Occupy Wall Street... Screw That! Lets Occupy The Net!
-
Once again, you're not arguing with me, but a phantom you've created. I'm not arguing for those unskilled jobs to remain the in the United States, unless it benefits a company to do so. We live in a global economy and a global marketplace.
But to think that the solution to our jobs problem, and our inequality problem, and our wages problem is to pay people much, much less, far below subsistence wages, in a fruitless effort to try and out-compete foreign labor in places like China and Indonesia and Malaysia is just laughable.
You don't know what a false choice is, and that's your problem. You don't realize that all of your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies. Again, that's your problem. But acting like the choice is between paying lots of Americans $3.50 an hour and paying one American $35 an hour is the definition of a false choice.
We need more Americans to be able to do the jobs at the high-end of the production spectrum, not the low end. We're not keeping up in this race. And we can't compete at the bottom end. The reality of the low skilled US worker who loses out to low-wage foreign labor isn't going to change any time soon.
The solutions aren't sexy. They involved long-term public investments in education and job training/re-training, investments in infrastructure, and changes to tax policy. We spend too much of our money on transfer payments to the elderly and on defense, and not enough trying to remain competitive.
-
@vaportrail said:
Right, that's the point I'm making. You're not losing jobs to the educated Chinese, those guys are my competition (and I never said there were millions of them, just that there were a bunch of them in American academia). Your competition are the billions of uneducated Chinese.
Also.... Holy shit! hahahaha, I made the front page of the Dayton Daily News!
Haha, I look so jobless.
Nice makeshift drums
Head or Gut? -
@vaportrail said:
Right, that's the point I'm making. You're not losing jobs to the educated Chinese, those guys are my competition (and I never said there were millions of them, just that there were a bunch of them in American academia). Your competition are the billions of uneducated Chinese.
Also.... Holy shit! hahahaha, I made the front page of the Dayton Daily News!
Haha, I look so jobless.
Nice makeshift drums
-
Nice purple sweater?
But it IS a huge part of our problems - the unions. Ask any old union member - he/she will TELL you that
back in the day, the union was for worker oriented principles, and there was a huge work ethic and all.
Anymore? Work ethic went out the window, greed runs rampant in constant self serving, self-justifying side issues,
and now, worst of all - political power derived from forced union dues.
Back in the day, those union dues meant the workers were supported by their union.
NOW? Union dues means the Democratic politicians who will give the unions all the power and benefits they want, and double more for more donations....get
mega union campaign funds.
If it isn't the unions.... why all the fright and rage about right to work states by the Obamao admin? They blocked that company from building in S. Carolina -
you know, a RIGHT TO WORK state. So many of the big unions no longer represent the workers based on principle and fairness.
It's giant benfits and wealth to the union leaders, who invest in Dems who respond by benefitting the unions...
it's no wonder several states are looking at, or have worked at, stopping the vicious,destructive cycle.
It amazes me, that guys like Heck get all spouty about these subjects, when they don't know crap what they are talking about -
from the people involved. All Heck has, is talking points from liberal information sites.
Well, talk to any old union member, who isn't on the socialist benefactor's payroll to be an activist.
-
lol, the best part of yesterday was when someone told me to "Get a f—cking job, loser." I smiled and told him I had two, then wished him a nice day.
-
Once again, you're not arguing with me, but a phantom you've created. I'm not arguing for those unskilled jobs to remain the in the United States, unless it benefits a company to do so. We live in a global economy and a global marketplace.
But to think that the solution to our jobs problem, and our inequality problem, and our wages problem is to pay people much, much less, far below subsistence wages, in a fruitless effort to try and out-compete foreign labor in places like China and Indonesia and Malaysia is just laughable.
You don't know what a false choice is, and that's your problem. You don't realize that all of your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies. Again, that's your problem. But acting like the choice is between paying lots of Americans $3.50 an hour and paying one American $35 an hour is the definition of a false choice.
We need more Americans to be able to do the jobs at the high-end of the production spectrum, not the low end. We're not keeping up in this race. And we can't compete at the bottom end. The reality of the low skilled US worker who loses out to low-wage foreign labor isn't going to change any time soon.
