ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1878299:date=Oct 6 2011, 08:40 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Oct 6 2011, 08:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd say many of these issues are directly linked to the runaway inflation of our currency<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not sure where you live, but in the US we've experienced an average annual inflation rate of 2.56% this past decade Source: <a href="http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Articles/DecadeInflation.jpg" target="_blank">http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/...deInflation.jpg</a>
The US would actually benefit from more inflation right now.
I have a deep and scornful disdain for anyone who thinks that these HUMAN-BEINGS are wasting their time in their stand against CORPORATIONS! Also, I feel the same way about people who lay-out marine-base structures in a close and confining manner.. The idea is to GET OUT OF BASE as fast as you can!!
So does anyone have a link to what exactly these folks protesting at wall-street want to realise exactly? And I'm not talking about the hot air they've been spewing (corporate boogy-man, capitalistic-pigs, wall-street thiefs and more of that drivel).
I can appreciate the frustration regarding the problematic economical\social situation in the USA, but these protesters come across as complete drones without any meaningful analysis of the problem (other than hollow and outright infantile soundbytes), or contribution to a solution.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited October 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1878360:date=Oct 6 2011, 09:34 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Oct 6 2011, 09:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878360"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So does anyone have a link to what exactly these folks protesting at wall-street want to realise exactly? And I'm not talking about the hot air they've been spewing (corporate boogy-man, capitalistic-pigs, wall-street thiefs and more of that drivel).
I can appreciate the frustration regarding the problematic economical\social situation in the USA, but these protesters come across as complete drones without any meaningful analysis of the problem (other than hollow and outright infantile soundbytes), or contribution to a solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The video measles posted seems to fit the bill you describe. Although it's more a statement of the problem than a plan to affect change. Although that's a classic problem of a coalition of different interests; lots of different solutions to the same problems. However getting a bunch of people to agree on the problems is something in and of itself.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1878360:date=Oct 6 2011, 10:34 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Oct 6 2011, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878360"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So does anyone have a link to what exactly these folks protesting at wall-street want to realise exactly? And I'm not talking about the hot air they've been spewing (corporate boogy-man, capitalistic-pigs, wall-street thiefs and more of that drivel).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What makes you think there's more to it than that? Plenty of examples: <a href="http://www.observer.com/2011/09/50-portraits-from-occupy-wall-street-slideshow/" target="_blank">50 Portraits From Occupy Wall Street </a>
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1878362:date=Oct 6 2011, 09:46 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Oct 6 2011, 09:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878362"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What makes you think there's more to it than that? Plenty of examples: <a href="http://www.observer.com/2011/09/50-portraits-from-occupy-wall-street-slideshow/" target="_blank">50 Portraits From Occupy Wall Street </a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you have such a vendetta against this protest? First you post a satirical list of demands, then a slideshow of some of the more vague quotes that could be found. Do you think that the fact that corporations have gotten into bed with politicians in this country is not a problem? Do you think that it's okay for the middle class to disappear in this country? Do you think exporting our manufacturing and engineering jobs to other countries is sustainable for this country?
This is just the same anger that embodied the tea party before it was co-opted and subverted by conservative mainstream outlets. The Wall Street bailouts are just a glaring example of how policy can get so ###### up based on these ignored questions.
I'm honestly surprised it took so long for protests against the Financial industry to arise. Maybe if we hit the 60s level of unrest we'll get some actual reform.
<!--quoteo(post=1878332:date=Oct 6 2011, 12:59 PM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 6 2011, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878332"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say there's good A. Cost of A from China is $100. Cost of A from USA is $200. Instead of letting consumers buy A for $100 and save another $100 for other things (like every sane person would do) people are told to spend $100 more just for the sake of "supporting local business". That's clearly insane no matter whether the difference is 100% or even 0.1%. Introduction of tariffs DISTORTS prices of goods by subsidizing certain sectors and penalizing others (everyone who is dependent on cheap A is penalized).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But your analysis completely neglects the purchasing power of the consumer before and after he loses his job. And not all jobs that are lost are replaced by another.
Germany is grabbing anyone with a higher degree... specially in engineering, medicine, physics and chemistry... might wanna give good ol'germany a try, eh?
No, seriously... I hope these guys are successful so people can get some jobs going.
Germany is going to need every advantage it can get if it's going to be able to pay off Greece's debt. Because apparently that's Germany's responsibility for some reason. I assume Greece is too big to fail.
I don't get that either... the greeks could at least be not quite that hostile towards us... not even talking about being thankful but the bile is ridiculous.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I'm not sure what you guys are reading in Germany, but basically, the German and French banks are massively exposed to Greek debt so either the German public bails out Greece or it lets Greece default and then has to bail out the German banks. Either way, assuming Europe follows 'conventional' economic practice, Germany and France are on the hook for this mainly because they stand to lose the most.
The hostility from Greece is because most of the Greek population want to go the way of Iceland; default on debt, and start to rebuild the real economy again. Germany and France want to prevent this from happening as it will force them to face up to the harsh reality of their current macroeconomic situation.
