Forum Post: OWS doesn't have a plan for jobs.
Posted 11 years ago on May 17, 2012, 7:47 p.m. EST by Misaki
(893)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I know, "Occupy Wall Street isn't about specific demands!" But it means all this effort is basically being wasted. The national conversation may have changed directions but that hasn't done anything for unemployment.
It may be painful to admit that it would be more effective to cooperate with the rich and corporations than fight against them, but at this rate I fear the movement will just gradually die out.
Edit: fixed link. I blame Firefox for abbreviating the URL on mouseover.
Edit: might as well link to the poll where you can vote on a suggestion that would create jobs without government spending.
OWS supports the people and confronts the corruption greed and crime.
The movements do not try to tell people what to do - they tell of what is wrong in the world and educate on these issues - any consensus and action will come from The People.
That is why the corrupt hate the movements - They have nothing and no one to attack.
The people are beginning to open their eyes and unite in common causes.
[Removed]
GeriTroll! We were just talking about you...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/health-and-prosperity-for-all-moving-forward-in-un/
OWS is about providing for the people
the people need food, shelter and health
In other words, jobs.
People would much prefer jobs to charity. Charity doesn't let you advance in life because you have no financial security; and even if you get a job, if unemployment is still high it's easy for employers to be exploitative.
unless charity gave financial security
It doesn't.
(The other argument for why charity has fixed things is here: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/04/low-consumer-demand-and-inefficiency.html)
It's simple: if people relied on charity, they would become angry/upset if that charity stopped. That is a disincentive to help people by giving them charity.
cooperation over work providing and distributing the resources is needed
And work conservation is the way to allow people to cooperate.
Some people (elderly, disabled, etc) can't really work, and the US has social programs for a reason. But people who can work, and want to work, should be able to get a job that pays for basic necessities so they don't need to depend on charity.
I looked into that an San Diego
it pays about $2 / hour which does not provide enough money
what did? Working for a charity?
the san diego wants to turn park work over to volunteers working
cause lots of people don't have jobs so might as well keep the park clean
Well, as you point out it paid terribly, precisely because it was a way of taking advantage of high unemployment.
Work conservation would create well-paying jobs.
http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
reduced hour would mean more jobs for everyone
with pay rate 1/3 higher for the first 20 hours
why would an employer want anything less than 40 hours ?
,
If one seeks to reduce work hours per employee
just charge overtime past twenty hours
Read this already. Your point?
industry should be diverted to peaceful ends
So should the government spend money to create widgets and toys for households?
Many military bases are not closed, or contracts for military equipment not abandoned, because it creates jobs in some politician's home state. So the best way to reduce military spending is to create job opportunities outside of government.
Which work conservation would do btw.
If there was actually a credible military threat the US might want to maintain some level of military spending, but work conservation would at least remove the 'distortion' of military spending as a way to create jobs that people (Republicans mostly) will accept.
Because worker job satisfaction is essential to their performance and productivity in any job that requires some amounts of training (and you can't just fire someone and have their replacement a day later like with warehouse jobs for supply companies).
Employers could, right now, lower the wages/salaries of all their workers and save money. Polls indicate that people might even accept this if they felt it was necessary for the business's success. But businesses don't because happy workers is better for the business than a 10% nominal reduction in wages (while ignoring the losses from unhappy workers or people quitting and having to train replacements).
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-you-should-help.html
Alternative 1: shorter work week.
France has tried this with a 35-hour work week, although it's slightly more complicated than that since it's based off the entire year as well. The problem with this solution is simple: if you want an intermediate level of income, somewhere between full-time work and doing nothing, the most efficient way to get it is to work as hard as possible for a while so you can get as much overtime pay as you can, and then to quit working. On a shorter timescale this is difficult because you lose work skills if you take a few months off from work, so people have the idea of spending several years working as hard as possible and then going into retirement.
But not only do you not know if that the day when you can retire will ever come, the government actively makes it more difficult with its policies meant to lead to full employment without sufficient taxation to avoid inflation. People are forced to entrust their money with specialists in the financial markets, which can lead to drastic losses from pension funds when these specialists incorrectly evaluate risks such as the recent financial crisis. Reducing the work week would just make these problems worse.
give me a break
the money is going to the people at the top incomes
it's not government spending that is the problem it is where that money goes
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/03/evidence-of-lack-of-trust.html
"18. Which comes closer to your own view? 1) The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means it has to borrow the money to do so, OR 2) The federal government should not spend money to create jobs and should instead focus on lowering the country’s debt."
6/24-28/11
Gov’t should spend money - 42%
Gov’t should not spend money - 52%
Don't know/no answer - 6%
NYT/CBS opinion poll - NYTimes.com
67% of the population think the government should do more to help the middle class but only 2% think they pay less than their fair share of federal income taxes. A majority of the population is opposed to government spending to create jobs, and 64% would choose cutting government spending over raising taxes on corporations despite that only 4% think that corporations use savings from tax cuts to hire more workers.
But people do want the government to create jobs 'somehow' and do think jobs/economy are important. So basically they're just stupid. Work conservation as always is the solution, just a matter of finding the right argument....
building bombs 'til bunkers boil
getting paid for shell filled toil
if I am to work tomorrow
lobe the load on foreign soil
yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget
World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations
39% United States
18% Russia
8% France
7% United Kingdom
5% Germany
3% China
3% Italy
11% Other European
5% Others
http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations
TOP 10 Arms Produces
Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers
[Removed]
Anarchy doesn't offer viable positive solutions
How does calling for an end to political corruption, more participation in democracy, standing against the malfeasance and conflicts of interest in our financial industry, etc., NOT qualify as viable solutions?
Calling for an end to a problem-all of the things you listed- is just that. Calling for something to stop. Calling for something does NOT = viable solutions. A solution is what comes AFTER the call is made, heard, and accepted. It is the PLAN established for correcting the problem.
OWS seems to resist actually collecting, investigating, organizing or offering any PLANS to the public. It seems that all OWS wants to do is yell FIRE! and then wait around for someone else call the fire department, escort people out of the building, and pick up a hose or try to stop it.
Okay, fair enough, but none of the problems I listed require rocket science to remedy (so I sort of took it for granted that the solutions are straightforward and obvious).
In order to END political corruption, one must be able to track where it's coming from, prove that it's happening, and eliminate all possible ways it can take place. Same thing involving the conflicts of interest and fraud in our financial industry.
It may not be rocket science, but it sure the hell isn't simple or easy. If you think they are, then by all means print out some one page flyers and hand them out at your demonstrations and let's get to work as a collective society shall we?
We know where the conflicts of interest lie. As an attorney, I'm governed by all sorts of ethical rules, and many of those rules are aimed at avoiding conflicts of interest. In my profession, we don't wait until problems related to conflicts arise, and then demand exhaustive statistical evidence that the conflict is indeed causing the problem. This is not the sort of thing that can be quantified in all cases. In many instances tracing causation can be murky.
For instance, take banking and Glass Steagall. We allow the merger of investment banks and commercial banks, and 9 years later our system collapses. We can't simply say that correlation = causation. Moreover, it's hard to find a smoking gun, an indisputable and direct link between this deregulation and the 2008 crisis. However, we can infer that all the conflicts of interest this deregulation resulted in, created the psychological groundwork for irrational risk taking.
A similar situation exists in our political system. I'm not saying there's no way to quantify this risk, but at least part of this requires an examination of psychological factors that are inherently easier to dispute, obfuscate, belittle with the sort of simplistic sloganism generated by our media, which seems to work with a fairly large portion of the public (and it doesn't matter how compelling the case is). We're not talking about something like a statistical study of disease rates or demonstrating the laws of chemistry or physics.
You can infer anything you like. But to blame a lack of restriction or legislation for "creating the psychological groundwork for irrational risk taking" is akin to telling me that a lack of regulation regarding the laws of physics creates the psychological groundwork for people to want to skydive.
My point is, you can't stop corruption from happening unless you come up with a way to stop PEOPLE from BEING corrupt. And you can't FORCE people to be something they don't want to be. But you can "create the psychological groundwork" that ACTING upon those base and selfish desires WILL result in consequences that they will not like. Cheaters and thieves and those that defraud need to be punished and held accountable for their actions. If we as a people don't insist on that-then NOTHING we legislate or "regulate" really matters because those who want to be criminals will continue to do so because there's no consequence for their actions.
Back room deals have been taking place in this country, and every other, since the dawn of time. Selfish people will always find a way to get what they want, no matter who they hurt in the process. Legislation CANNOT stop those things from happening-it can only outline what is expected and declare fit punishments for those who break the laws once they are set forth.
It's the reason most people who choose NOT to skydive choose not to. The conflict of interest is sill there, it's that the possible consequence is more than they are willing to accept.
Well, sounds like you love things just the way they are ... so why do you bother visiting this site? Do you seriously think you'll convince anyone of this supposed unavoidable inevitability of corruption?
