Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Let's address some facts that many of you like to ignore....

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 24, 2012, 3:22 p.m. EST by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The strong rule the weak....

Those who create have more than those who consume....

Simple labor is subordinate to coordinated labor, and it is the coordination that is the difference......

Ownership belongs to those who can defend it.....

The only value of money is in the labor it represents, in equitable exchange......remove that value by inequitable distribution of money and you reduce, or eliminate the value of the money....

Effort + Result = Reward

Fairness is when one receives the just reward of ones actions....

Equality among men is NOT uniformity

Outcome cannot be equalized without force of tyranny

Everything requires effort, nothing is "free"

162 Comments

162 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by chell (15) from Vienna, Wien 2 years ago

"Everything requires effort, nothing is "free" " .. Posted 21 hours ago on Feb. 24, 2012, 3:22 p.m. EST by slammersworldwillnotbecensored

Except when it is stealing what others create with their labor.

A few questions for you:

What is 'simple' labor? What is 'coordinated' labor? Do either of these ideas of yours have anything to do with: Taylorism, man as Automaton/Mechanism, or Dualism?

Your assertion about creators and consumers is absurd. The richest 1% are the biggest consumers and they create nothing. They move pieces of paper around electronically across the world. This is not creation..this is derivation. This is a shell game. While many assertions can be made about the role of consumption in the decline of the natural world and the culpability of ALL of us in that..making the statement that having more means you do more is naive at best.

Effort + Result = a wide variety of outcomes.

The idea of strong and weak individuals is rooted in 'survival of the fittest' mentality..which of course led to the whole 'rugged individualism' of Ayn Rand and was turned into policy by Reagan. SOTF is false. As human beings, we are, individually, a collection of symbiotic organisms that evolved over time. Our whole biology is based in cooperation. This isn't theoretical..it is science. The mitochondria in each of our cells was originally a bacterial organism in it's own right..as well as the nucleus. We also are collectively, as groups of individuals, symbiotes. This is how society works. Another way of stating this is to call us 'biological altruists.' We have been operating, (in our society's) in a way that runs counter to our nature. It has sickened human society, weakened us individually and collectively..i like how John McMurtry puts it: The Cancer Stage of Capitalism.

Unless i read it wrong i do like what you said about the value of money being tied to labor. This is not how things are currently..obviously. This is why money/currency values are so very askew.

One more thing..equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are NOT the only options. These particular goals are tied at their root, to efficiency. Efficiency is not efficient at all. Jevon's Paradox and all. We should be thinking more in terms of balancing resilience and diversity. (Bernard Lietauer explains it quite nicely in a talk on complementary currencies etc..should be available on youtube.)

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

What if everyone were strong?

What if everyone created and didn't consume?

No, labor is labor. The coordination is helpful (management) but the workers are just as important and do the actual work that produces the goods.

Ownership belongs to those who start out with capital. It has nothing to do with defending it unless you're talking about greed and greedy exploitative actions that defend it.

I don't understand "The only value of money......."

Labor + Capital = Profit, is that what you are talking about?

Yes, fair compensation where a human being can live a decent life would be the just reward for working.

No one ever said all men had to be exactly equal. Why do you always go back to that? And, of course, every human is different and should never be uniform.

Yes, if people could open their minds to a more fair economy, and the beneficial effects it would have for all people, outcome could be leveled to some degree, not necessarily equalized, without force of tyranny.

Okay, yes, no one has ever said things should be given for free. We're talking about fair compensation for real work.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Exactly

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Define "Fair" define "live a decent life" By world standards even our poorest people in the U.S. live a life of luxury compared with most of the rest of the world. I have a feeling "Fair" is always going to mean more than you have now at the expense of those you feel can afford to give you some of their stuff. tiresome

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Fair wages to live decently means a living wage where a person earns enough money through working to afford necessities to raise a family such as housing, food, education, healthcare, transportation, clothing, etc.

I've heard that argument before and I don't buy it. Just because people are poorer around the world is no excuse for the income disparity here. How can we even begin to address poverty around the world if we can't address it here?

One-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 a year while corporate profits are at an all-time high. 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. 49 million have no health benefits. 22% of American children live in poverty.

CEO's, who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average worker's wage, today earn 343 times the average worker's wage.

I would like to see labor valued more fairly so that people who work earn enough money to live decently. Tiresome? I think not.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

why do the other half of Americans earn MORE than $26,000.00 per year? What are they doing that the other half are not?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I've heard that argument too. You see, for this economy to run we need lots of people at these "low level" jobs nowadays, but we also need these people to be able to live decently. There is no reason why 6 members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart should have a net worth equal to the net worth of the bottom 30% of Americans while many Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps. All labor should be valued in a way that values humanity not just profits. Everyone would have more money to spend and it would not be a bad thing for anyone in the end.