According to this analysis the EU would need two trillion euro on hand to sure up all the banks and Italy if they wanted to kick Greece out of the club, so it looks like Europe is stuck with them for now. <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-portfolio-preparing-greeces-failure?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20110930&utm_term=portfolio&utm_content=video&elq=953e027f41cc4bd2967fae6a501fd929" target="_blank">http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-...67fae6a501fd929</a>
My problem with unions is that they shouldn't need to be there. Workers should be able to stand up for their own rights. I understand that sometimes it's not possible, and you need a Deus Ex Machina, but like giving power to Ceaser, it worries me. I don't need to be preached to about worker safety, my grandfather was killed in a coal mine before my father was two, and my state even has occasional major disasters today. No amount of union lobbying can stop gross negligence at the work place.
When you end up with union bosses sending thugs to harass business owners who won't unionize and employees who won't sign up, the union has become no better than the company buying workers on loan for tools, paying them only company store credit, and working them in harsh conditions.
Personal responsibility, honor, pride, and respect are the answers, not abstracted oversight of any kind.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
To all the people calling me a jerk:
My issue with the protest is that it comes off as a joke. As locally said, it's the same problem as groups like the tea party. You have a large group that all fall under one 'banner', and within that group you have a vocal subset that are IDIOTS and ruin it for everyone.
It's like Pailin, Limbaugh, etc for the Republicans. (no, republicans don't all think like those idiots, or even agree with them) It's like Phelps for Christians. (Fred, not Michael).
I'm well aware of the problems with our economy. However I don't want idiots like that claiming to be the 99% when they AREN'T. The majority of the people in this country would realize that most of their demands are silly, and because of that, they make the people who are out there HONESTLY trying to make things better look like idiots along with them.
CEldin, do you honestly think you deserve to have all of your debt wiped out? Even if it was built up by not knowing that you actually have to, you know, pay off your credit cards? Do you really think that you deserve to be supported for your entire life because there isn't a demand for left-handed glass blowers, that being what you think would make you happy?
I don't think you do, why? Because you are obviously trying your damnedest to provide for yourself, and start your career. I'm assuming that you lean more in favor of a list like the one posted by Rob from Coup Media. It's better written, it doesn't try to imitate John Stewart, and it's demands are not so far out in left field that even a hard-core socialist would laugh at them (seeing as Socialists actually think you have to work).
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1878365:date=Oct 6 2011, 11:17 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 6 2011, 11:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why do you have such a vendetta against this protest?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First, as I'm often told with righteous indignation for offering a contrary opinion, this is not the discussion forum. But, if you want a valuable response, I'll offer one.
The comparisons that are evolving between these protests and the recent Tea Party movement are striking to me. Mostly because the same people who are trying to prop up the voices currently protesting Wall Street were and are venomous and rancorous when discussing the Tea Party.
The key to the incongruity is that the Tea Party gathered people from every culture, lifestyle, and political party to express their great concern about the federal government's involvement in EVERYTHING. The message is/was: you don't have to go away but you better slow the F down.
The message, so far, escaping from the current protests is incoherent but seems to revolve around money. Do they want banks to start passing out bills? Do they want investors to stop wearing suits and driving cars? eh?
But when you start comparing the two groups, the message starts to gel: the people who have been given responsibility are not using it in a way that large volumes of people believe are rigorous or magnanimous and they are ready to say so.
Want a clearer definition of what's happening down there? <a href="http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2011/10/independent-reporting-of.html#more" target="_blank">Try this.</a> Snippets: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point I’ve been trying to make with the last few paragraphs is that there is a “story†here. I started with the obvious task of asking the owner of the park for an official statement about the occupiers of the last three weeks, and following those threads, I saw a story emerge that is different than the standard narrative of “just-another-protestâ€.
There are many other aspects of this that go unreported. One I find especially important is the loving nature of the protest. If you look at photographs in the news, you see the typical angry protester. This is the sort of action shot newsrooms prefer, i.e., showing the emotion of the scene.
But the protest isn’t angry. Quite the opposite, it is loving and accepting. If you go up to protesters with the opposite political view and debate them, they will express their undying love for you and ask for you to join them to increase the diversity of viewpoints. I did this myself, and watched this happen to others, including cops. This attitude pervades everything they do, and is frequently reinforced by the hard-core occupiers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In many ways, the press treats this protest the way they treated the Tea Party, completely distorting the story. Journalists ignored the mainstream of the Tea Party and instead focused on the fringe. Instead of showing the hundreds of signs calling for smaller government, reporters instead focused on the one sign showing Obama as Hitler. In the end, this reporting became self-fulfilling. The Republican fringe disaffected with the establishment were convinced by this reporting, believing that they, too, should join the Tea Party, thus derailing it.