I'd certainly concede that human nature, being what it is, can make corruption inevitable if we don't build in sufficient protections. I mean, in business, it's typical to divide up the accounting function into pieces, so no single person has the ability to raid the piggy bank (or at least it makes it much more difficult). So yes, we can structure the system in a way that minimizes corruption.
Really? I sounded like I "love things just the way they are"?? Please point out where in my posts I have indicated a fuzzy warm affection for fraud, cheating, thievery, and corruption. Seriously. Do you often read statements about people wanting to punish others for behaving in ways they LOVE? Give me a freaking break.
Does being realistic about what we're dealing with, and how difficult it will be to not only change the system, BUT to then regulate/ monitor the people in the new, changed system equate with love or support?
YOU didn't use the term "minimize corruption" originally. YOU used the term "end corruption". I even emphasized the word END in my response to indicate that I was describing how difficult it would be to END corruption-which YOU yourself said you were "calling for".
I see a difference between minimizing something and ending it completely. If you cannot even be specific about what you are telling the American people that they need to do-you can't rationally expect them to respond with any specific solutions now can you?
Obviously Betsy I see the difference as well, but sometimes we don't exhaustively elaborate on everything we say. At any rate, so there's no miscommunication, I'm pretty sure humans will always be vulnerable to temptation, self-interest and greed are obviously aspects of our nature (or else we wouldn't be having this conversation), so yes, it's probably true that the best we can do is build better protections into the system, and minimize (not forever eliminate) corruption.
This post has some good examples of recent 'corruption' in government:
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/saturday%E2%80%99s-pape%E2%80%99s-muckraking-and-personnel/
In those specific examples, likely the only way to reduce wasteful spending would be to put pressure on the government by forcing it to make choices about programs. If the government were, for example, to cut Medicare coverage while still paying $17k for a drip pan that could be made for $2.5k, people aware of that problem (specific people working within the government bureaucracy) would be more likely to work to reduce the waste.
This is why people are resistant to calls for higher taxes and welfare spending.
The inefficiency of bureaucracy is an age old problem. In theory, decentralization could provide a remedy, but it would probably only work in a participatory democracy (a prerequisite of more accountability is more transparency, and distributing power to enough people where corruption becomes much more difficult to pull off).
I'd love to see us gradually move in that direction. I say gradually because abrupt change (in many cases) can seriously harm a society, and recorded history doesn't give us many examples of participatory democracy in action (and there may be limits to how far we can go with this idea, beyond which we risk economic and social decline, which of course wouldn't do anyone any good).
I agree. Work conservation would create jobs without higher government spending, which means no opportunity for increased waste.
See this explanation on making honesty more viable, in business as well as other aspects of life.
It is funny, you have located the source of the problem, and yet you avoid the only and obvious solution. If the problem is, 'human corruptibly and a system that give individuals power, is always corrupted',. then the clear answer is to devise a system where no individuals have power over others, this system is anarchy. Not chaos, but anarchy. If we simply move away from this system of 'representatives' being handed power for four year jaunts, and replace it with a system having NO REPRESENTATIVES where all people have the same power over our collective decisions, then a large and very dangerous corruptible system is over. We do not need representatives now with modern communications, networking, and knowledge, of the whole planet at any given time.
I agree we need to hold lies, cheats, and thieves, to account and that doing so is important. however saying that we can not remove corruption from our social institutions is just a big give-up. I suppose we can not, if we hold the slave mentality view that leaders are the only way humanity can organised our self, that equality is to be feared,. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD) refused to take the bribe, saying at the time, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal." He immediately reported the incident to the FBI. When Senator Pressler was told Walter Cronkite referred to him on the evening news as a "hero" he stated, "I do not consider myself a hero... what have we come to if turning down a bribe is 'heroic'?"
If people voted more intelligently, political corruption would be less of a problem. As linked above, see here:
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/03/importance-of-options.html
your quote make my point,. the system is SO baddy corrupted, and has been for so long,. that when someone does what they should, they are held up as a hero! truly sad.
why not have a consensus decision on issues and get a vote of all interested people,. instead of hoping for "more intelligently" voting? We see that the representatives seem to always get corrupted why not remove that part of the system?
People are generally even less informed on issues than politicians. The problem is not that all politicians are corrupt; it's that people vote for candidates that are less than perfectly honest because they are the only people who feel it's worth the effort to get elected and do that work. If people made better voting decisions then this wouldn't be as big of a problem.
Example:
"Despite an abundance of evidence—including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed." —from http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=517 (footnote)
Bush and company may have allowed people to assume many wrong things about Iraq and so on. But mostly it was a voter stupidity issue. Direct voting would have lead to the same result.
But anyway, much of the disillusionment with politics at current is that most people think jobs/economy are important, yet almost four years after electing "hope and change" Obama unemployment is still high. Work conservation, again, is how to fix that: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
"Bush and company may have allowed"???? Bush perpetrated lies to mislead americans and the world. To suggest otherwise simply minimizes the right wing neo cons crimes! "Obama unemployement is still high"??? yeah American unemployement is still high. We have gone from losing 750k jobs per month during the Bush economic failures to creating 100k plus per month. We have had almost 3 years of private sector job growth. We have created millions of jobs during this administration. Jobs/Economy are important! We went from the greatest recession in 70 yrs. An economic crash perpetrated by the criminal 1% that brought the world to its knees. We are slowly recovering from the right wing 1% tool policies, and would be further along if the republicans hadn't obstructed so much of the agenda we need. Support OWS. Vote out pro norquist politicians
In Support:
Returning Government to THE PEOPLE.
PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_glasssteagall/?source=bp
Also,
PETITION: Jail the Bankers: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_wallstreet_bankerjail/?source=bp
Signed.
Common Cause is easy to support. Thanks.
The idea is spreading.
Stop pushing party politics - start pushing people common cause issues.
We unite - We - WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds good. I'm with this.
Republican voters were incorrect about many things which the Bush administration implied, but never directly stated, such as a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qae'da. See the survey. It was stupidity, not malice, that allowed Bush to win in 2004.
You realize that this is less than the amount needed for natural population growth?
That is untrue. Just someone trying to re write history to minimize the crimes of the Bush Admin. Bush lied and people died. Believe what you want. I believe the truth as I witnessed it!
if wiki went true,
someone will come by and correct it
such is the nature of wiki
Wikipedia says we went to war over WMD so it must be true!
I realize the 4.5 million jobs created in the last 3 years is not enough for natural growth, or to replace the millions lost as the result of repub lican economic malfeasants. The pubs created job loss at the rate 750K per month!!!. So obvioulsy we are improving. I can't expect a complete turn around in a couple of years. Economy would be better if republican obstruction/sabotage would end, and europe hadn't mistakenly attempted austerity! Regarding war Repubs certainly LIED about WMD, and Al Queda connections in Iraq. Regardless of people who want to defend Bush and accomplices, Most people now know repubs were criminally negligent in the running of the war and economy. I suppose you and I disagree!
What's funny... I recently read something about the Iraq war, and the article (recently written) said that the reason we invaded Iraq was to topple a dictator and spread democracy. No mention of WMDs.
Anyway see here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/prelude-to-war-need-confirmation-from-ows/
The idea that giving ALL people the same power will somehow satisfy all people is noble. It's just not realistic. No individual would have power over others, but the majority would still be able to control the minority.
Human corruptibility will always expose itself within ANY system. All human beings do not think the same way, have the same desires, want the same powers, or want to live the same lives. It isn't that equality would be feared. It's that equality would not be appreciated equally by all.
in this reply you well illustrate something that I find coming from many right-wing schooled people,. "All human beings do not think the same way, have the same desires, want the same powers, or want to live the same lives." where do you leap from, not having representatives as the basis of our largest social organisations,. to everyone must be exactly the same? it sounds to me like some leftover propaganda from the red scares of the war on communism most of us where raised in. a world organised using participatory democracy, and consensus models where possible,. is providing vast gains of individual freedoms, over this military/corporate exploitative-capitalism model.
So BetsyEeyore, "it will never work"? We just can not devise a system to remove the strucutures we see have been and are corrupted? that is too sad,. get a positive thought, please.
You may devise all the systems you like. Systems are not the problem.
why is the system not the problem? if you remove the representative, who will be corrupted? Seems you lack the ability to imagine anything new, there are any number of 'better' systems than the sht we have,.
What is to stop the corruption of the people in general? Instead of having 300 representatives to worry about, you'll have 300+ million of them.
Systems are inert-they have no ability to "do" anything in and of themselves. I may lack imagination, but I do not lack experience with the human race and it's nature, nor am I uninformed about history. Imagination is a great thing. Practical application and realistic expectation are too.
The world's population is higher now. Technological developments unrelated to the political system have boosted standard of living. Your point?