And, half of Americans work at those jobs because those are the jobs that are available. You are never going to have a society with 300 million entrepreneurs. The labor of the workers is the backbone of a capitalist system and can be valued differently than it is today, more humanely.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Just because you say "you've heard that argument too" doesn't add any weight to your statement. You should focus on what you can do to make enough to make yourself happy rather than worrying about what other people have. And I thought liberals weren't materialistic lol!

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

That's ridiculous. You want to live in a country wages wages have been declining and workers' rights eroding and I don't so that makes me materialistic. You don't even know me. That you don't want everyone to have enough makes you seem materialistic.

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I want to live in a country with the most opportunity to be left alone to make my own way. Me worrying about what others have doesn't concern me. I never said I don't want everyone to have enough - Again ! there you go again! - Define "enough" ? Everyone's idea of "enough will always be more than they have. Please - just stop your jealous fixation!

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

It's not a jealous fixation to want all Americans to earn enough money to pay for the essential needs of their family. That is a reactionary argument meant to shame those in poverty and it doesn't work on me.

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

no one is stopping them from earning enough money to pay for the essential. In fact we already give people more than enough to cover the "essential" The problem today is the stigma of welfare is being removed, government dependency is being encouraged and people are falling for it. Free stuff in exchange for votes just like a common drug addict. The first time is free.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thats why during heat waves and blizzards soo many people die.. cause we give them enough to cover the essentials

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

people die in car accidents too. Look - if you think life should be perfect you are right - it should - but it isn't and never will be. get over it.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so long as you realize that no one is giving anyone enough to cover the 'essentials'

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

If that includes no union lobbying then I think we have a deal.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

If we had a labor party there would be no need for the labor unions to lobby.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I never said I liked corp welfare and war who's judging who now? - that stuff is just as bad. how about we agree. low flat tax for everybody to pay and no subsidies for anybody except the barest of bones safety net for those truly in need. Sound fair?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

sounds fair and prohibit any industry that makes more than 1 million a year from lobbying the government

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I absolutely can judge people if they are expecting me to support them. Are you kidding? You've got every excuse in the book. Everyone is a victim. The one's that would trade in their "lifestyle" for a decent paying job - what are they doing about it other than expecting others to take care of them? You talk about me generalizing lol!

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

well that the thing isnt is.. you are not supporting them.. your taxes are going to support the welfare millionaires , wars in the middle east and art galleries.. if these people have any relatives that work.. its their tax money supporting them not you. but you dont care that your supporting millionaires and war . pakistan gets a billion a year from you. go judge them and leave americans alone

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

then get a job. In NYC 20% receive some sort of govt assistance.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

one of those million jobs that have been eliminated in the last 3 yrs you mean? and that 20% have dependants those ones you see sleeping on the bench do not . you would like to live in a country like sudan i suppose where the people chase you down the street for a piece of bread.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

if you are below the poverty line you can receive up to 50K worth of welfare benefits. look it up. public housing & food stamps - those are the essentials. taxpayer funded birth control, abortion, asprin, viagra, scooter cart are not the essentials.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you look it up. there is no housing for anyone without dependants. there is no food stamps for anyone without a kitchen so between the ages of 18 and 62 , unless you have kids.. there is no welfare. there is no medical coverage either except through pregnancy. get your facts strait before you categorize.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Why do people have dependents they cant afford to support? How many of those people acquired those dependent's when they were 15 years old & on drugs? Get real man - doesn't personal responsibility account for anything anymore?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

how many of them were married and the husband ran off with a blond bimbo? you cant judge people , if they were 15 they were raped at least statutorily , and when does being poor mean you cant party just like you do. and there are millions that do work and still get help cause they only make minimum wage. not everyone has the same I.Q. you know. that counts for a lot . there are only a few that choose that life style on purpose the other would trade it for a decent job any day but you want to lump them all to gether.and you cant

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Yeah, too bad employers are too cheap to compete with welfare benefits. If they would maybe sell one of their many homes and pay more than what the gov't pays in welfare maybe they could brain drain the talent out of the welfare lines and make their businesses grow. but they rather hoard their wealth, pay their employees inadequately and bitch that welfare pays better than their greedy asses. Don't try to guilt the smartest of the working class because they know how to work smart.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I like the way you call employers "they" as if you know all of them personally as a group of conspirators lol! clueless.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The big ones actually have whole departments they pay to conspire against workers.

They pay them well to do that.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Ran out of thread so to continue: 1 points by shooz (4172) 2 minutes ago

I always called it policy enforcement.

I found it more accurate, especially when union constituents wanted to take a dispute to them, instead of trying to get it handled on the factory floor.

They wouldn't always like the decision. ↥like ↧dislike permalink



I find Humane resources funny as it reminds me of a popular WWII designation = GI or Government Issue.