This is a particular danger to the Occupation movement. They still haven’t defined themselves, and risk letting the press define the movement for them. They started out with the idea that occupying Wall Street for weeks would be a good way to get their message out, but they are still trying to come to consensus on what, precisely, their message is. The press (and critics) claim they need a messageand that they need a concrete list of demands, but I’m not sure that’s true. This is something else, something new, something that doesn’t need to be defined by the old.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But at the same time, some protesters were hoping for a confrontation with the police, because mass arrests would get them on the news (I overheard two protesters discussing this). Others were passing out pamphlets on what to do when arrested and urging people to write the phone number of the National Lawyers Guild on their arm. Some of those arrested were among the Central Committee, who would have been the most likely to have known they should not have been on the roadway.
When the protest happened, many protesters followed the correct path above the roadway, but many others incorrectly chose the roadway. After about 700 had taken to the roadway, the police closed off both ends of the bridge, preventing them from escaping and arrested them all. Eventually the errant protesters were given summons for causing a public disturbance. Protesters accuse the police of causing the problem by letting protesters out onto the roadway in the first place rather than informing them to take the pedestrian way. They also point out that shutting down the bridge for hours caused much more of a public disturbance than letting the protesters pass for 15 minutes. Regardless of any agents provocateurs on both sides, though, it’s a good bet that the bulk of the 700 who got arrested were just sheep, going along with the crowd.
For me, that’s the “narrativeâ€: stupidity and ignorance on both sides cause things like this, rather than malicious intent - barring a few on both sides who want to see the problem escalate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The protesters are also predominantly white with blacks underrepresented. On the flip side, blacks are over-represented in the police force. The protesters often compare themselves to the Civil Rights Movement, but the photographs of the recent arrests often show black policemen arresting white protesters. I don’t know if this is a vindication of the Civil Rights Movement or if there is still more work to go, to get the blacks better ensconced in middle-class American to send their kids off to college with that combination of privilege and entitlement that turns them into protesters.
The makeup of the protesters also led to amusement among the cops, stationed in pairs on all four sides of the park. For some, their normal beat is in the poor areas of New York City. The police, who daily see the struggle of the real poor, had little use for protesters complaining about jobs while they carried around expensive MacBook computers paid for by their parents.
I mention the racial makeup for a specific reason. The Tea Party was also predominantly white, which was frequently reported in the news, despite the fact that guidelines tell reporters to avoid mentioning race when it’s not relevant. They nonetheless reported it because it fit the narrative they wanted to tell about the Tea Party (that it has a racist component). In much the same way, they don’t mention the racial makeup of the Occupation because it doesn’t fit their narrative.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1878365:date=Oct 6 2011, 08:17 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 6 2011, 08:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is just the same anger that embodied the tea party before it was co-opted and subverted by conservative mainstream outlets. The Wall Street bailouts are just a glaring example of how policy can get so ###### up based on these ignored questions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other news, the Unions are now involved. All of them being ones helped out by the Stimulus Act.
If this get hijacked into the liberal version of the Tea Party I'm going to weep for America.
Anyways, here's how I see it: 1) Started out as literally as bunch of angry hippies. But then the NYPD screwed up, YouTube went viral, and suddenly with all this press it's turned into a real thing. So, they do have to work hard to break that hippie persona, and a bunch of "gimme" lists aren't helping them much. 2) Bull###### this is an accurate representation of the 99%. As much as my heart goes out to the people, the common theme seems to be 20s/30s people, the vast majority crippled by student loans and stuck in crap jobs. (Aside: Which ironically they would have had without going to college, except they wouldn't have the debt. This might finally cause people to realize what I and others have been saying for the past year, we have a serious College Bubble happening and need to re-evaluate people's expectations of getting a college degree.) 3) They really need to hammer down a message before this gets hijacked. Frankly I think this protest can do a lot of good as I've heard for months now rumblings of dissatisfaction with government+corporation silliness, and from the looks of it the majority are decent people who ended up on the wrong side of the system. However, right now they stand to be hijacked just like the Tea Party was. We don't need another fringe "grass-roots" movement that ends up being backed by the political power brokers. But right now it's showing signs it just might become that with the Unions moving in, busing people in, etc. Granted, I don't think this massive occupy is the best way to express things, but that's opinion.
Re Rob (on existence of Unions): I personally thinks Unions are outstanding at what they do. They allow the individuals to collectively push back against a much better funded and equipped employer when there are problems. However, I think their biggest flaw is when they stick around when they're not needed. Once the fixes are in place, they typically continue to fight for more and I find that troublesome.
<!--quoteo(post=1878406:date=Oct 7 2011, 11:17 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 7 2011, 11:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878406"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Re Rob (on existence of Unions): I personally thinks Unions are outstanding at what they do. They allow the individuals to collectively push back against a much better funded and equipped employer when there are problems. However, I think their biggest flaw is when they stick around when they're not needed. Once the fixes are in place, they typically continue to fight for more and I find that troublesome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1878386:date=Oct 7 2011, 03:04 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 7 2011, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878386"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My problem with unions is that they shouldn't need to be there. Workers should be able to stand up for their own rights. I understand that sometimes it's not possible, and you need a Deus Ex Machina, but like giving power to Ceaser, it worries me. I don't need to be preached to about worker safety, my grandfather was killed in a coal mine before my father was two, and my state even has occasional major disasters today. No amount of union lobbying can stop gross negligence at the work place.