What cannot be denied is that for a significant fraction of the US population, there has been no economic progress since 1979.
yes, and we are talking about changing a system in a 'practical way', to remove as much corruptibility as is possible. nothing is perfect, but your view seems to be that the system we have works for us in some way, it does not,. it works only for the 1%. it is realistic to change nothing and hope things just get better? what is realistic about that? people can be corrupted, but if they are not the ones making laws for their corporate overlords, and banker class then it is much less a problem.
" people can be corrupted, but if they are not the ones making laws for their corporate overlords, and banker class then it is much less a problem."
If the people of a given society, who can be corrupted, are "not the ones making the laws"-then who is?
The system we have-as corrupted as it has become (not by design, but by the manipulation of those who are corrupt) has STILL worked for more people in one given society than any other system in history ever has. It's not perfect-as you say, nothing is. But the evidence I can see and touch and feel all around the world demonstrates to me that it has "worked" for millions of people who aren't part of the 1%.
Of course you and I may not agree on the definition of what "works for us in some way" is.
I've heard the fear of 'mob' rule used over and over as the main argument against 'direct' or 'participatory' democracy, but I have not once seen anyone offer concrete examples from history to support these fears.
What concrete examples do you have from history of actual, "direct or participatory democracies" that mirror what you are calling for?
I never even heard the term until recently. I am just trying to see both sides with an open mind.
Existing prejudices of a majority against a minority might introduce inequality to an 'acceptable degree'.
But in a non-fascist country, people have the option of protesting and revolting up to and including sacrificing their own lives if they feel that inequality causes significant harm. This is what gives the majority an incentive to keep inequality low and avoid prejudices.
Just think of the victims of any revolution. Those people should have known that there was a general social trend and that they were in danger. The fact that the impetus of change leads to becoming a victim is due to nothing more than lack of knowledge about the world.
This, really, is because the experts did not offer a viable solution.
Actually I was going to repost that here on OWS.
You really should look into things before you post them. Anarchy IS a viable solution, to corrupted "representative" control,.
Many anarchists have, do, and will, offer a vast array of "viable positive solution" Permaculture, slowmoney, degrowth, relocalize, etc.
I also like this plan to remove "representatives" from the political process; http://www.globalsafe.org
And some anarchists just blow things up and shoot people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9293298/Anarchist-group-vows-to-wage-low-level-warfare-on-Olympics.html
And some countries, i.e. USA,. also "just blow things up and shoot people" so they must be anarchists? It is fun to paint whole groups with the actions of some small segment,. right?
Show me one instance when the USA has blown things up and shot people for the purpose of creating a "stateless society in which no hierarchical governing body exists."
It's fun to pretend that the word anarchy applies to every situation you want it to without regard for the actual definition of that word.
Most people are more concerned with job creation than with determining the proper amount of "anarchy" in the US.
I've heard suppression fire for positioning is more common than targeting
Tokyo Rose or Berlin Betty?
Du you verk viss ze zecret policia?
You are an idiot.
Zo you deny zeez chargez of zuporting ze ztatuz-qvo?
You know many WWII criminals fled to Argentina.
Half you made any vacacion planz?
Freuiline ziz iss not a trial.
I built a platform to submit, discuss, and vote on policy ideas.
http://the99percentvotes.com
The most popular ideas will bubble up and hopefully get traction in the debate. Hope you'll sign up, use it, and spread the word.
Thanks
Hi Greg, nice website, just wanted to add a thought or two. First, it seems popular ideas are more a function of first page ideas getting the attention. I simply haven't gotten to the last page, for example. Secondly, I wonder if there is a way to connect this website platform to the debates taking place on capital hill, if you get my meaning.
I can imagine a day when this type of web forum would be displayed in congress so as to connect the people directly to the debate as its happening.
The White House recently created a platform to allow people to vote up questions/issues for the government to address.
If you were not aware of it, here is the link: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions
Good points all. I hope ideas can rise through the ranks despite the advantage of the Popular tab -- a number of people have voted on most/all things, and I do see movement in the rankings. It so happens that the currently popular ideas have wide appeal also, vs some of the more arcane topics (e.g., finance). I may put the Recommended tab in first position once there are enough ideas. I encourage you to use this tab -- it filters out things you've already voted on. Also, I would be happy for people who feel strongly about particular issues to get others to come on site and vote them up.
Re: Congress - I definitely hope to move in this direction over time. I would like govt (Congress and administrative agencies) to have a 99vote dataset that they can reference and feel some obligation toward.
You can submit site dev ideas to http://dev.the99percentvotes.com
Thanks - spread the word if you can.
Perhaps a Tab for real time Congressional and Senatorial debates, a way for the average joe to get in on the debates that are happening on the floor now.
It's just a matter of prioritizing what can get done in what time. I have to complete the election pages / candidate stuff. But I'm interested in doing all the good things I can.
It looks good and is a step in the right direction, keep up the good work, also don't be afraid to ask for help. I can't see anything that would be more important to society than linking its government to its people.
Right on, that's my thinking (link government with people). I'm interested in help -- just going one foot in front of the other. Have an intern starting week after next to enter candidates' policies. Feel free to email me at greg@the99percentvotes.com
I think congress debates are already broadcast
in real time ..............
............................
............................ zzz
transcripts should be provided in text format
I agree about transcripts. That should be an idea on my site. I'll add it if you don't :)
I'm talking about having the peoples discussion on the debate broadcast to the congress. As in having something like http://the99percentvotes.com broadcast in congress live while debate happens.
I wouldn't be interested in the down votes on my statements
What if you weren't on the down side?
civil rights need protection
It's disappointing more people haven't taken the effort to sign up and vote.
Yes, I am still trying to get it out more broadly. Any suggestions on that? Can you help spread the word? I'm trying to improve the look & feel to make it more appealing, adding facebook login option, and adding election pages. I hope that when election pages and candidate policies are in the system, more people will see the point.
Well, I have been frequently linking to the suggestion I made there in posts on this forum, and I also linked to it on the dedicated site for the suggestion.
I am not sure how best to improve it. But also keep this in mind.
Due to lack of progress I have advanced to the next step of the process: http://occupywallst.org/forum/prelude-to-war-need-confirmation-from-ows/
I have created the first suggestion in the category of job creation.
http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
Thanks, Misaki. The rest of you, check it out.
[Removed]
Don't worry so much, change is just slow. For those of us struggling, the need for change is ripe. For those who are fine, well their fine. For real change though, we may have to teach the Lamb to love the taste of Lion.
“Rise and rise again; until lambs become lions.” Perfect !!
People who chose the name Occupy Wall Street can side-step other issues for only so long. You started listing your demands when you chose the name. Ask to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and stop screwing around. OWS doesn't have a jobs plan but noone else does either. I wouldn't waste time thinking about it. Jobs just sort of appear sometimes and some people pretend like they know why. Noone really knows, they just think they do.
This would create enough jobs, and without more government spending even. http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
Anyway, it was all leading up to a declaration of war on people who don't want to help the unemployed: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-traitors-within-us/
OWS is not for creating jobs. It about new world where people are consensus,confidence,and empower each other. Government will govern by volunteers as Wikipedia does. Less full time job, more people involved, and the world will be better.
There are volunteer firefighters. But do you really think people would volunteer to be police that respond to reports of violence, or that a system of volunteer police would attract the right sort of people? (And not just sadists and thugs.)
Anyway, the top concerns that people see in the US are the economy and jobs. (Less so "the economy" than before since corporate profits are high.)
If the president is a volunteer police will be volunteers. OWS is not for GDP. It's a revolution as George Washington did two hundred years ago. Let people create jobs for themself. Government has hardly create any jobs.
Police go to police academy.
Do you really think people will volunteer to spend all that time and not get paid? Especially if they don't have any other job because of high unemployment. Do you really trust a homeless person acting as a police officer to protect the interests of the rich?
Swiss government gave weapon to any adult tell us that If people are consensus,confident,and empower each other, they will trust each other regardless rich or poor.
??? The Swedish/Swedes are one of the countries with a "universal welfare state".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Having people "volunteer for government" does not create jobs, and does not solve the problems the unemployed encounter unless the US were to instate a similar welfare state.
US is the bully of the world. The U.S. Government and its large corporations in war crimes, fraud, corruption, the exploitation of the third world, bullying, and diplomatic manipulation, that is lying to the public and other shady dealings.
Yes most people in Sweden seem quite happy with their system of government. I do wish that they were not a big arms dealer though.
Probably more than I trust the rich to protect the interest of the people.
You want a plan to provide jobs???? ok... i got one for you. see ---> http://mosheh.org/people-and-jobs.html
Summary:
1) I do not propose a socialist style system, where the government provides good jobs for all... NO.... I propose to allow the government to provide 'basic' labor jobs for any American who needs one to survive, and to provide real assistance programs, such as housing, training and easy job interviewing, so that those who find themselves in this government program can have REAL HOPE of finding something BETTER in the free market, and PRESSURE those Americans to do so.
2) The laid off workers from the Free Market, would be allowed the same limited un-employment insurance as it exists today, except instead of free money, they would be required to work for it, and PRESSURED and helped in their search for BETTER employment in the Free Market, and if their un-employment benefits run out, they can still gain minimum wage work, from those same E.D.D. programs described.