So here is Business equating people as a resource to do with as they please.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you find yourself in HR, that's what they do to you. Whatever they want.

strictly be the book, of course.....:(

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

you mean they try to minimize costs to increase profits. I've got news for you - that's what business does - that's the whole point. If you haven't figured out that you are merely a bi-product or a means to an end then you will never find success. Become more valuable and stop whining.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OIC.

When you actually figure that out, you will realize you are but a disposable tool.

Welcome to the Plutocratic States of the Military Industrial Complex.

You have been assimilated. Please step aside for the next victim.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

And that is why unions are needed. If workers don't want to cop out, and go on welfare, they need to collectively bargain in order to be a deterrent to the passions and tendencies of the owner to lower costs at their expense. From what you wrote, It is inevitable that workers unionize. I ain't no animatron that always reeducates to please my employers, you got the working class confused with slaves. We unionize and tell the employer to suck it up, or move your business somewhere else. If employers had their way, there would be three degrees over a doctorate's degree. employers use education like scientists use cheese to get the mouse through the maze, and you sound like you are hungry for some cheese.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Whats really funny is they call the department human resources.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I always called it policy enforcement.

I found it more accurate, especially when union constituents wanted to take a dispute to them, instead of trying to get it handled on the factory floor.

They wouldn't always like the decision.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Yea - accepting reality & making my way in the world without expecting to be subsidized by others - I'm the victim. Actually there are no victims only lazy losers who want handouts masquerading as victims.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Then why are you such a lazy whiner?

What is the reality of you?

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I'm only speaking from experience. I too like how you believe all welfare recipients are drug induced welfare hypes. generalities cut both ways.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

me too.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

funny me and everyone else I know are non union and do fine. A bargain when you accept or reject a job offer is hardly extortion. Your name calling makes it clear who the child is. To afraid to make it on your own without mob protection. Figures.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

really? so if your not part of an extortionist union you are on welfare lol? Thats funny - union membership seems to be way down to like 20% of the workforce. I guess the other 80% are on welfare.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Stop being so simple. you argue like my twelve year old brother used to argue. Your simple mind and lack of writing skills make you seem childish. What is next? 'You going to pull out the I know you are but what am I argument." Unions are needed to bring welfare down and allow workers to take pride in their labor. Also, extortion is a word that all Americans can be linked to. Employers extort labor from us, we extort wages from them. you need to recognize, extortion is an American past time.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

This is politics and we are talking about the aggregate, and with a healthy chunk of the population working minimum wage jobs, I believe the aggregate speaks for its self. You are right, though, only thing I could claim the employers are conspiring to do is silently stand by as the gov't allows a quarter to a third, depending on the state, of American households to live in sub standard housing, labor for deplorable wages, and be denied health benefits. I guess the worst I could accuse employers of, in regard to their part, is accessory after the fact, lol, kidding on that second part.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

With that attitude your life will never improve. Sleep tight & pleasant dreams of Utopia lol!

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

it's not stereotypical to say that the number one factor for finding yourself in poverty is being in a single parent household. That is a fact. go look it up.

The general welfare "clause" in the constitution doesn't mean it gives licence to to the govt to do whatever THEY think is in the best interest of the country. If that were the case - the rest of the constitution & all it's amendments would be a moot point & unnecessary to have been written in the first place. Giving you other peoples stuff is NOT in your best interest - It is in THEIR best interest to make you dependent on the govt like a drug addict. That ensures your loyal support & the continuation of their power. Wake UP !

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I beg to differ. Good luck packaging and selling that manure. Do you really find people who are dumb enough to buy that barbaric interpretation that you cling to like scripture? I don't believe you, I guess i'll just have to defeat your understanding in democratic warfare. on guard.

Well, I'm going to bed; I had a long night of working for minimum wage and no benefits, I have to get enough sleep so I can go do it again. But hopefully soon I'll be able to hold my head up High, That is, after I defeat your understanding of the Constitution. Pray I don't break any bones on my way to work tomorrow, I'd hate to stick you with the bill once i enter the emergency room. Good night!

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

It's not governments job to provide you all the things you desire. the governments job is to uphold the constitution. the rest is up to you. This whole conspiracy theory is hogwash. It's up to you to attain the skills necessary to function in the world which is not that difficult. Read Write & do basic math and you can go from their. DONT make careless mistakes like getting pregnant when you are 15 years old! Goof off with your friends too much etc.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Now, you are just being stereo typical. And how are you going to tell me what the gov'ts job is. Who died and made you the gov'ts dictator. That silliness may work with your friends. They may buy your conspiracy theory that the gov't is not responsible for the general welfare of the citizens, but I did not get off the turnip truck yesterday, again, you better recognize. Interpreting that Constitution to fit your needs is not going to win your argument for you. Just because you interpret the Constitution to fit your your needs does not mean I have to be persuaded by your proselytization.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You want to be left alone, to make your own way??

Well, I guess there's still Antarctica.

Too cold for my taste, but you may like it.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hell there's a bunch of scientists running around loose down there.

Much too crowded.