When you end up with union bosses sending thugs to harass business owners who won't unionize and employees who won't sign up, the union has become no better than the company buying workers on loan for tools, paying them only company store credit, and working them in harsh conditions.
Personal responsibility, honor, pride, and respect are the answers, not abstracted oversight of any kind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that they DO need to be there. You're complaining that your medicine is bitter, but you need it to fight the disease. Yes, you shouldn't even be ill in the first place, but you ARE, and your body is not strong enough to handle it alone, and wishful thinking won't change that. Trust me, I'd love to live in a world where unions are superfluous because employers can be trusted to look out for their employees. I'd also love to live in a world where the police are superfluous because people don't commit crimes on purpose, and peacefully turn themselves in if they do so by accident. I'd also love to live in a world where we don't need doctors because nobody gets sick, where we don't need firefighters because stuff doesn't catch fire, and where we don't need exterminators because ants don't invade our homes. Some of those worlds may be within our grasp one day, but we sure as hell don't live in any of them right now.
Personal responsibility, honour, pride, and respect would be great. The problem is that these are things you can't force on employers and corporations, so when they elect to forego them in favour of greed, ruthlessness and malfeasance, you have to resort to other options.
You say you don't need to be preached to about worker safety, and then you go on to claim that no amount of union lobbying can stop gross negligence at the work place. That's EXACTLY what it did in the story I told. Do I need to preach to you?
<!--quoteo(post=1878386:date=Oct 7 2011, 08:04 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 7 2011, 08:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878386"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Workers should be able to stand up for their own rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is what a union is.
<!--quoteo(post=1878417:date=Oct 7 2011, 12:21 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Oct 7 2011, 12:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878417"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that they DO need to be there. You're complaining that your medicine is bitter, but you need it to fight the disease. Yes, you shouldn't even be ill in the first place, but you ARE, and your body is not strong enough to handle it alone, and wishful thinking won't change that. Trust me, I'd love to live in a world where unions are superfluous because employers can be trusted to look out for their employees. I'd also love to live in a world where the police are superfluous because people don't commit crimes on purpose, and peacefully turn themselves in if they do so by accident. I'd also love to live in a world where we don't need doctors because nobody gets sick, where we don't need firefighters because stuff doesn't catch fire, and where we don't need exterminators because ants don't invade our homes. Some of those worlds may be within our grasp one day, but we sure as hell don't live in any of them right now.
Personal responsibility, honour, pride, and respect would be great. The problem is that these are things you can't force on employers and corporations, so when they elect to forego them in favour of greed, ruthlessness and malfeasance, you have to resort to other options.
You say you don't need to be preached to about worker safety, and then you go on to claim that no amount of union lobbying can stop gross negligence at the work place. That's EXACTLY what it did in the story I told. Do I need to preach to you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gross negligence of the workers, not the company. And, no you don't need to preach to me. :P
People commit crimes every day. People get sick or injured every day. Corporations don't think of new and more insidious ways to exploit and torture their workforce every day, but the standard operating procedures of permanent unions maintains that they do. So the union officials must use the money they earn themselves combating this phantom, and that leads to abuse.
Corporations sure do exploit workers, but the don't do it so often that union lobbyists must constantly bargain for more and more worker rights. They do this only because they want to make more money through union dues and political sponsorship in the form of government kick backs.
A simple watchdog organization would do just fine, and when the evil corporations finally do sneak in a sucker punch, that's when you bring out the union lawyers.
Sure unions are medicine, but everything is toxic at excessive amounts. We're taking too much medicine.
<!--quoteo(post=1878424:date=Oct 7 2011, 01:03 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Oct 7 2011, 01:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878424"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is what a union is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, a union as it stands today is a board of lobbyists who badger the public at large, engage in thuggery to bring more workers into the fold, and collect political rewards. All in the name of workers. They don't understand the worker's plight, and in many cases the workers don't have a voice anyway. They have a ballot to vote to sign their personal rights away to said lobbyists.
<!--quoteo(post=1878429:date=Oct 7 2011, 01:11 PM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Oct 7 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not liking unions because SOME are corrupt is like not liking leaders because SOME are corrupt.
Any person or group that attains power will have some that are corrupt. This does not mean ALL are corrupt.
How did this thread get stuck on unions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This logic isn't fair. I didn't say get rid of them. I said they have grown out of control. There's no reason to polarize the issue to make contrasts seem more pronounced.
We're talking about unions because this protest encompasses the entire gambit of government and social issues. Unions are a big part of that, and as spellman has pointed out, many unions are now backing the protesters.
*edit* And to continue that point, this is why I'm hating political parties more and more. All they do is polarize issues and label people so we can yell at each other more effectively.
