beyond our imagining.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

I agree re the consequences after you get the job. The folks in charge are intent (in order to maintain their voting block) on adding more fish (unwelcome children, resulting from banning contraceptives and abortion, and morning after pills.) Since those people are more than they need to deliver luxury items, mow the lawn, wash the car, clean the mansions, the excess, should be allowed to be born and then die from starvation, dirty water, lack of healthcare etc.

There is the hope and change that the GOP promises.

Dems "not as bad as the other guys" is true and maybe a winning slogan, but not the answer.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 11 years ago

We can improve both the jobs and cost of living problems by making the standard deduction equal to the median income and not collecting more in Social Security taxes then we pay out. By lowering the cost of living, American labor will be more competitive in the world market, and more jobs will stay in the USA. Incidentally in my family we boycott China as much as possible.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

Kind of hard to boycott products made in China when the few monopolies you can buy from are making all their products there. I try to shop as little as possible - on anything that is not a necessity - but - on those items you need, they have become too big too boycott and they know it. When you own all the land and resources, you can charge whatever you want. People have to buy them. We can't attack the system by operating within it - the current monopoly system has to be dismantled. Maybe social security is failing because not enough people are working to pay into it (not by choice) but because corporations have set a new "normal" of unemployment ratio... those left working will pay for the rest to continue to shop and we can't decide where the money will go... we may boycott - but the subsidized population is still putting money into the monopolies and there is nothing we can do about it. I won't be at all surprised to see unemployment continue to rise, and subsidies increase. It's a bail out in disguise. Wall Street would be out of business if we got rid of the subsidies. You can't cut your entire workforce, thereby getting rid of your entire consumer base and still have sales without a subsidized population. It's wrong. And once again the we take the hit so Wall Street can profit. (Long live Wall Street, screw the American citizen.) I guess that is the country we live in. A deranged aristocracy that benefits 1 percent of society.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 11 years ago

The outsourcing of jobs has created an artificial surplus in the labor market. This puts the workers (or would be workers) here, at a greater disadvantage than would otherwise be the case. So yes, elf, it's not just about jobs, nor is it just about the numerical pay figure. It's about how many hours it takes to provide the necessities of life. If we can stop the outsourcing, half the battle will have been won.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

The Internet has pushed the world into a global Eco. Like it or not you have to compete. You can't turn back the clock

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 11 years ago

No, It doesn't have anything to do with the internet. Free trade began before the internet was even a significant factor. Certain nations have protectionist policies today. Germany is a prime example, and has a lot to do with why the are the most successful economy in Europe. No, we do not "have to" compete with third world slave wages. That is a choice.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

and it still doesn't address the real issue it is not just America who pays for commodities - companies set prices all around the world - and force the people to play catch up. It's a worldwide issue. You look at people starving when there is so much food on this planet. The food is being controlled and rationed and prices are being played with and speculated on. Starvation is a direct result of monopoly rule. The only reason Americans never starved in this way is because we were able to control the monopolies, but they somehow got lose and we can't get the gate shut again. It will not be too long now before we are a third world nation. We have the same situation. We don't own any land to farm, we can't sustain ourselves, we now can't find any work, our government is taking bribes, and prices are staying high and out of reach. Same exact situation as Africa; we are totally reliant. Strangely enough we're pleading with these monopolies to please give us jobs instead of disbanding them, possibly even overthrowing our government, and realigning the system. They will not give us jobs, they will not lower product prices, they will buy up even more land and resources. And a great crisis we will face in the future is water here in America: in the mid-west as the snow melt is declining due to warmer climate. We need to stop monopolies now because it's going to get much worse. We've seen what has happened in the third world - those in power show no mercy. Why aren't we learning from history? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These companies have more money than governments, when they bribe the government officials with it, they become our government. I pledge allegiance to Wal-mart, Dow and Monsanto, Proctor & Gamble, Exon, and Phizer....and vow to uphold freedom at the same time? we are beyond boycotts because they've gotten so large they own all our resources.

The government started a war to kill a terrorist that helped kill 3000 people. Will they not start one to take back our resources from the people and people running the fed who have stolen and are hording from the public and in fact are joining forces with them and creating alliances and terrorizing this nation and subverting our liberty and ability to be self reliant? We have something called eminent domain and executive order for a reason. If they refuse to take down corporate terrorists what does that make our government?

If we wait until we're starving it will be too late. We need to strike while our will is in tact and we are still strong and have access to food instead of sorting through garbage heaps. But make no mistake about the intentions of the 1 percent. They've done it in other countries, they will do it here. They are following the same playbook. Hey who do you think runs this "global economy" anyway? - The same people who always have ...it has become our problem now.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 11 years ago

That was a very information dense reply. Humanity is facing a host of problems that it never has before. if I seemed to imply that ending outsourcing would cure them all, that was not my intention. I may not quite agree on all the causal factors or the priorities you have assigned them, but you have touched on some very cogent issues. The fact you mention, "we don't have any land to farm" is a big one. The issue of depleting water resources is another. Ultimately, many of us may likely be needing to be returning to growing our own food. Are you familiar with the book, (and the concept) The Limits to Growth?