Perhaps a deserted Island.

At least until the water covers it over.

But you know just for now it would probably be OK.

None of my business. I know.

But I do like to help when I can.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Most of those scientists are liberals too.

I can recall a photo of some in support of Occupy.

Perhaps there's an island in the Aleutians for him.

One with a volcano would be nice. Give him a little excitement.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep.

Wouldn't want him mixing with the wrong crowd.

Well I guess any crowd. Huh.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I guess he's mad that he didn't get where he is all alone.

You could say that it also takes a village to raise an idiot. Bush was proof of that.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That was a loving family and community ( + CIA ) support.

Hell what could go wrong?

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"CEO's, who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average worker's wage, today earn 343 times the average worker's wage." How does that hinder your life ?

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Greed hinders everyone's life. Even the greedy. If you can't see it, I can't help you. Like I said, the average worker's wages have been declining while CEO's and the like enrich themselves, but you don't care. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I agree bw , but how can you possibly convince anyone greed is a hinderence? and that equal distribution of wealth would even make those that lose their wealth better off? this is where I say we won't please everyone with equality and fairness ...the wealthy may never see it that way ..

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I'm not talking about equality, just fairness, just enough money to live a decent life on for all people. No limits on how much wealth a person can have as long as everyone has enough.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

can you have one without the other ? fairness without equality ?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Absolutely.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

explain

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

It would be fair for everyone to earn enough money to live decently. Everyone does not need to be equal but we should not have so many people struggling for economic survival. The rich can be as rich as they like as long as everyone has enough.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

that would be nice for everyone to have enough , but that still wouldn't be fair.. During slavery their masters provided all the slaves with enough .. was that fair ?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

You are kidding, right?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

the human race will never rest until there is equality and fairness .. enough for a few and plenty for the rest just doesn't cut it .. it has to be equal .. look far ahead ..that over arching dream you spoke about .. world peace .. human condition and happiness ..

consider this : if we create a world of equality for everyone .. meaning equal pay and standard of living .. everyone gets to enjoy their favorite vacation and look forward to all mankind has to offer , not just the fortunate few .. equal opportunity .. and yes everyone will have enough .. no one needs more than enough .

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

That's a utopia. You're a socialist at heart, then.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

fair is everyone gets treated equally - it is not a matter of fair results. That is just not possible. People are not the same. For example - a math class in high school - should the students that received 60% on an exam be curved up to meet the students who earned a 90% to make them all equal? Say then they go out for a job interview with those same grades - is it fair to the prospective employer to believe they have the same abilities? Is it fair to the students who earned to 90% to lose a job to someone who was propped up by the curve?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

poor analogy, dude. we're talking about peoples lives not some math class.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha! Ok pick another subject. So you are ok with everyone's effort being evened out and rewarded equally. whether it is in school, sports, any achievement. What do you think the consequence of that thinking will be?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

simple minds, ever hear of 'em?

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea everything is sooo complicated - just how your liberal professors want you to think. It's not complicated. Just about every problem can be solved with a little common sense. Which is not that common apparently. You are so impressed with this intelligentsia elite - they want you to be in awe so you let the supreme rulers rule you as they know what's best for you.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

no one is talking about everyone getting the same pay with no incentive for innovation and hard work. what is being discussed is a living wage where you can work 40 hrs./week and live modestly from it, nothing fancy, get it? is that complicated? no working person should be poor in the greatest nation on earth, that is common sense. as for supreme rulers, you seem very happy with our current system, i am not and ows is not about rulers, it's about consensus and responsibility. our current system at the moment is very irresponsible and very unresponsive to the needs of the people of this country. our current leaders, dem and rep, do what is best for them and their backers not for the nation. where did you get this intelligentsia elite stuff? btw, most of my professors are passed away or in nursing homes my young friend.

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

I wanna work 40 hours a week for the man?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

So give me an example of a specific occupation and it's so called "living wage" in your Utopian world.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

your definition of "better" is different than mine. You want a paternalistic nanny state & I want freedom from government interference. The more the government gets involved to fix things it only makes it worse and then they are back again to plead to us how they must interfere even more to help us. I want them to stop helping us. Why is it after all this time we still have 22% of children in poverty? what was the poverty rate of children in 1950?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Be careful of libertarianism. An unregulated capitalist system will take us back to the early times of the Industrial Revolution and the exact reasons why governments instituted checks and balances on capitalism in the first place. Those with capital will get richer and richer and those without, much poorer than they even are now.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

the Industrial revolution was the greatest thing to happen to the planet. Regs are fine but you have to be mindful of the cost. everything is a tradeoff. Additionally, that is not the best example of a free market either. Plenty of Mercantilism cronyism back then as well.

Oh - You didn't answer the question. what was the child poverty rate in 1950?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

What, do I work for you or something? You get the statistic. LOL! Anyway, it looks to have been around the same. So, are you that reactionary that you want us to continue on this long course of poverty that is completely unnecessary given the wealth that corporations are generating through the labor of these same workers living in poverty?