<!--quoteo(post=1878428:date=Oct 7 2011, 12:09 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 7 2011, 12:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, a union as it stands today is a board of lobbyists who badger the public at large, engage in thuggery to bring more workers into the fold, and collect political rewards. All in the name of workers. They don't understand the worker's plight, and in many cases the workers don't have a voice anyway. They have a ballot to vote to sign their personal rights away to said lobbyists.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not saying unions do not need reform but it sounds like you want them banned.
<!--quoteo(post=1878433:date=Oct 7 2011, 01:17 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Oct 7 2011, 01:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878433"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not saying unions do not need reform but it sounds like you want them banned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea of a group of people banding together in common cause is valid. It has been called a union before, but the goal has become twisted. Now, people specialize in union issues. As if every industry were exactly the same. It is not. Unions as they exist today are no more noble or better than what they would say they are fighting.
A union should be no more than the workers electing their own representative who may enlist legal council in necessary times. It should not be an organization that is run similarly to the corporation that employs it's members which is what it was become.
Gross negligence of workers is something that can be mitigated to a very large extent through proper training and safety procedures. Ensuring that a worker is safe to work with before he is let loose on the rest of the workforce is the employer's responsibility. If the employer does not live up to that responsibility, SOMEONE needs to step in.
I don't see any signs of unions being out of control. I don't pay particular heed to american unions (yes, I'm probably opening a loophole for you here to say "american unions are DIFFERENT," and while I can't counter that argument, expect me to raise a skeptical eyebrow at it), but over here they seem squarely rooted in good sense, with the occasional slipup and excess as human nature sadly dictates. Nobody is interested in running the employers into the ground. They're the guys who hand out paychecks after all. We just don't want them to cheat us out of our labour, our pay, our health or our life. And as long as they don't, we cool.
Furthermore, the unions I have had close contact with are lean organizations. Going by member count alone they're big, but those members are invisible when all is well. Their permanent staff is small, and largely consists of office workers doing paperwork and negotiating tariffs with larger businesses. The watchdogs you ask for ARE the unions. They're the ones who keep an eye on things. I don't know where you get the impression of unions as self-serving profit-leeching entities, but it doesn't match any of my experiences.
The biggest culprits here are public sector unions. These unions represent employees on government payroll. This creates a conflict of interest because employee wages are paid through taxes. The public employees' production cannot be measured on the private market with any validity, and the union reps can continuously lobby with politicians to increase taxes to fund higher worker wages while the politicians they court get campaign funds from union dues. Some states have laws that require membership in public sector unions as well.
Basically then, working in the private sector means you're forced pay the wages for public employees who's capacity and effectiveness you can't realistically determine and you have only a token say in the increase of those wages.
And this is before any of the implications of the assumption that the government in any form shouldn't be oppressing its citizens in the first place. The recourse of this abuse is either elections, protests, or outright revolution. So why is there a union in the first place?
Comments
Not sure where you live, but in the US we've experienced an average annual inflation rate of 2.56% this past decade
Source: <a href="http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Articles/DecadeInflation.jpg" target="_blank">http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/...deInflation.jpg</a>
The US would actually benefit from more inflation right now.
Also, I feel the same way about people who lay-out marine-base structures in a close and confining manner.. The idea is to GET OUT OF BASE as fast as you can!!
These demands seem perfectly civil & coherent IMO = <a href="http://goo.gl/EP7Rd" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/EP7Rd</a>
I can appreciate the frustration regarding the problematic economical\social situation in the USA, but these protesters come across as complete drones without any meaningful analysis of the problem (other than hollow and outright infantile soundbytes), or contribution to a solution.
I can appreciate the frustration regarding the problematic economical\social situation in the USA, but these protesters come across as complete drones without any meaningful analysis of the problem (other than hollow and outright infantile soundbytes), or contribution to a solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The video measles posted seems to fit the bill you describe. Although it's more a statement of the problem than a plan to affect change. Although that's a classic problem of a coalition of different interests; lots of different solutions to the same problems. However getting a bunch of people to agree on the problems is something in and of itself.
What makes you think there's more to it than that?
Plenty of examples: <a href="http://www.observer.com/2011/09/50-portraits-from-occupy-wall-street-slideshow/" target="_blank">50 Portraits From Occupy Wall Street </a>
Plenty of examples: <a href="http://www.observer.com/2011/09/50-portraits-from-occupy-wall-street-slideshow/" target="_blank">50 Portraits From Occupy Wall Street </a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you have such a vendetta against this protest? First you post a satirical list of demands, then a slideshow of some of the more vague quotes that could be found. Do you think that the fact that corporations have gotten into bed with politicians in this country is not a problem? Do you think that it's okay for the middle class to disappear in this country? Do you think exporting our manufacturing and engineering jobs to other countries is sustainable for this country?
This is just the same anger that embodied the tea party before it was co-opted and subverted by conservative mainstream outlets. The Wall Street bailouts are just a glaring example of how policy can get so ###### up based on these ignored questions.