3) To make this function properly, the Federal government under my leadership, would develop my New Deal for 2012 policies of economic expansion with national and local projects of great value, such as large scale river diversion, infrastructure improvement, energy development, mining and resource management, and technological R & D. So as to provide a consistent need for trained, and skilled laborers to accomplish these long term goals for our nation, thus maintaining that these E.D.D. programs be as small as possible, and mainly serving the poorest of the poor, to prevent them from failing into the gutter as homeless people.
(A longer description)
Benefits for the People as JOBS : As our current economic crisis shows clearly, the most major factor which can depress our economy, is first of all, a lack of jobs, and with it a serious drop in consumer confidence, and consumer spending, which directly results in a further depression of the economy. And what we need, is a security system, which keeps people employed, without creating a socialist state, or damaging the ability of the free market to find and hire employees, and most importantly, we must be able to end, what has become a welfare state.
Proposals for the people as Jobs : a) Anyone who has ever been laid off, is familiar with the E.D.D. the Employment Development Department, and they would also know how very limited is its ability to actually develop employment, and how little resources are provided for that function, and more often than not, it is used simply as a cash cow source of free money, and the people are left to fend for themselves in their employment seeking effort, and I would propose that we improve upon this. b) These improvements would come by re-organizing the E.D.D. to truly fulfill its goals of Employment Development, by adhering to the following actions,...
1) All American citizens (Not work permit aliens, or illegal aliens.) should be provided the social guarantee of employment, or the equivalent of, through the assistance of the E.D.D. programs, under all circumstances, as a benefit for being U.S. citizens. In this way, mothers, who may presently feel compelled to kill their un-born children via abortion, can have a serious option, in the form of detailed assistance in housing, employment, training, and life development, so as to allow them to keep their babies instead of killing them for economic reasons.
2) However, unlike today, since the E.D.D. will be providing the money (just as it does now), such as 50% of a citizens previous salary, those citizens, should be forced to actually go to a local E.D.D. work center, for no less than 20 hours a week, being 50% of a normal work week. And if they do not, then they get no money.
3) And there they shall spend 10 hrs/ week being put to work, by the E.D.D, to do various functions, there or through out the city, and are provided the assistance in resume writing, and with it, must engage for 10 hrs/ week in the effort of a job search using improved and fully expanded job search functions, incorporating all sources of employment advertising, at, the E.D.D. As it is well known, the rate at which a person can find a job, is directly proportional to the amount of effort applied in doing so, and as such, it should be required, and made easy for them to do so. As any American can tell you, finding a job, can be one of the most stressful and disappointing things to do in our free society, and the purpose of the E.D.D. should be to make it as easy as possible.
4) The assistance program could include the offering of temporary work programs for local businesses, where by businesses can contract with the E.D.D, to hire temporary workers, with limited liability and no demands to hire them as permanent workers, allowing them to pick and choose those they would like to offer full time permanent work unto, based on performance, and still allowing the worker the security of E.D.D. assistance guarantees, if it does not work out. However such programs would come with limits and restrictions, to prevent abuse by the business sector from dumping workers without cause, or avoiding the costs of full time workers, as such abuse would further degrade the free market employment effort of the E.D.D. Also, local E.D.D. offices could easily furnish the space to allow businesses, via schedules, the means to interview large numbers of applicants, all from the same location, and possibly on the same day, relieving the challenge in human resources development. This would also reduce the burden on workers, in having to travel to 100 different locations to go on 100 different interviews, which is honestly, the most difficult part of looking for a job..
5) The E.D.D. via the Federal government, could also provide zero interest loans, for training programs to re-train workers, into fields of personal interest to the worker, allowing for the expansion of their work potential, and allowing those citizens, to train either at the E.D.D, or from public and private schools, during the day, and fulfill their work obligation to the E.D.D. during off hours, as the E.D.D. could be operated 24 hours a day, to fit the schedules of all American citizens.
6) And perhaps most importantly, the E.D.D. could and should provide a large scale assistant program, to provide adequate schooling and day care functions, allowing the abundance of single mothers and fathers, and those present Welfare recipients, to be put to work, trained, educated, and or otherwise made to become a benefit to society, instead of a drain. It does little good to provide food stamps and welfare money to a single mother of three children, as such only locks her and her children into poverty, and they would be better served by training, and employment development services which can truly make a difference in their lives, and the only way it can be done is if it is mandatory, by a new fully functional E.D.D. 7) If we are to have an income tax in this nation, then it should be used to provide the security of income for the people, via the provision of work and transition programs to keep people working, find them better work, and facilitate training, all of which serves the best interest of the entire free market, because without trained workers, and the ease in finding them, the business sector suffers, and growth potential is slowed. Each of us, is in danger of un-employment, as even a rich man, can find himself with nothing, and if that man be forced to pay an income tax, he must be offered some form of benefit in return, and it should be something more than a bloated fat government.
Some would say this is un-fair, but the truth is, you are all paying income taxes now, and I suggest that some of that money should be used to provide the means to prevent the economic landslide we are suffering here in 2009 with the loss of work, and the loss of consumer confidence and consumer spending.
We must keep people working, and provide the support structure to uphold the economy. And the back bone of our economy has always been JOBS!
My proposed New Deal for 2012, economic policies, would make it possible to provide this Job Security, and yet also greatly lower taxation.
-Mosheh Thezion
"18. Which comes closer to your own view? 1) The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means it has to borrow the money to do so, OR 2) The federal government should not spend money to create jobs and should instead focus on lowering the country’s debt."
6/24-28/11
Gov’t should spend money - 42%
Gov’t should not spend money - 52%
Don't know/no answer - 6%
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/03/evidence-of-lack-of-trust.html
As you describe it another practical problem is that even if we did have enough "large-scale projects" to create enough jobs, they would probably be not in the same places as the unemployed.
Education is not a problem. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/occupational-hazards/
Create jobs and it isn't a problem. TANF basically proved this to be true with many success stories... until the economy crashed again.
Vote for work conservation to fix unemployment: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
eh... Was that an Argument??? or ... agreement????? Because as far as I can tell... we agree... and what we need is a real leader to take power... to get it done. I say... When times are hard... the government spends money to keep people employed...
when times are good... the government trys hard to train and move all people into private sector jobs.....
The governments role... then... over the long term.. is to pressure the markets to maintain a workers market... a demand for workers...
And the government.. to do this... will need large scale massive projects in each city... to drive this effort... over centuries.. following deliberate market goals... of expansion... expansion.. expansion... into the seas... into space... and across the stars.. literally... as there is no other goal... expansion is a must.. and if we do not... then we die here...
While people feel that unemployment is an important concern, and a majority even agrees that higher spending and taxes will lead to economic growth, people do not want the government to spend more. They want to to spend less and spend "efficiently".
In other words, they do not see a need for large scale projects. "Work for the sake of work" does not have the same attraction.
again... what are you saying..????. YOU ARE NOT ARGUING... you are singing the republican line.... not arguing....
I propose an new form of economics... which would be greatly profitable to Republican interests... while also... providing true job security for all the people...
The reason... REASON... they do not want the government to spend more is because today... TODAY... it is done with debt.... But..
but... I propose a new system... a debt free system... so we can spend debt free... as long as we spend on real world projects of worth... and worth... MEANS EXPANSION. Thus far... you are not arguing... YOU.. are making my point.
Either the government prints money to support these new programs, or it raises taxes. Both of these are highly unpopular given the amount of money the government is already spending.
These are facts, not opinions.
Now, it might be possible to change opinions by making enough noise about the harmfulness of high unemployment or, failing that, actual civil unrest that endangers property interests of the rich and middle class. But so far OWS has not managed to change opinions in that way.
Thus, work conservation. http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
Which is why I propose to solve this problem of debt, and limits on currency production as tied to government expansion projects.... because right now... yes.. the government has the two options you said.... but... I offer a new third option....
see--- http://mosheh.org/Currency.html it would be a new money system.... to solve for this problem, free the people of the burden of endless debt, and allow our nation to fund any project it wants too within only confined limits.
i suggest you consider it... because my plans are based on changing monetary policy to end the debt.
It's a minor thing, but
Correct spelling is separation. Contrast "desperation".
I agree that the current system may 'unfairly' give certain banks profits (and "quantitative easing" was an even more explicit example I think).
But tying currency to the market value of any metal does not help, or really change anything except in the case that a government, or its currency, is in danger of imploding which the US government is not about to do. I think you underestimate the ease with which large-scale players in the financial markets could manipulate prices to earn a profit from this system at cost to everyone else who holds dollars.
Nothing preventing the companies/workers who mine these minerals from "overcharging" if the government has static demand. Maybe the mines would be of very poor quality ores, at 1/10th the mineral concentration required for normal commercial profitability, but the government would just pay 10 times normal to make up for this.