[-] 1 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

its the LACK of jobs . 7 out of 10 cars built by gm are made in china.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

china needs cars. We have plenty

[-] 1 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

then make the cars here and export them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

makes sense

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

In our current monopoly system there will always be a shortage of jobs and a set price on resources and land. They have algorithms to make sure they maintain an equilibrium of reliance so they can maintain an abundance of wealth. It will not matter now even if jobs come back to the country - they've figured out the mathematics of keeping you subdued and your upward mobility in check.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

ANd how do we get there? By addressing the banking cartel and bought out politicians that sign their legislation.

Until those two issues are dealt with in a real, swift and meaningful manner. we can all expect this economy to stay where it is....heading off a cliff.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

it seems odd that those in power would want the system to fail

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

When systems fail, they get to rebuild in a more efficient manner for themselves.

Usually leads to more control in the long run, and more consolidation.

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 11 years ago

There are no economic problems. Only political ones.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

true - the laws that allow this to happen are to blame we need to make laws that make this stuff illegal - but how when they're so big and we're so small ...


The rabbit hole goes and goes here's a thought - companies that put cancerous chemicals in common household cleaners probably have holdings in companies that make pharmaceuticals that treat cancer - kind of puts a whole new and scary twist on insider trading...

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

The consumer product that causes the most cancers, by far, says right on the package that it causes cancer (along with other awful diseases) and yet people still buy it constantly. It is hard to blame companies when people are so damn stupid.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

A lot of people go out of their way to avoid cancer so now we're responsible for all the idiots that choose to smoke and somehow deserve to be unknowingly exposed to chemicals that cause cancer, reproductive problems and birth defects, respiratory disease and who knows what else because some other person smokes? Yes great argument - then I can take away your license when someone else drinks and drives makes perfect sense!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 11 years ago

Oh I wasn't trying to make an argument. Just pointing out how a good chunk of America probably doesn't care because even when they know something causes cancer they still do it.

In reality though, we have a pretty good idea of what causes cancer. Mutagen tests are pretty accurate and common and give a good idea as to how dangerous a chemical is to our DNA. It is just whether or not people take the time to look and, most importantly, care.

So many people are completely indifferent to their health. It is very sad.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 11 years ago

Now that is just CT making a statement like that.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

it sucks living in my brain sometimes, but you know I think I'm probably right - that's what is sad is you dream up the saddest most cynical thing you can think of and find out it's true - really, has anyone looked into it?

Find out what's killing you here:


Find out who owns them and what else they own here:



Other products In December 2005, the Pharmaceutical division of P&G was involved in a dispute over research involving its osteoporosis drug Actonel. The case was discussed in the media.[26] In October 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in the State of Georgia alleging that many users of Crest Pro-Health mouthwash, with the active ingredient Cetylpyridinium chloride, suffered stained teeth and loss of their sense of taste as a result.[27] Procter & Gamble contends that these side effects occur in only three percent of users.[27] The suit seeks to include disclosure warning users of these side effects on product packaging.

  • pay special note to 'pharmaceutical division'

and it's that easy - hmmph now where are those anti-depressants ?


[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

yes but even housing is a monopoly - look at the bank you have to borrow from to buy the inflated prices created by the inflated commodities - the price you bought it for is far from the price you will pay - they call it a 4. something percent rate in reality - it's 100 percent interest. They can turn a 150,000 loan into a $150,000 profit. Also the fact that Wall Street turned the housing into a market - when the stock market dived - people used to live in their homes for their whole lives not paint them and flip them. This is a fairly new phenomenon. And let's remember more equity merely means more debt owned to the bank against your house - that is not wealth by any means. Equity is a scam as well. The bank aka knuckle dragger will come bash your head against the concrete when you don't pay - but who is the bad guy - people borrowing it to pay for the monopolistic commodities they can't afford to start with? or the monopolies and banks who are both scamming you in cahoots with one another forcing you to borrow beg and steal to basically survive and meet the prices they set?

The law allows investors a capital gains tax shelter when they invest in property forcing you to compete against Wall Street for property driving up prices - that they won't ever re-sell they will rent it forever and each year their profits will get higher and higher. They are gaining wealth while everyone else is gaining debt and they only buy when you foreclose. It's Real Estate for Ransom....


[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 11 years ago

Perfect example - let's drill in the Arctic (say I even agreed with that) the government takes the land belonging to the people and then hands it over to said muti-billion dollar monopoly who then puts the public oil on the market for private bid and profits off of what didn't really belong to them. Now the company that bought it inflates the price and sells it back to us. It's a clear case of thievery and insanity on our parts for even entertaining this thought. So go work some more hours to have to shell out to buy back the stuff they stole. And also go crawling to them for the paycheck to do it - brilliant!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Yee ha!