<!--quoteo(post=1878332:date=Oct 6 2011, 12:59 PM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 6 2011, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878332"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say there's good A. Cost of A from China is $100. Cost of A from USA is $200. Instead of letting consumers buy A for $100 and save another $100 for other things (like every sane person would do) people are told to spend $100 more just for the sake of "supporting local business". That's clearly insane no matter whether the difference is 100% or even 0.1%. Introduction of tariffs DISTORTS prices of goods by subsidizing certain sectors and penalizing others (everyone who is dependent on cheap A is penalized).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But your analysis completely neglects the purchasing power of the consumer before and after he loses his job. And not all jobs that are lost are replaced by another.
No, seriously... I hope these guys are successful so people can get some jobs going.
The hostility from Greece is because most of the Greek population want to go the way of Iceland; default on debt, and start to rebuild the real economy again. Germany and France want to prevent this from happening as it will force them to face up to the harsh reality of their current macroeconomic situation.
<a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-portfolio-preparing-greeces-failure?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20110930&utm_term=portfolio&utm_content=video&elq=953e027f41cc4bd2967fae6a501fd929" target="_blank">http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-...67fae6a501fd929</a>
When you end up with union bosses sending thugs to harass business owners who won't unionize and employees who won't sign up, the union has become no better than the company buying workers on loan for tools, paying them only company store credit, and working them in harsh conditions.
Personal responsibility, honor, pride, and respect are the answers, not abstracted oversight of any kind.
My issue with the protest is that it comes off as a joke. As locally said, it's the same problem as groups like the tea party. You have a large group that all fall under one 'banner', and within that group you have a vocal subset that are IDIOTS and ruin it for everyone.
It's like Pailin, Limbaugh, etc for the Republicans. (no, republicans don't all think like those idiots, or even agree with them)
It's like Phelps for Christians. (Fred, not Michael).
I'm well aware of the problems with our economy. However I don't want idiots like that claiming to be the 99% when they AREN'T. The majority of the people in this country would realize that most of their demands are silly, and because of that, they make the people who are out there HONESTLY trying to make things better look like idiots along with them.
CEldin, do you honestly think you deserve to have all of your debt wiped out? Even if it was built up by not knowing that you actually have to, you know, pay off your credit cards?
Do you really think that you deserve to be supported for your entire life because there isn't a demand for left-handed glass blowers, that being what you think would make you happy?
I don't think you do, why? Because you are obviously trying your damnedest to provide for yourself, and start your career. I'm assuming that you lean more in favor of a list like the one posted by Rob from Coup Media. It's better written, it doesn't try to imitate John Stewart, and it's demands are not so far out in left field that even a hard-core socialist would laugh at them (seeing as Socialists actually think you have to work).
First, as I'm often told with righteous indignation for offering a contrary opinion, this is not the discussion forum. But, if you want a valuable response, I'll offer one.
The comparisons that are evolving between these protests and the recent Tea Party movement are striking to me. Mostly because the same people who are trying to prop up the voices currently protesting Wall Street were and are venomous and rancorous when discussing the Tea Party.
The key to the incongruity is that the Tea Party gathered people from every culture, lifestyle, and political party to express their great concern about the federal government's involvement in EVERYTHING. The message is/was: you don't have to go away but you better slow the F down.
The message, so far, escaping from the current protests is incoherent but seems to revolve around money. Do they want banks to start passing out bills? Do they want investors to stop wearing suits and driving cars? eh?
But when you start comparing the two groups, the message starts to gel: the people who have been given responsibility are not using it in a way that large volumes of people believe are rigorous or magnanimous and they are ready to say so.
Want a clearer definition of what's happening down there? <a href="http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2011/10/independent-reporting-of.html#more" target="_blank">Try this.</a>
Snippets:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point I’ve been trying to make with the last few paragraphs is that there is a “story†here. I started with the obvious task of asking the owner of the park for an official statement about the occupiers of the last three weeks, and following those threads, I saw a story emerge that is different than the standard narrative of “just-another-protestâ€.
There are many other aspects of this that go unreported. One I find especially important is the loving nature of the protest. If you look at photographs in the news, you see the typical angry protester. This is the sort of action shot newsrooms prefer, i.e., showing the emotion of the scene.
But the protest isn’t angry. Quite the opposite, it is loving and accepting. If you go up to protesters with the opposite political view and debate them, they will express their undying love for you and ask for you to join them to increase the diversity of viewpoints. I did this myself, and watched this happen to others, including cops. This attitude pervades everything they do, and is frequently reinforced by the hard-core occupiers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In many ways, the press treats this protest the way they treated the Tea Party, completely distorting the story. Journalists ignored the mainstream of the Tea Party and instead focused on the fringe. Instead of showing the hundreds of signs calling for smaller government, reporters instead focused on the one sign showing Obama as Hitler. In the end, this reporting became self-fulfilling. The Republican fringe disaffected with the establishment were convinced by this reporting, believing that they, too, should join the Tea Party, thus derailing it.