And, the early period of the Industrial Revolution is the closest we've ever been to the unregulated capitalism that libertarianism calls for, and, is, therefore, the best example of what things would be like.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

ah - see poverty is around the same as it was 60 years ago - so what has all the re-distributive welfare been doing all this time except keep people dependent on the government in exchange for votes? Tell me what you are going to do to reduce poverty that hasn't been done already. Why are you not bragging about the welfare achievements of the last 60 years? Look at what has been achieved by the industrial revolution. You'd still be living in the stone age if it were up to you.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Just because child poverty rates are the same doesn't make it at all right. Also, income distribution is not the same. There is now a huge gap in income distribution. There is a lot more wealth in this country than in 1950, but "trickle down" economics was a lie. You are the one who wants to live in the stone age, no, okay, feudal times, because that is where libertarianism will take you.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

and that will reduce poverty? What do these people you speak of do for a living?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Yes. A living wage would reduce poverty, maybe even eliminate it.

What do the low wage earners do for a living? Is that a rhetorical question? If you really don't know, go out shopping or to a restaurant, things like that.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

right - determined by what? your emotions - or Wikipedia lol! Governed by Wikipedia - God help us lol!

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Have a look at any economics textbook, would you please? It's kind of hard to send you a link to a textbook. You're the emotional one.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what is a living wage? Give me a specific occupation and what their living wage should be. Your all wrapped up in emotional hysterics with no concrete ideas probably because then you can be pinned down and discredited as an emotional basket case.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Are you kidding me with these insults? A "living wage" is an economic term. Look in a textbook. It would be based on cost of living in various geographic areas. It's really not that difficult to understand. Good grief, here's the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so based on what you are saying - the change in income distribution had no effect on the rate of poverty. So what is your solution?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

My solution would be for labor to be valued differently. I could see a living wage working very well, where no matter how low the skill level (because these jobs will always exist) people are paid enough money to pay for basic necessities such as housing, food, transportation, education, healthcare, etc. based on cost of living. No cap on wealth, just an end to poverty. We have too many working people qualifying for food stamps right now. It makes no sense. A living wage would also stimulate the economy as people would have more money to spend.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

] 1 points by beautifulworld (4312) 0 minutes ago

I will not pretend to remember, LOL! ↥like ↧dislike permalink


Thank you for that.

Giving laughter is almost as good as receiving it.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Ran out of reply below so: 1 points by beautifulworld (4312) 4 minutes ago

Never heard of it. Seems like it means a distribution that is asymmetrical, but just a guess. When I look back, and it was a long time ago, I learned a lot about Keynesian economics. LOL! A bit of a waste. ↥like ↧dislike permalink


I'm not an economics educated individual but I have had my brushes with concepts and some teachings in an overall general education and expanded teachings in life through work.


Mainly I wanted an opportunity to touch base with you today. But I also thought it strange from my experience that even distribution was not pushed. At least that was my experience.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I will not pretend to remember, LOL!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hi Beautifulworld.

Just stopping by. You have an economics education.

Did they ever teach the concept of building a cylinder or a square financial distribution. Rather than the quite popular pyramid?

I myself have never come across it.

But I wonder if it makes sense to build on a model of even distribution.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Never heard of it. Seems like it means a distribution that is asymmetrical, but just a guess. When I look back, and it was a long time ago, I learned a lot about Keynesian economics. LOL! A bit of a waste.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A difficult concept to explain, difficult to 1st understand. Very true nonetheless.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

here - read this guy http://www.tsowell.com/

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

He's a libertarian economist. I doubt he has anything on the living wage in his basic economic textbook, but thanks for the link.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

ok - so say it comes out to $30.00 per hour and if I am not being too presumptuous a 40 hr work week. So a cashier working the register at your local supermarket will earn $62,400.00 per year for 52 weeks. Now that's more than I make at a white collar job after 4 years of college and 18 years experience. How much should I be paid in this new world order?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

LOL! It does sound rather funny but suppose the cashier is living smack in the middle of NYC or SF? Maybe not so ridiculous. I don't think it would be anywhere near that much it most places. It's a complex formula suited to each geographical location. Obviously, your wage would be set by the market and I would think having a living wage would raise all wages. Keep in mind that a living wage would also eliminate the need for most entitlement programs. So, there is an offset. Another offset is the fact that it would grow the economy as people have more money to spend.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 2 years ago

So what happens to price? your assumption is that nothing changes but wages. Price inflation would drive the poverty line up and then your right back to where you started. And you can not erase profits to prevent it. How would any small business pay these proposed living wages? Answer: maybe by reduction of employees, but that might not even work. The margins are not that high.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 2 years ago

In response to your post below, i believe you are well intentioned, but are missing the point. Someone's net worth is not a consideration in wages. Workers and employers mutually agree to wages. Workers are free to move to any employer based on the value of the skill set they are providing. Where would you define a business size as to how they would raise the wage to the proposed complex wage scale? You can not look at wages only and not at the impact of prices. All prices would have to adjust. There is no magical profit that would cover all the living wage you propose. You are viewing the solution based only on large corporations, who provide an efficient method to get consumers a roduct at a reasonable rice they are willing to pay.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

It depends. For a small business I think the living wage would be structured very differently than that of a large corporation. Corporations have record profits right now. Something has to give. I see this as coming from a share in the profits of large corporations, not coming from an increase in prices.