This concept of "paying people to do work of dubious value" is exactly the same as printing money to create jobs. The net effect is that some people gain valid currency which they can spend to purchase things made by other people who are doing legitimate work.
ok.. that would be valid... except.. i proposed a multi-metal value system... so that no major player on earth can devalue the currency... ever.. as even if gold became worthless... it would not effect the value of the new dollar. And the mines... I propose.. would be government run mines... period. run... to provide the promise of pay out... over time.. instead of buying anything from the free market... as that would not work. it is basically... semi-socialism.... limited.. to the purpose of monetary policy in benefit to the people by ending all debt systems.. ending the need for loans... and making the money real... in the long term. Real money... as treasury notes... based on so many metals, and payable to the highest valued one.. always... so the notes can never loose value no matter what happens in the market. The only game... The only game... big players could play... is to try... try... and raise the value before they try to cash in... and that would be prevented by a stability committee... would would impose price controls as needed to prevent any players in the private sector from robbing the world blind... by setting limits on the pay out of the treasury notes... both high and low.... so that our government retains its power to control the values, and set weights and scales... of those values... over time. Believe me.. I hear what your saying.. and I provide the safe guards to prevent the abuses... please... read it again.
Jobs will be created when we get rid of the neoliberal policies that allow some of our best jobs to be shipped overseas.
"Jobs will be created when we get rid of the neoliberal policies..." That is precisely correct. The off shoring/ outsourcing of jobs to "slave wage" countries is essentially the whole issue here. The result of this is a constant drain on the economy via a massive trade deficit, This is what Keynes described as "leakage". Working less hours will do nothing to address this issue.
Massive trade deficits eventually result in currency readjustments. :) And the US government blames the Chinese yuan being low as a major reason for the trade deficit.
Basically, if the Chinese want to keep lending us money at whatever interest rates we can afford (too high and we won't borrow money, and their exports will go down!) who are we to say no? As long as everyone can find work here in the US everything is fine. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it is a personal decision to go into debt and bankruptcy is always an option if someone borrows money to buy things and can't repay it.
We had a buffer which was the housing bubble brought on by corrupt banking practices. That unrealistic market is not going to come back any time soon, nor should we want it to, but that is what has dealyed our day of reckoning. Now the question is, what jobs are going to be out there for these kids graduating universities? One good thing that has come out of this is, it is these young people who are driving this revolution, and from what i have seen, they are very determined.
Paul Krugman in 2002:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Work conservation would create jobs for recent graduates. Go vote on it.
I wonder, how was a housing bubble supposed to ramp up household spending since it effectively burdened people with more debt? I can see why easing refi requirements might do this to a small extent, but would a 'bubble' be necessary? I don't understand McCully's reasoning.
A housing bubble theoretically 'creates wealth' for people who have already purchased their houses.
This paper has a nice chart showing rising housing prices accompanied by higher home ownership, as people tried to get a house before prices rose further: http://www.epi.org/page/-/BriefingPaper292.pdf
Other parts of the same paper show how people used "equity financing" to take out loans for the portions of their mortgage they had already paid off.
This is why some people are not sympathetic to those who are "underwater" in their debts vs house value.
Suggesting that the government bailout/cancel/whatever debts is just a way for economists to suggest a wealth transfer from responsible people to irresponsible people, for the same reason that Machiavelli suggested being "mean" instead of "nice": it seems to work where more ethical methods do not.
Thanks. It still seems like flawed reasoning to me. Just like the concept of a debt-based economy seems flawed to me (an economics novice, by the way).
Interesting reference to Machiavelli. Unfortunately, too true. I'm a nice guy by nature, but it's a bit depressing to realize, in order to get any results in life, sometimes one has to act like a complete prick.
I totally agree. Like I said, it's just a way for economists to subtly encourage inflation and higher government spending in order to boost employment because of people who are unwilling to spend money to create jobs in normal times.
Remember the Great Depression lasted for something like a decade, and had even higher unemployment than what we have now... and there were still people who were convinced it was because the unemployed were "lazy". (For an explanation of why this is false, see here.)
Anyway the next thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-traitors-within-us/
Thanks for that insightful link (full of good info).
And thanks for the feedback. If OWS isn't interested in a 'war' against those who oppose helping the unemployed then revisiting the um, "microeconomic" approach might be best...
Many people are working extra just to keep their heads above water.
For example, http://motherjones.com/print/161491
(People with near-minimum wage jobs with forced overtime and frequent firings for not meeting performance targets)
The point is that working that hard is not necessary for the business to be profitable (since most corporations are extremely profitable right now): it's only due to competition for jobs from high unemployment. Individually, many people are not in a position to work less (or earn less), but through collective action it is possible to fix unemployment.
Just like a labor union, but at the national level. Vote: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
Thanks. It is definitely screwed up.
I hope your're right. I just hope they are able to see this issue clearly. The neoliberal tactic of labor arbitrage to the lowest paying paying countries has done more to undermine the status of working people than any other.
I hope I am right too. As i have mentioned in other posts, i have been involved in an OWS affinity group called Occupy Town Square. They have turned into one of the premier groups of this movement in NYC with the sole purpose of reaching out, and educating the main-stream. The amount of collaboation in NYC amongst the different groups in the metro area is incredible. Only recently they have been contacted by cities in this country, as well as cities in two other counties who want their help in emulating what they are doing. Since i live 65 miles south of NYC, and because I am twice as old as most of these bright, young, energetic people, my contributions are minimal. I do admire all of them so much.
They need a website.
I agree, and they are working on it. Now they only have a Facebook page. they are all very intelligent, determined young people who this old dude admires greatly.
Let us know when they get it up and running. I would like to check it out. Some of us don't do FB.
Yes, i am sorry that i opened my account only three months ago, and i will be closing it soon, especially since facebook's IPO was so screwed up. I will let you know when the web site is up, probably in the form of a threadn on here.
Did you know that when you sign up for a FB account, everything you put there becomes the property of FB, including photographs and private information? Also, when you supposedly 'cancel' your account, it never really goes away (they claim it's in case you later change your mind)? All of it stays on FB's servers forever.
Yes, unfortunately I learned that tto late. Oh well
Yeah, better late than never (usually). Be sure to alert other potential FaceBookers to your new-found knowledge. ;-)
It's funny (not really), but I put off going on facebook for a long time. then when I did go on it, a young lady who is in Occupy said that I should not go on it for the reasons you gave, and that she would share her fb page with me. She did not know, it was already too late, but only by a few hours. I respect her for trying to protect me greatly, and she is yet another one of the bright, wonderful people near the heart of this movement.
I'm going to hunt down that Chomsky book. It sounds like an interesting read. And, I did see your recent comments about e-mailing your local newspaper. More of us should do the same.
I'm not sure if I will be able to get any more letters to the editor in that paper, so choose wisely.
We seem to be working our way back up the thread!
Yes, I think you're correct. The populace has been put to sleep by the corp-owned media, among other things. A distracted, passive population is far less likely to revolt.
It's incredible how people have seemed to compute patriotism to compliance of a corrupt system, and their passivity is even more incredible. Chomsky wrote about this in one of his books, Media Control. Why would corporations want to buy up newspapers throughout the country considering how most of them are dying? I've blasted my local paper in an email for their lack of professionalism more than once.
Definitely (replying to below, of course). It amazes me how totally screwed up society has become in such a comparatively short time. Dysfunction reigns.
I think "dysfunction reigns" from a populace whose brain seems to have been put to sleep probably by the corp owned media. Up is down; black is white; and wrong is right.
(No reply button, below) You know, I almost made a post last week about FB's upcoming (at the time) IPO but decided against it since it was based only on my gut feeling, not any actual information. I was going to say something like, "anyone that buys shares in FB on Friday should sell at the opening bell on Monday morning." Turns out my intuition was correct this time.
I couldn't have predicted that, but i am a fairly good judge of character, but I also realize everyone has their failings including me. A word that I would like to hear more here is 'accountability.' Whatever comes out of this, we have to have people that are held accountable with clear consequences for breaking the public's trust.
I've been periodically telling people here about FB's terms of agreement. It's easy for random comments to get lost in the shuffle though.
I'll spread the word. Their IPO was just icing on the cake.
The counter-argument is here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/work-conservation-is-the-solution-to-the-global-re/
"The final alternative to working less is for communities to become more isolated and less open to world trade. Instead of buying the cheapest product that was manufactured overseas, people could be encouraged to buy from local producers either by choice or through raising trade barriers to make locally made products more competitive on price. Economists generally agree that this would lower the gross domestic product for a country and for the world, but on the other hand it would raise employment precisely because of the inefficiency that would result. The primary argument against doing this is that the same standard of living could be obtained by encouraging people to work less so that work, and jobs, are more evenly distributed in the population."