This is a particular danger to the Occupation movement. They still haven’t defined themselves, and risk letting the press define the movement for them. They started out with the idea that occupying Wall Street for weeks would be a good way to get their message out, but they are still trying to come to consensus on what, precisely, their message is. The press (and critics) claim they need a messageand that they need a concrete list of demands, but I’m not sure that’s true. This is something else, something new, something that doesn’t need to be defined by the old.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But at the same time, some protesters were hoping for a confrontation with the police, because mass arrests would get them on the news (I overheard two protesters discussing this). Others were passing out pamphlets on what to do when arrested and urging people to write the phone number of the National Lawyers Guild on their arm. Some of those arrested were among the Central Committee, who would have been the most likely to have known they should not have been on the roadway.
When the protest happened, many protesters followed the correct path above the roadway, but many others incorrectly chose the roadway. After about 700 had taken to the roadway, the police closed off both ends of the bridge, preventing them from escaping and arrested them all. Eventually the errant protesters were given summons for causing a public disturbance. Protesters accuse the police of causing the problem by letting protesters out onto the roadway in the first place rather than informing them to take the pedestrian way. They also point out that shutting down the bridge for hours caused much more of a public disturbance than letting the protesters pass for 15 minutes. Regardless of any agents provocateurs on both sides, though, it’s a good bet that the bulk of the 700 who got arrested were just sheep, going along with the crowd.
For me, that’s the “narrativeâ€: stupidity and ignorance on both sides cause things like this, rather than malicious intent - barring a few on both sides who want to see the problem escalate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The protesters are also predominantly white with blacks underrepresented. On the flip side, blacks are over-represented in the police force. The protesters often compare themselves to the Civil Rights Movement, but the photographs of the recent arrests often show black policemen arresting white protesters. I don’t know if this is a vindication of the Civil Rights Movement or if there is still more work to go, to get the blacks better ensconced in middle-class American to send their kids off to college with that combination of privilege and entitlement that turns them into protesters.
The makeup of the protesters also led to amusement among the cops, stationed in pairs on all four sides of the park. For some, their normal beat is in the poor areas of New York City. The police, who daily see the struggle of the real poor, had little use for protesters complaining about jobs while they carried around expensive MacBook computers paid for by their parents.
I mention the racial makeup for a specific reason. The Tea Party was also predominantly white, which was frequently reported in the news, despite the fact that guidelines tell reporters to avoid mentioning race when it’s not relevant. They nonetheless reported it because it fit the narrative they wanted to tell about the Tea Party (that it has a racist component). In much the same way, they don’t mention the racial makeup of the Occupation because it doesn’t fit their narrative.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There, happy now?
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/50rpJ7EQWuI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/50rpJ7EQWuI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
In other news, the Unions are now involved. All of them being ones helped out by the Stimulus Act.
If this get hijacked into the liberal version of the Tea Party I'm going to weep for America.
Anyways, here's how I see it:
1) Started out as literally as bunch of angry hippies. But then the NYPD screwed up, YouTube went viral, and suddenly with all this press it's turned into a real thing. So, they do have to work hard to break that hippie persona, and a bunch of "gimme" lists aren't helping them much.
2) Bull###### this is an accurate representation of the 99%. As much as my heart goes out to the people, the common theme seems to be 20s/30s people, the vast majority crippled by student loans and stuck in crap jobs. (Aside: Which ironically they would have had without going to college, except they wouldn't have the debt. This might finally cause people to realize what I and others have been saying for the past year, we have a serious College Bubble happening and need to re-evaluate people's expectations of getting a college degree.)
3) They really need to hammer down a message before this gets hijacked. Frankly I think this protest can do a lot of good as I've heard for months now rumblings of dissatisfaction with government+corporation silliness, and from the looks of it the majority are decent people who ended up on the wrong side of the system. However, right now they stand to be hijacked just like the Tea Party was. We don't need another fringe "grass-roots" movement that ends up being backed by the political power brokers. But right now it's showing signs it just might become that with the Unions moving in, busing people in, etc. Granted, I don't think this massive occupy is the best way to express things, but that's opinion.
Re Rob (on existence of Unions): I personally thinks Unions are outstanding at what they do. They allow the individuals to collectively push back against a much better funded and equipped employer when there are problems. However, I think their biggest flaw is when they stick around when they're not needed. Once the fixes are in place, they typically continue to fight for more and I find that troublesome.
I agree completely without any reservations.
That is an excellent blog post. I highly recommend everyone read the whole thing.
When you end up with union bosses sending thugs to harass business owners who won't unionize and employees who won't sign up, the union has become no better than the company buying workers on loan for tools, paying them only company store credit, and working them in harsh conditions.
Personal responsibility, honor, pride, and respect are the answers, not abstracted oversight of any kind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that they DO need to be there. You're complaining that your medicine is bitter, but you need it to fight the disease. Yes, you shouldn't even be ill in the first place, but you ARE, and your body is not strong enough to handle it alone, and wishful thinking won't change that.
Trust me, I'd love to live in a world where unions are superfluous because employers can be trusted to look out for their employees. I'd also love to live in a world where the police are superfluous because people don't commit crimes on purpose, and peacefully turn themselves in if they do so by accident. I'd also love to live in a world where we don't need doctors because nobody gets sick, where we don't need firefighters because stuff doesn't catch fire, and where we don't need exterminators because ants don't invade our homes. Some of those worlds may be within our grasp one day, but we sure as hell don't live in any of them right now.