For example, 6 members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart have a net worth equal to that of the bottom 30% of Americans. This is unnecessary unbridled greed. The fruits of the workers' labor needs to be more fairly distributed. Then, think, if all the workers at places like Wal-Mart had more money to spend, small businesses would benefit from this as well.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

lets suppose we both live in the same place of course say NYC. How much should the employer pay the cashier & how much should my employer pay me?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I don't know, I'm not a compensation analyst, but you'd make more, of course.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

how about this guy: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

He's another libertarian. Do you understand that libertarian free market capitalism would abhor a living wage? So, Williams will never be for that. It's okay. We can agree to disagree because we're not getting anywhere.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I guess I am trying to figure out what you are saying since you insist on being so vague. So is it you want a National minimum wage of say $30.00 an hr so all food, shelter & medical needs are able to be met. Is that a 40 hr work week ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I gave you the definition of a living wage. It is basically a wage calculated on cost of living and varying geographically, that would provide enough money for a person to live a decent life and pay for basic necessities.

I have no idea what that wage would be because it would be a very complex formula, but I do imagine it would be a lot higher than the minimum wage in most places.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

funny - how did the other one-half of Americans wind up in higher paying jobs?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

You are missing the point. The jobs that exist are the jobs that exist. They are the jobs that must be filled, get it? Someone must be in those jobs. You could over-train people all you like, but that will not create better jobs to match their higher skills.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

No I dont know that. I know there would be more opportunity for low wage workers to move up into higher wage jobs if they were willing to improve their skills. Your was is stagnating to the economy.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

If only the one-half of Americans in low paying jobs today were willing to improve their skills they'd be able to move up to what? As if they are not willing to improve their skills! That is the shame game. Trying to shame the poor so they don't ask for anything.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so what you are saying is the job market is not fluid? There are a fixed number of jobs, the economy doesn't expand or contract, people don't retire, or leave jobs for other jobs we are frozen in time & space.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I never said that! But, you can't just insult people in low paying jobs and train them out of them if the jobs don't exist!

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

explain to me how a CEO's compensation is holding you back. Does Alex Rodriguez's salary hold you back? - or the money lady Gaga makes? Do they hold you back? How about lets see - who's the latest Hollywood star making millions - are they holding you back? Why is it the CEO is holding you back & not these others?

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

I actually don't believe anyone's wealth should be limited. I just think wages should be raised so that all Americans can live a decent life. I'm not for equality, just fairness. I just want everyone to have enough.

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Well said. Not just because it's right but also because it's expedient. The 1% are going to run out of people to buy stuff if they keep driving down real wages. Silly of them. They're high on crack or something. Anyway, the point is that 1% can't rule 99% for long, especially if we, the 99%, start looking at what we have in common. Then we can make decisions from a position of unified strength instead of demands from a position of divided weakness.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

where do you get the money to artificially raise these wages to what you consider "fair" You want to mask the subsidy so people can feel better about themselves. How long will that last before they scream for yet more and more again !

[-] 5 points by chell (15) from Vienna, Wien 2 years ago

Artificially? What in the world are you talking about? Beautifulworld is so kind and gentle. But wages were artificially lowered for the average worker beginning back in the late 70s. And artificially raised for those with wealth, (those whose tax rates were reduced significantly also experienced a concurrent rise in real wages/bonuses.). So there is nothing artificial in paying a living wage. i suppose it is easy to say these things as though it is small business that is the backbone of the economy anymore. It was. It isn't now. i think it is 79% of small businesses have no employees other than the small business owner.

i cannot personally remember a time when unemployment was 5%. Maybe that was a reported rate..but we all know that the reported rate is untrue. i have been around a little while..spent most of my life in America and have never known it to be that low. But then again i am from a specific former subset in the economy, and often, those in that particular bracket experience much higher rates of unemployment..

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

wages are determined by what the market will bear. there is nothing artificial about that. Mid 2000's unemployment was 5%

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

The money would come from the profits. Yup. The capitalists would have to share a little.