The solutions aren't sexy. They involved long-term public investments in education and job training/re-training, investments in infrastructure, and changes to tax policy. We spend too much of our money on transfer payments to the elderly and on defense, and not enough trying to remain competitive.
Once again, you're not arguing with me, but a phantom you've created.
I'm arguing with the guy who said this.
" But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes. "
I'm not arguing for those unskilled jobs to remain the in the United States, unless it benefits a company to do so. We live in a global economy and a global marketplace.
But to think that the solution to our jobs problem, and our inequality problem, and our wages problem is to pay people much, much less, far below subsistence wages, in a fruitless effort to try and out-compete foreign labor in places like China and Indonesia and Malaysia is just laughable.
And again you're pretending I said something I didn't.
When I worked at Consolidated Freightways in the 70s (for a short time) as a non union janitor the union dockworkers, men who loaded and unloaded trucks, mad nearly seven times the minimum wage. Twelve times it if they worked a holiday Sunday which every one did even though not ONE truck rolled on Waster Sunday.
That kind of job at that kind of pay had to disappear.
I repeat that if Ohio were a right to work state there'd be more of those jobs being done here but maybe at two or two and a half times minimum wage.
You don't know what a false choice is, and that's your problem. You don't realize that all of your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies. Again, that's your problem. But acting like the choice is between paying lots of Americans $3.50 an hour and paying one American $35 an hour is the definition of a false choice.
Because you made it up.
We need more Americans to be able to do the jobs at the high-end of the production spectrum, not the low end. We're not keeping up in this race. And we can't compete at the bottom end. The reality of the low skilled US worker who loses out to low-wage foreign labor isn't going to change any time soon.
We (you specifically) need to realize that due to technology among other factors that huge labor forces arent needed for the jobs of today.
The president got shit for mentioning ATMs but he's right.
As DVD store clerks grocery store checkers turnpike attendants mail carriers receptionists etc are replaced by machines people who made an average wage doing those things are out of a job. One Steve Jobs to what, 50, 000 Apple workers?
The solutions aren't sexy. They involved long-term public investments in education and job training/re-training, investments in infrastructure, and changes to tax policy. We spend too much of our money on transfer payments to the elderly and on defense, and not enough trying to remain competitive.
We just can't find work for those numbers no matter how many degrees we pay for.
The world just doesn't need manpower as much.
Troubling but true.
WSS
-
@vaportrail said:
Right, that's the point I'm making. You're not losing jobs to the educated Chinese, those guys are my competition (and I never said there were millions of them, just that there were a bunch of them in American academia). Your competition are the billions of uneducated Chinese.
Also.... Holy shit! hahahaha, I made the front page of the Dayton Daily News!
Haha, I look so jobless.
Nice makeshift drums
-
Because you made it up.
I did? I believe it's right here, my man: But as to jobs I'd rather (if we're going to add to the deficit) create 3 12 dollar anhour jobs than one 35 an hour job. Yup, that's a false choice.
And thanks for teaching me how technology can eliminate certain jobs. I had no idea! Here I was going on and on about how we need to preserve all the jobs technology has eliminated.
...Except that I wasn't. I was making the opposite point.
Thanks for reminding me what a waste of time this is. Good to hear you're doing well.
-
Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.
WSS
-
Did Heck and Shep get separated?
-
Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.
WSS
Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.
WSS
Oh. Okay. My bad, sort of. I took that as 3 1/2. You need a dollar sign in there.
And it's still a false choice.
-
Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.
WSS
Oh. Okay. My bad, sort of. I took that as 3 1/2. You need a dollar sign in there.
And it's still a false choice.
Oh. Okay. My bad, sort of. I took that as 3 1/2. You need a dollar sign in there.
And it's still a false choice.
Well I certainly coulda been more clear.
Anyway, I don't see it as a false choice at all. Like I said, a lot of the jobs we've lost over the past 30 years have gone to right to work states like georgia & tennessee.