I do believe that we should consider new ways of thinking for the crisis we are in,. That would include protecting our economy in the short term at least from foreign competition, much in the same way that countries now protect industries that are deemed vital to their national interests. Some of the solutions will have to go far further than that, I realize, and they will come from the young, not me i know. I do not want to pontificate on the rest of your comment though, as I do not feel qualified to do so. I will keep it in mind though.
Another way of looking at it: during the Great Depression, countries did raise trade barriers.
But unemployment remained high. Just like with the recent crisis, the Great Depression was preceded by rising inequality and easy credit, with many people going into debt to support their spending. That is the only reason unemployment did not rise before the 1929 stock market crash, since the fundamental reasons for unemployment (productivity increases without the introduction of new products/services to keep everyone employed) had been steadily building up.
Solution: work conservation. Vote here~ http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
Yes there are a lot of similarities between the years before the Great Depression, and now. First would be the concentration of wealth, another would be deregulation, and the last one that I can think of is the corrupt financial system.
We also need to amend the constitution so corporations do not count as people and get the money out of politics, which creates a conflict of interests so corrosive it hinders the social mobility of most americans.
If the occupiers where more involved in politics, we would be able to elect representatives to push for raising taxes on the wealthy 1% who do not need that much capital to begin with. I hate to say it, but we need to take a page from the Tea Party on this one and actually vote.
OK, bring on the counterproductive distrustful of government rhetoric.
Do other countries with high unemployment, like most of Europe, also treat corporations like people/care about that? It's really a non-issue.
Money is in politics because of income/wealth inequality. Laws can do something to fix it, but if poor people don't vote there's not much that can be done.
But realistically the reason people don't vote is that neither party has an acceptable solution to unemployment. People simultaneously complain about unemployment and about big government (the same people do this), when economists do not have the imagination to find a solution that fixes both of these problems.
OWS has a plan for jobs, government jobs. Jobs like at the Post Office, jobs that defy email and ignore change. Jobs that are unionized government jobs, jobs that are impossible to be fired from and that have retirement packages unheard of among taxpayers that pay for them. Jobs that are entrenched where success is never measured or cared about, jobs that exist in government. Jobs in "green" energy that exist only because of subsidy as they make no economic sense. Jobs in government that make more rules for everyone else to live by, jobs that bring a leftist version of "fairness" via government force. That's OWS' jobs plan.
OWS does not widely support those policy suggestions precisely because they are politically unrealistic (majority of the population is opposed). A few fringe elements making those suggestions does not equate to universal endorsement.
I see union signs, specifically government union signs, routinely at their little rallies. The boards are full of support for government unions, "green" energy boondoggles, entrenched Post Office workers in email denial, students demanding yet more subsidy, those that think default is simply evidence of the bank's badness and justification for just keeping what you bought with the money, and those wanting more freebies. That sums it up pretty well.
OWS has many diverse elements.
As another poster said above,
"The movements do not try to tell people what to do - they tell of what is wrong in the world and educate on these issues - any consensus and action will come from The People."
Sure, what's"wrong". Not getting healthcare for free. Having to repay debt. Getting foreclosed on, rather than just getting the house gratis for non-payment. Getting too LITTLE subsidy for college at the expense of 3/4 of the of the population that didn't go to college. Not being able to simply walk away from student loan debt. Not being able to able run empty trucks at the Post Office. Yeah, a lot of complaining about what's "wrong".
68% of 2011 HS graduates started college. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
Despite that college tuition costs have been rising much faster than inflation.
Anyway. Healthcare, debt, mortgage payments etc. all depend on having a job. Thus the title of this thread.
Is that surprising that you need to do something productive to enjoy things that are produced like housing and healthcare? It shouldn't be.
True, many carry their educations past high school. In fact, the national average educational attainment is about 1 year past high school. That's why there's such an income (and poverty) gap created by immigration of no-skill people (like what we get from Mexico).
College tuition inflation has been caused by too much indiscriminate money being thrown at college. Like the housing bubble, there's a college bubble fueled by ready access to cheap financing and too little thought being given to going into debt. That's starting to change now and with it inflation will subside. Of course, the first reflex of OWS-types in response to debt levels not matching economic opportunity is to demand the right to default and more subsidy. The healthier outcome is to make better choices and watch the schools adapt to a new more lean environment.
Perhaps. But what does that have to do with job creation? Nothing, other than proving that "more education" is not the answer. And you haven't offered any realistic solutions either.
Solution? Grow up and take a little responsibility. You choose to borrow, you choose the school you attend, you choose what you study, you choose the house, you choose the mortgage, you choose the bank, and on and on. A solution? Quit bitching and trying to duck responsibility. These boards are full of the great dodge. The economy will improve as the excesses are sorted out.
You seem to be choosing to encourage people to support socialism by not being willing to adopt its alternative of work conservation.
The economy may eventually recover, though at this point even that is uncertain... unemployment may have gone down but mostly due to people dropping out of the work force. But socialism may happen anyway, either in the near future or later on (as efficiency increases and technological innovation further reduce the need for workers).
I compare someone with your attitude to, basically, an inanimate object. You allow other people to dictate your environment without trying to control it.
No, not in the least. Job sharing doesn't prevent socialism.
The economy will recover, if we let it. That requires flexibility and allowing markets to clear. When we try to prevent pain, we prolong the problems. For example, the government keeps trying to prop up failed home-"owners". It should allow inevitable restructurings to take place. Don't slow foreclosures, but rather allow them to move forward ASAP. Squatting slows the recovery.
If you define socialism as government welfare spending, it certainly does prevent it.
Or is your definition of socialism something else entirely?
Great post,you speak truth unto the un-hearing,un-showering filthy masses. Well put,thanks.
I agree that Occupy needs to do better at core messaging. I even think the movement needs to get involved politically. But I disagree with Occupy working with corporations, especially the ones that are part of the problem. You may want to elaborate on that part.
This movement is in trouble though. We have problems on multiple levels. But working with Wall Street companies is NOT the way to fix those problems.
Partly I said it to see what the responses would be. By "working with corporations" I simply meant working for corporations, and for the rich.
In a later post I elaborated on why some people might want to avoid doing this, such as that they feel it's 'dirty money'.
In that post though I didn't mention the structural unemployment that would result from work conservation, though I did emphasize it in previous arguments. For example, the financial industry would probably see a significant reduction in size.
Follow Krugman.
Read up on Richard Koo so's we understand the basic economics of systemic recessions.
Get clear on why Romney and the likes of House GOPers don't give a damn about the economy. They intend to tank the economy so they can get control. They are Cultmeisters.
Also...
How's about attacking Romney ???? There's plenty of reason to do it.
-- occupywallst dot org with /forum/mary-jo-kopechne-and-leola-anderson-rest-in-peace
I took your advice and looked up an article by Richard Koo, where I found the following:
The key difference between an ordinary recession and one that can produce a lost decade is that in the latter, a large portion of the private sector is actually minimizing debt instead of maximizing profits following the bursting of a nation wide asset price bubble.
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf
This reminded me of something I had just read by Paul Craig Roberts:
High-frequency trades now account for 70-80% of all equity trades. The result is major heartburn for traditional investors, who are leaving the equity market. They end up in Treasuries, because they are unsure of the solvency of banks who pay next to nothing for deposits, whereas 10-year Treasuries will pay about 2% nominal, which means, using the official Consumer Price Index, that they are losing 1% of their capital each year. Using John Williams’ (shadowstats.com) correct measure of inflation, they are losing far more. Still, the loss is about 2 percentage points less than being in a bank, and unlike banks, the Treasury can have the Federal Reserve print the money to pay off its bonds. Therefore, bond investment at least returns the nominal amount of the investment, even if its real value is much lower.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/06/05/collapse-at-hand/
Sounds like they are talking about the same thing. It's late now and I am ready to cash in for the night, but I will finish the Koo article tomorrow, and let you know what I think.
The full story with Koo starts with his book, "The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics."
Snappy title, that. Keynes and Friedman are worse. But it is quite readable with no prior econ and no math at all. "Profit maximization" translates to "doing normal business."
However, macroeconomics is a different side of the coin from monetary policy. Obviously they interact: in normal times the supply of money is used to fine tune rates of growth.
The economy today is a mess. The Bush Depression did almost as much damage as the 30-31-32 period under Hoover and Mellon. The crazy part is hearing Republicans trying to do the same damn things.
"Fallacy of Composition" is one key -- what works for one bank is poison when applied to all of them. Now we need to fill in lost demand, give the economy time to recover. The alternative is a downward spiral, a deflation of the 30-31-32 variety.
Republicans want to remove financial regulations, too. It's suicidal.
Paul Krugman focuses on explaining why we should spend more to create jobs.
For a solution, he advocates nothing more than a subset of "more government spending". Besides, OWS has not come out in strong support for more government spending; the lack of specific policy demands is a prominant feature of the movement.
For Romney, only something like 26% of registered voters think he says what he believes, instead of what people want, yet 46% of registered voters would vote for him (same number as Obama).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/19/us/politics/20120419_poll_docs.html
When MSM is forced to compare the driving skills of Ted Kennedy in 1969 with Mitt Romney in 1968 -- the deaths of Mary Jo Kopechne and Leola Anderson -- and the subsequent stories put out, don't expect the presidential election of 2012 to be at all close.