You see, in our economic system we have a "normal" unemployment rate of 5% which puts power in the hands of the employer when setting wages. This is unfair to the worker and needs to be corrected.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

actually if unemployment were as low as 5% we would have all the power. I remember when it was 5% - everyone was jumping from job to job bidding up their pay. Now - the shoe is on the other foot, I dont know where you get this idea of a natural rate of 5%.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

It is the natural rate and it does leave power, always, in the hands of the employer. The employee takes on much more risk as he needs to provide in most cases for a family. The employer merely risks profit. It is an uneven balance of risk. One risks survival and the other profit.

When one-half of jobs pay less than $26,000 where are these people going to bounce up to? The opportunity just is not there for everyone no matter how hard they work. Decent paying jobs do not exist in this country for everyone anymore.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Gee some how the other half of the jobs pay more than $26,000.00. When did "decent" jobs exist for everybody? The glass is always 1/2 empty with you. Pretty sad.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

What is sad are reactionaries like you.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

reactionary how? reacting to an attempted communist takeover lol? Pardon me

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20832) 2 years ago

You don't want change. You don't want to make things better. You want the status-quo regardless if that means that 22% of our children live in poverty.

And, do you even know what true communism is? I'm not calling for that, but look it up, it's never existed in its pure form.

[-] 4 points by chell (15) from Vienna, Wien 2 years ago

Because there is a finite amount of money. Another way to think about it is: if you do not pay your workers enough money to buy what you are producing, you lose money in the long-run because you have no consumers. Now this is a bit different with those at the very top because they do not sell products to us directly. Their products are filtered down through others, like fund-managers for pensions. They act on behalf of the masses and of course, we all know what happened there. Where did the money that actually existed disappear to? To those who had CDS's on what failed. This is how a CEO's compensation holds all of us back. And unlike beautifulworld, i do believe wealth should be limited. There is absolutely no reason at all for someone to have enough money to support multiple generations of their families. And i certainly do not like the philanthropic choices being made by many of those with vast stores of wealth..or the way it is possible for them to sponsor a candidate on the power of their individual wealth.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"unlike beautifulworld, i do believe wealth should be limited." So you are admittedly a Marxist. Good luck.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Fair wages, living wages are essential. Not just because it's right but also because it's expedient. The 1% are going to run out of people to buy stuff if they keep driving down real wages. Silly of them. They're high on crack or something. Anyway, the point is that 1% can't rule 99% for long, especially if we, the 99%, start looking at what we have in common. Then we can make decisions from a position of unified strength instead of demands from a position of divided weakness.

Your position is laughable and silly. Capitalists are by nature greedy and need guardrails or they'll defecate in their own cage. That's how we capitalists roll. We need the guardrails, not just for the good of our workers and the community but also for the good of our companies. We treat people as commodities to our own detriment. Trust me. I know how this game works. I've owned a successful corporation that's been in business for over a decade and employs a fair amount of people.

Capitalists need guardrails. Just like the machines in their factories need guards on them. Do you think the capitalists came up with the idea to put the guards on there over the dangerous moving parts? Not a chance.

If you think the market can do no wrong, you're just flat wrong or you don't read much. Ask the son or daughter of a former slave whether the market can do know wrong. Their father or mother was up there on the auction block you see.... And capitalists were doing their thing.

Now they're doing the same exploiting the environment. The CEO of Interface Carpets (one of the largest carpet manufacturers in the world) is telling his fellow CEO's to watch out because he sees the handwriting on the wall. "They're going to start putting people like us in jail my friends," he told a crowd of elite business leaders. He's working to get his company to zero carbon footprint.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"You think the markets can do no wrong" - You think the government can do no wrong. you think they are the solution to your problems. Nanny state paternalism. You have no guts to make it on your own? Are you afraid you cant make it on your own? What do you do? What are your skills? What do you have to offer that is being so oppressed?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Ahh, I get it. You're an every man for himself kinda guy. Haven't learned that we're all in this together yet have you? Martin Luther King, Jr. once said this: "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. Each of us is inextricably linked."

Life eventually gets the message of interconnectedness through to us one way or another. We all suffer in isolation and thrive in community. You want everyone to retreat to their gated communities with streets named after Ayn Rand characters. That's a lonley cul de sac my friend. You should find your way back to community. That's where happiness lives.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

everyone looks out for their self interest first, Even by being part of this protest - you do it because you think it's in your best interest. It' human nature and you will not change it. Better to get use to the idea. You will be better off.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Actually you're wrong. There is also compassion. And people who look beyond themselves lead much happier and more fulfilling lives than those who just worry about themselves. This isn't opinion. This is science. Watch the award-winning documentary "Happy" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[-] 1 points by chell2 (4) from Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, NÖ 2 years ago

Yep..i like much of what Marx wrote. Don't need luck, i already live in a country that is socialized in it's relations to the citizenry and capitalized in relation to business. (simplistic explanation..but you have a computer..obviously) Spent most of my life in the states..was being called a commie pinko by the time i was 11. So this is nothing new to me..it's kind of funny that only in America are socialism and communism dirty words:)

Links about minimum wage and the natural 5-6% rule..although you have a computer of your own to look things up.. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/NaturalUnemployment.html http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Minimumwage.htm http://www.quickmba.com/econ/macro/unemployment/ http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=potential+real+gross+domestic+product

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Socialism is a dirty word in the States because it is antithetical to Freedom which is what the States was founded on and fights for every day.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Oh, Bollocks.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No person got rich on their own. They achieved it through SOCIETY.