WSS
-
Yeah, it's a false choice. It's also not how firms hire. If they only need one employee, they'll hire one employee. They don't hire three to do the job of one if you make the costs the same. Also, hourly wages aren't the only cost an employee incurs.
But I understand your point, however wrong it is. It's much better than when I thought you were saying "Let's pay people $3.50 an hour." I couldn't get out of this conversation fast enough then.
-
Here you go, Steve. Here's a smart sign at the OWS protest.
-
Here you go, Steve. Here's a smart sign at the OWS protest.
Here you go, Steve. Here's a smart sign at the OWS protest.
I see you stole Monica's beret and wore it to the protest.
-
Yeah, it's a false choice. It's also not how firms hire. If they only need one employee, they'll hire one employee. They don't hire three to do the job of one if you make the costs the same. Also, hourly wages aren't the only cost an employee incurs.
But I understand your point, however wrong it is. It's much better than when I thought you were saying "Let's pay people $3.50 an hour." I couldn't get out of this conversation fast enough then.
Yeah, it's a false choice. It's also not how firms hire. If they only need one employee, they'll hire one employee. They don't hire three to do the job of one if you make the costs the same.
So if say, the school system says it's forced to lay off teachers and eliminate programs they're basically lying? Or do you think at perhaps 30% lower cost they could hire more teachers?
Also, hourly wages aren't the only cost an employee incurs.
Yet another reason I try to avoid "every" or "all" but sure.
Lifetime pensions are business killers too.
But I understand your point, however wrong it is. It's much better than when I thought you were saying "Let's pay people $3.50 an hour." I couldn't get out of this conversation fast enough then.
Not a problem. Sorry I snapped at ya BTW.
WSS
-
Sure, Steve, all of what your saying makes sense if you entirely discount the part where people need income to live and eat and enjoy their lives. You only seem to see any of this through the eyes of some CEO or governor, and not the vast majority of the population, which is made up of workers. This is a problem.
So sure, if we race to the bottom on wages and benefits and pensions, maybe we could hire more teachers. But that's not the only question we ask. That's just the only question you ask.
I'd also not confuse how state budgets operate with how private businesses do. When faced with tightening state budgets, like every state is facing, the teacher's union (generally) needs to do more to avoid laying off good teachers. That usually means kicking in more for their health benefits. Or they could reform "first hired, first fired" policies to ensure that the best teachers stay, not simply the longest tenured. There are lots of things to negotiate. And unions do negotiate these things, and do pare back benefits in tough times. (You seem to be completely unaware of this.)
But this hardly makes me think that unions in and of themselves are the problem. I'd be very wary of someone who immediately goes to cutting people's pay and benefits on the lower end of the spectrum first. And that's always your instinct. You seem to have a real aversion to people having pay and benefit levels that they've won through negotiation - and that the other side has agreed to.
Do these need to be tweaked in tough times? Of course. But you seem to be against the fact that these agreements exist at all.
I'm certainly not.
-
Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?
-
Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?
Why don't you tell me what you'd do about rising inequality, or about 30 years of stagnant or declining middle class wages. The top 1% have take a larger and larger share of national income over the past 30 years, and other than the top 5%, everyone else's share has declined. Is that a problem?
Actually first we need to determine that it’s a real problem with a solutuin.
If it is can I, you or or any politician change it?
If so how much difference will I need to make? 5%? Will it be OK then?
(Will the next president brag if the gap is cut by 5%?)
Anyway we agree on at least one reason (I hope) and that’s the fact that decent paying jobs aren’t as plentiful as they were 30 or 40 years ago. The new high tech jobs are fine but don’t require the manpower.
So what could I (or you or politician) do to bring back a lot of man hour intensive labor that just about anyone can do? I don’t think it can be done.
I heard a speaker at OWS demand a 100,000,ooo.00 cap on wealth. Think that makes sense? If so how about ten million? That oughta be enough right?
I’d guess that’d mean more billionaires in whatever banana republic they move to.
Still I think the better question (and just as hard to answer) is why can’t you be happy without cable TV a cell phone internet cigarettes and a nice car?
But I don’t suppose that envy ever changes. It just seems to get worse.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login