Obama-was-born-in-Kenya versus Romney-lied-about-a-priest-to-cover-up-killing-a-woman-accidentally.
How's that for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning
Romney & Co. set out to slander the dead priest.
They knew better.
What they did not know was that we have access to the image that depicts both cars sitting side by side after the accident.
For want of a nail....
Many people already think he does not speak honestly yet are still willing to vote for him.
Q37. Do you think Mitt Romney says what he believes most of the time, or does he say what he thinks people want to hear?
4/13-17/12* [registered voters only]
What he believes 27
What people want to hear 62
Q27. Do you think Barack Obama says what he believes most of the time, or does he say what he thinks people want to hear?
Says what he believes 46
Says what people want 51
Q19. If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, and Mitt Romney, the Republican, would you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Obama 46
Romney 46
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/19/us/politics/20120419_poll_docs.html
Reality matters as much as perception of reality. It is a stubborn thing.
Mary Jo Kopechne.
Leola Anderson.
Rest in peace.
The Evil, not so much.
ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
why do you incessantly inject yourself into threads where you weren't invited, matthew? see how irritating that is?
Plus, that ad hominem has to do with unjustified attacks on a person's character.
Romney & Co. slander Monseigneur Albert Marie repeatedly as a drunk and a reckless driver, who had killed Mrs. Anderson and was likely prosecuted for it.
They are the liars.
There are plans for jobs consistent with some of the ideals of OWS. But that's hard to say, because it is such a diverse group.
One of them is NAWAPA, the North American Water and Power Alliance. Half of the fresh water in the US comes from Alaska, and NAWAPA would be the biggest aqueduct system in history, that would bring that water to the central American desert.
It's construction would create around 6 million well paying jobs right off. In the long term, it would result in the development of agriculture in those areas, plus a lot of manufacturing would be required as well as public works building projects.
From the agriculture, towns and cities would grow, needing all kinds of products and services.
If there is no economic reason (profit) to do it, the only reason would be to "create jobs" and it sounds very expensive.
The title might be a little misleading, because I am aware that the reason OWS doesn't have a plan for jobs is the same that, say the Democrats and Obama don't have a real plan for jobs (the 'mini-jobs plan' of last September would have created what, 1 million jobs tops?): overall, the public is opposed to spending more tax money (or future generations' tax money, or even just printing more money) to create jobs, and the only realistic way to create jobs without more government spending is work conservation, based on the idea that profit captured by brands is value that could theoretically be obtained from cheaper generic products. See Apple's $34 billion profits that it stored in tax havens, because people are willing to accept high prices for its brands.
There is profit in this sort of project, in fact it is real profit as opposed to the fake profit of Wall Street today. Physical infrastructure is the real value of a country, its what our currency should really be based on.
Don't you think that there is profit in agriculture and building cities from the ground up?
The US already has plenty of food. If that was not the case, maybe there would be more people supporting the transport of water to deserts.
The government is not supposed to spend in a way that gives money to Wall Street. The bank bailout has a bad reputation but it was a loan, and there were no mechanisms in place to let big banks fail. (This could be different in the future but the Republican party seems to be trying to prevent it.)
So Wall Street's profits are from private spending on financial products (such as bad investments and people who think they're smarter than they really are). You describe a large amount of spending financed by the government, when the deficit is already $800 billion per year.
Some people (like Paul Krugman, mentioned by OccNoVi above) think deficits/debts aren't a problem, but society has made it clear that it disagrees.
Personally I think that it's inelegant for pennies to cost more to manufacture than they're worth.
America has a growing water problem, much of our water comes from underground reserves and is running out. How do you think we should replace that water?
You say that Americans disagree about government spending, but when most Americans hear about this project and understand it, they support it.
We have a deficit because we have lost our productive capacity in America, our manufacturing base, and this project would help us to rebuild that.
We would have to manufacture a lot of equipment for infrastructure development. This sort of equipment is in demand around the world and once we have provided for ourselves, we could fill that need world wide.
And the water problem will only get worse if fracking is used as a short-term "solution" to the US's energy problems, which is a suggestion which seems to be getting more discussion than the one you mention.
NAWAPA, the aqueduct project, would help to solve both the water problem and some of the energy problem, since it would involve building a lot of hydro-power plants. It would also require the building of numerous nuclear plants.
Much of the hydroelectric capacity of the US's geography has already been exploited, and hydroelectric has environmental considerations as well.
Since you mention nuclear plants, it would need to be considered whether piping water from Alaska is more economical than simple desalinization. Water is not worth nearly as much as fossil fuels.
"Start an expensive, wasteful project just because it creates jobs" will not gain popular support, judging from existing polls about government spending and job creation (and taxes).
There is still a vast capacity for hyrdo-power available in Alaska and British Colombia.
I believe the positive environmental considerations would out weigh the negative. After water would be used in the central desert, it would evaporate and be distributed all throughout the US as rainfall, helping wild and agricultural ecosystems to grow throughout our country.
If you are dying from thirst or crops are dying from lack of water, I believe the value of water would increase substantially in relationship to fossil fuel.
Good leaders do not "follow" polls, they lead.
When FDR electrified the Tennessee valley region was it because he needed to? Those people had lived there before, so in a sense they didn't "need" electricity. Once it was done, however, it sure did improve their economy.
This sort of project is not about spending as in the sense of consumption, it is about investing for the purpose of generating a return. When JFK originally discussed NAWAPA, he described how it would pay itself off, "and then some" just like Hoover dam did.
This sort of project would not raise tax rates, but would increase the amount of taxable income. People and companies would earn more money without being taxed at higher rates. But since there would be more economic activity to be taxed, the government would receive more revenue.
First, Glass Steagall would have to be passed to eliminate all the phony debt/money that exists, and then a national bank would be created to finance these projects at low interest rates over many decades.
The Chinese have built large cities out of nowhere, like Chengdu, and plan to build more, and they have among the best economies in the world today.
Electricity has huge energy losses over hundreds of miles.
Even superconductors have an amp limit before they fail, so I doubt that would help either. Generally the problem would seem to be getting energy from areas from high sunlight to polar regions... but anyway the US uses much more power than can even be produced by dams in Alaska. I think this is a nice compilation of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
It says the world uses about 3 cubic mile of oil equivalent every year. The US uses about 25% of that so about 0.75 CMO/year.
If oil is about 1/3 of that, then the United States would need 50 dams the size of China's Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest, to produce the same power.
I doubt Alaska has 50 rivers the size of the Yangtze.
The main point of the project is not electricity, though that is a side benefit. The main point is the growth and expansion of civilization. Our problem is that we've lost our growth orientation.
We have to have imagination powerful enough for us to see that continental engineering projects like NAWAPA are what will allow us some day to engineer whole planets, like Mars, so that we can inhabit them.
For example, JFK's space program is said to have returned over $10 for every $1 invested in it, in terms of economic development. And that's not from harvesting any physical resource from the moon, but rather just from the science and technology that we got out of it.
Much if not most of what we call "high tech" today came from the space program.
Something like terraforming would consist mainly of two things:
1) energy input in the right form
2) replication, which almost certainly would be biological and not "robots building themselves".
Part of the problem might be that other than building dams, there are not a whole lot of major engineering projects worth doing, and the US already dammed most major rivers that could support it.
Sure, we could build a bridge across the Grand Canyon, or build super-pyramids, but why? If the project you mention is more economical than desalinization, and there is actually a need for more water in those regions, then hopefully the project will go through so that it is completed by the time it's needed.
There are other projects besides dams, in particular, a fast rail network is needed, running on an electrified, magnetic levitation system, like the ones in Shanghai or Tokyo. It should be a nation-wide system, not just a few lines.
You talk about needs, but you are not considering the need for growth. That is a particularly human need. We can't live in a steady state, because we consume fuel. We have to be always progressing to gain access to new and better supplies of fuel.
Not haphazard growth, like building pyramids, but expanding our life-support system. Creating "corridors of growth". For example, in the middle of the country their may be little to nothing. But a rail and a water line going there can be like a tree branch, from which many twigs and buds are going to grow.
This is the way that nature grows, we should mimic it.
I think many historians would agree with you. Didn't auto companies buy up and destroy railroad lines? haha.
Perhaps. But high-speed rail is not a perfect solution.
I hope you aren't referring to fossil fuels. In the long run, we will probably either depend on solar power or nuclear. Biofuels do not come close to being able to replace the amount of fuel even the US alone uses.
I think the Internet has reduced the theoretical need for high-speed (and high energy cost) transport. Businesses can just tele-conference instead of flying around the country. But the main thing that has impeded the development of high-speed rail is the ubiquity of automobile ownership and the US's high number of airports. If high-speed rail is cheaper than flying in terms of energy costs, and it probably is, it will become more popular as oil prices rise.