Personal responsibility, honour, pride, and respect would be great. The problem is that these are things you can't force on employers and corporations, so when they elect to forego them in favour of greed, ruthlessness and malfeasance, you have to resort to other options.
You say you don't need to be preached to about worker safety, and then you go on to claim that no amount of union lobbying can stop gross negligence at the work place. That's EXACTLY what it did in the story I told. Do I need to preach to you?
That is what a union is.
Trust me, I'd love to live in a world where unions are superfluous because employers can be trusted to look out for their employees. I'd also love to live in a world where the police are superfluous because people don't commit crimes on purpose, and peacefully turn themselves in if they do so by accident. I'd also love to live in a world where we don't need doctors because nobody gets sick, where we don't need firefighters because stuff doesn't catch fire, and where we don't need exterminators because ants don't invade our homes. Some of those worlds may be within our grasp one day, but we sure as hell don't live in any of them right now.
Personal responsibility, honour, pride, and respect would be great. The problem is that these are things you can't force on employers and corporations, so when they elect to forego them in favour of greed, ruthlessness and malfeasance, you have to resort to other options.
You say you don't need to be preached to about worker safety, and then you go on to claim that no amount of union lobbying can stop gross negligence at the work place. That's EXACTLY what it did in the story I told. Do I need to preach to you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gross negligence of the workers, not the company. And, no you don't need to preach to me. :P
People commit crimes every day. People get sick or injured every day. Corporations don't think of new and more insidious ways to exploit and torture their workforce every day, but the standard operating procedures of permanent unions maintains that they do. So the union officials must use the money they earn themselves combating this phantom, and that leads to abuse.
Corporations sure do exploit workers, but the don't do it so often that union lobbyists must constantly bargain for more and more worker rights. They do this only because they want to make more money through union dues and political sponsorship in the form of government kick backs.
A simple watchdog organization would do just fine, and when the evil corporations finally do sneak in a sucker punch, that's when you bring out the union lawyers.
Sure unions are medicine, but everything is toxic at excessive amounts. We're taking too much medicine.
No, a union as it stands today is a board of lobbyists who badger the public at large, engage in thuggery to bring more workers into the fold, and collect political rewards. All in the name of workers. They don't understand the worker's plight, and in many cases the workers don't have a voice anyway. They have a ballot to vote to sign their personal rights away to said lobbyists.
is like not liking leaders because SOME are corrupt.
Any person or group that attains power will have some that are corrupt.
This does not mean ALL are corrupt.
How did this thread get stuck on unions?
is like not liking leaders because SOME are corrupt.
Any person or group that attains power will have some that are corrupt.
This does not mean ALL are corrupt.
How did this thread get stuck on unions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This logic isn't fair. I didn't say get rid of them. I said they have grown out of control. There's no reason to polarize the issue to make contrasts seem more pronounced.
We're talking about unions because this protest encompasses the entire gambit of government and social issues. Unions are a big part of that, and as spellman has pointed out, many unions are now backing the protesters.
*edit*
And to continue that point, this is why I'm hating political parties more and more. All they do is polarize issues and label people so we can yell at each other more effectively.
Not saying unions do not need reform but it sounds like you want them banned.
The idea of a group of people banding together in common cause is valid. It has been called a union before, but the goal has become twisted. Now, people specialize in union issues. As if every industry were exactly the same. It is not. Unions as they exist today are no more noble or better than what they would say they are fighting.
A union should be no more than the workers electing their own representative who may enlist legal council in necessary times. It should not be an organization that is run similarly to the corporation that employs it's members which is what it was become.
I don't see any signs of unions being out of control. I don't pay particular heed to american unions (yes, I'm probably opening a loophole for you here to say "american unions are DIFFERENT," and while I can't counter that argument, expect me to raise a skeptical eyebrow at it), but over here they seem squarely rooted in good sense, with the occasional slipup and excess as human nature sadly dictates. Nobody is interested in running the employers into the ground. They're the guys who hand out paychecks after all. We just don't want them to cheat us out of our labour, our pay, our health or our life. And as long as they don't, we cool.
Furthermore, the unions I have had close contact with are lean organizations. Going by member count alone they're big, but those members are invisible when all is well. Their permanent staff is small, and largely consists of office workers doing paperwork and negotiating tariffs with larger businesses.
The watchdogs you ask for ARE the unions. They're the ones who keep an eye on things. I don't know where you get the impression of unions as self-serving profit-leeching entities, but it doesn't match any of my experiences.
Basically then, working in the private sector means you're forced pay the wages for public employees who's capacity and effectiveness you can't realistically determine and you have only a token say in the increase of those wages.
And this is before any of the implications of the assumption that the government in any form shouldn't be oppressing its citizens in the first place. The recourse of this abuse is either elections, protests, or outright revolution. So why is there a union in the first place?
*proofread gooder this time.