Put Mitt Romney in a forest all by himself and tell me how long it takes for him to get rich.

I'm not suggesting communism, I'm just saying being greedy is an asshole thing to do and it hurts a lot of people's lives.

Look at major corporations abuse of foreign sweat shop labor. They want that in our country, then they wouldn't have to pay all that money to ship it here from China... where factories have suicide nets because people commit suicide from a life of working 16 to 24 hour days at 31 cents an hour.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they dont pay 'all that money ' to ship it here. and the day an american has an electronic device implanted in their teeth to facilitate production will be a rainy day in the sahara

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You are either inordinately myopic or hardheaded. It's hard to tell which.

By your logic, guns are the equitable and final way to solve things. Then all ownership can be settled permanently. And the people with guns can then enslave the people without.

The strong would rule the weak, and the weak would get what they deserved.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Pretty much sums up civilisations . Your point?

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

civilization would not exist without out people working together

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 2 years ago

Yes, meaning that the strong, at one point, were intelligent and realized that innovation and resourcefulness might be found any where, not just with the strong. With that respect, suddenly the potential products of their strength and labor might be deeply enhanced, beyond anything they could dream of.

Civilzation would not exist without logical agreement. The question is, will the agreement continue?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

So do these conclusions on your part make you an OWS supporter or not? If it does, how do such views specifically inform your own active participation in the movement? That, it seems to me, is what is crucial on this forum.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

The US Constitution trumps all you have said.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Ownership belongs to those who can defend it - or steal it


If you have not seen Soylent Green
you should

be

[-] 0 points by Bullmooseparty (21) from West Orange, NJ 2 years ago

Soylent Green was a MOVIE made by HOLLYWOOD. The same Hollywood the exaggerates everything to make money!!!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'll try to be clearer- crapitalists should be soylent green

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No! Hollywood is good! They say nice things about OWS!

[-] 1 points by Bullmooseparty (21) from West Orange, NJ 2 years ago

lols

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

what else can you expect from people that are professional liars?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cmc (2) 2 years ago

When two losers meet they produce another six losers, when those six losers grow up they meet another six losers and have another 32 losers, and on it goes until no amount of money will protect you.

The thing that really gets me is that it is in the interest of the so called masters of the universe to encourage a stable environment but of course their greed blinds them every time.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yeah..."greed"

which in OWS speak means:

1) expecting to keep what you have earned, if it's a penny more than the nearest ne'er-do-well or self-determined failure has to spend......

2) anyone who saves is "greedy", because, of course, poor people can't "save" (although thousands do EVERY week)..

3) anyone who has struggled through a lifetime of hard work, dedication, constant self-improvement, long hours, uncompensated effort, education and effort, who now earns a salary proportionate to that effort.........if those who: have spent almost NO time developing their skills, complain about having to do the work they were specifically hired to do, wouldn't pick up a piece of paper off the floor or the sidewalk on their way out after clocking out, don't earn a "living wage" (which is, of course, is determined not by "circumstance" but arbitrarily by the choices and behaviors of the person in general.....those who make bad sexual choices, or exhibit poor financial skills have more "need" and require more in a "living wage" compensation than their skills, talent, and experience would bear)

4) anyone who has saved and sacrificed for retirement or security through investment and sound financial behavior over many years........because those who spend every dime on unnecessary frivolous items, and who don't manage their money well should, of course, retire comfortably too....so those who do make good decisions should be taxed at a higher rate.....to make them equal with those who are foolish with their resources.....as uniformity, masquerading as "fairness", which is only "fair" to the losers of the world, is apparently utopia and heaven on earth.....

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

3 who earns a salary proportioned to their effort?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

how much would a lifetime of education formal and self-education, broad range experience, career development, networking, and sacrifice be worth?

in comparison to those who expect to be continuously be paid more for doing exactly the same job for a working lifetime?

How much would the skill and temperament to manage thousands of people and billions of dollars be worth in comparison to those who cannot even manage their own lives, behaviors, or finances?

Hmm?

You people like to poor-mouth CEO's, Investors and business owners......how about looking into the career tragectories that took them to those positions.....

but, I guess that would remove your argument, so you'll NEVER do that....

[+] -6 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 2 years ago

Too much common sense dude. Libs an lefties will give a thousand reasons why they have the right to someone else's labor.

[+] -5 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yeah, I know......but it will bunch up their panties......I've given up trying to help them see the light...they like to live in their fantasy world of utopian perfection.......

too bad life itself debunks that idea.....