High-speed rail is not perfect, but no large scale industry is, many are prone to big accidents.
I agree about the long term, we'll probably need nuclear. I think high speed rail was impeded by an outright conspiracy of auto makers and the oil companies.
I don't want to work for the rich
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-occupy-movement-is-wrong-about-the-rich/
You shouldn't have to though. If jobs are available, people will take them.
The NEED act, HR 2990, is a solution for real job creation. I've been pushing it for a while. Help build support and try and get your congressmen to support the legislation.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we need to spend $2.2 trillion over the next five years just to make our domestic infrastructure safe. We have bridges collapsing in America and Americans who need jobs now. Austerity is counterproductive to our economic recovery and counterproductive to the development of our nation. There is a simple way to invest in our economy. We can invest in our infrastructure and put Americans back to work.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text
"Print money to create jobs". I don't even have a poll I can link to in order to show how few people support this idea.
(fixed link in OP, which shows how to create jobs without raising taxes/printing money)
Occupy points out major corruption in Wall Street, and Congress. We are too small to fight this corruption by our own muscle, but we are the spark that is already igniting the change that will.
It's true that most people have a poor opinion of Congress right now, at historical lows. And they feel that Wall Street is partially to blame for the recession (more so than Obama, and about the same as Bush).
But people still do not think that "blaming corporations" is the best course of action, see the (fixed) link in the first post. If OWS does not change its approach it is destined to fall into obscurity.
Vote for job creation on the99percentvotes.com
right, tax the upper money to fund government jobs
Quoting from the (fixed) link in the OP:
"A majority of the population is opposed to government spending to create jobs, and 64% would choose cutting government spending over raising taxes on corporations despite that only 4% think that corporations use savings from tax cuts to hire more workers."
That was from this poll.
Even if taxes were not raised, a majority of the population would prefer the government does not spend money to create jobs.
(There is the distracting argument that raising taxes and spending more would not lead to more jobs/higher growth, but the Congressional Budget Office says it would, so does the prestigious Moody's, and the majority of the population also thinks it would even if they don't want it to happen.)
Emilie Autumn-306
【GUMI】嘘とダイヤモンド【オリジナル曲PV付】
No it would not be more "effective".History proves that Wrong.OWS is a protest movement not a labor department.
The government has a way to create jobs, by spending money. There are lots of ways to do this, but the majority of people are categorically opposed to spending money to create jobs.
See also capitalism vs socialism, linked in the (fixed) link in the first post. Unless you support a concrete suggestion on how to reduce inequality without raising taxes, the government and most of the population will continue to see OWS as a "fringe" movement with no realistic demands that can be ignored.
The people are in favor of tax increases on the rich.are in favor of making corporations pay there fair share.Are in favor of reduced military spending..And let us remember walmart mcdonalds etc are not jobs.
Unfortunately, the overall desire to raise taxes on corporations is weaker than the desire for the government to reduce spending on things like $17,000 drip pans. And probably the reason they aren't more vocal about wanting higher taxes on the rich is that they want to avoid higher taxes on themselves (or want to feel like they have rich friends, or they just want the government to stop spending before raising taxes again).
Yet 1 million people applied for 50k McDonald's job openings last year, because those not-jobs at least let someone pay the bills or their rent.
They are not jobs and only contribute to the American decline.As far as 17 k drip pans what would tou expect when we spend 2 billion a copy for a plane.Cut defense by 75% and get corporations OUT of goverment.Do we really need 800 plus bases outside of the U.S.Fix our infrastructure some state roads in PA are on a third world level.
"Despite this perception of government inefficiency, no one should expect government agencies to cooperate in reducing their spending because any government employees who are laid off would have difficulty finding work in the current job market. Unemployment must go down before government spending does."
From http://occupywallst.org/forum/work-conservation-is-the-solution-to-the-global-re/
I find that most goverment agencies are very efficient.In fact a strong case could be made that they are made inefficient when A)Corporations want them privatized. B) They hinder A Corporations ability to plunder and pollute.It is common knowledge that corporate World seeks too privatise all public functions.A has never had any respect for people or the enviorment.
Oh, the point is that a competitor offers a similar drip pan for $2.5k, which it even makes for a different government helicoptor.
The other example that post gives is... (from the article)
"The Department of Energy paid the four scientists roughly $1.8 million for daily lodging and “inconvenience” during assignments away from home. But these scientists were paid as if they were on temporary duty for up to 14 years — long after most had permanently relocated to job sites. . . .
The report said that each of the employees’ formal contracts stated they were on one- or two-year assignments, but that “Princeton had extended the agreements annually without documenting the reasons for continuing the assignments or considering alternatives.” "
I think the large number of redundant intelligence agencies is another example of government inefficiency. I read a very long article on it... last year I think... but with something like that you can't really 'prove' it's inefficient so I won't bother looking it up.
They certainly do not pay like jobs.
Jobs are becoming obsolete due to changes in technology. If we start acknowledging this, then business leaders will have to as well. Then, we can figure out where to go from here.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/jobs-are-becoming-obsolete-due-to-advances-in-tech/
not true ,OWS does have a job plan or at least I do I also found there are other Occupiers running for congress here in Texas please go to employmentforthe99.com
So in summary, "create jobs by spending more money".
"government enacted public works projects and rebuilding of infrastructure"
"Employment farm subsidies" ...when the government already pays farmers to destroy food if they produce too much.
"Increased employment in social services and daycare for our children.Free day care."
Here is a poll that shows why none of those ideas will work:
"18. Which comes closer to your own view? 1) The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means it has to borrow the money to do so, OR 2) The federal government should not spend money to create jobs and should instead focus on lowering the country’s debt."
6/24-28/11
Gov’t should spend money - 42%
Gov’t should not spend money - 52%
Don't know/no answer - 6%
NYT/CBS opinion poll - NYTimes.com
You got a better solution pal in your hasty post to show that occupy Wall Street does not have a jobs plan I just showed you that we did have a jobs plan. You might not like it but it is what it is.
You cite one poll when we all know polls are a fraud and scam and people's opinions change all the time. So what is your point, do you have one?Or are you just here to troll
Ok, you're right. A few members of Occupy do have an unrealistic plan for jobs that polls show would not get enough support to be enacted.
Other polls show the same opinions. You can question whether the answers are interpretted correctly, but unless you have some other source of information on people's opinions there is not much to rest an argument on. Polls say most people have a negative opinion of Congress right now; but maybe those polls are wrong as you say and people actually love Congress and corporations.
So what is your point, do you have one?Or are you just here to troll
So, we cooperate and have the rest of our rights taken away for naught? Pray tell, what would be the first mode of cooperation within this already insane corporate regime? Give up our identity, our religious beliefs, customs, clean way of living for greed?....did that! Give up our houses and property?....did that! Give up our farms and forget about healthy food?...did that! Give up our family doctors, health care professionals, mostly women, who helped even those who could not pay at one time?......did that! Give up our children to a corporate school system that would immasculate our boys, turn them into animals and make our girls slave to smut and societies deviant behavior to feed corporate America's greed?,,,,,did that too!! So, what is left for us to cooperate with? The drug industry?...Me thinks the country is still cooperating with that!!! Besides, I don't see any corporate industry that really cares about the needs of the people....if they exist, I wish someone would name them and point me in their direction. This post is bull shyt in its purest form!!
Try reading the thread hyperlinked from the word "cooperate".
In this case, it means to "sell the rich products/services at a high price".
The page (link) is unavailable. Besides I do believe cooperation is the last thing this regime is asking for. It is going to demand it, as it did with the founding of this country. Don't you get it? All freedoms are null and void, all anarchists will be imprisoned, detained or murdered. What makes you think this government of corporate entities is any different than any other across the globe? It already has the right to strip the Constitution out from under everyone's feet with the passing of the Patriot Act and the pretense of voting privileges (requiring passage by vote) on a yearly basis. I am very much afraid of the fact that most of you have missed the boat...and are about to get run over by the Steamers.....Literally!!! Get the lead out.....this government is not bullshytin!!!
Fixed link. Thanks!
(Forgot the 'http://'... for anyone who doesn't know how to do links, see here)
If voting is pointless, why do people complain about money in politics and lobbying?
I never stated anything about voting being pointless! Show where I wrote that!
What I am saying is this... http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voting-rights-act-0
If voting is a Constitutional right, why is it being tampered with by different states and legislation in order for many to lose that right?
No idea.
But it would help if people actually had a way to vote that would lead to job creation, right?
No one is confident that either party can do that; Obama and the Democrats won in 2008 yet four years later, unemployment is still at 8%.
So people should vote here instead~ http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
I doubt the "rich" are going to have anything to sell after a few years unless they will be trading for FOOD!!! Hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the damn is slowly breaking apart, and all economic systems are about to be washed away my friends! Anyway paying attention to reality in Europe??? What goes on there, is double fold for here....Alpha and Omega...believe it or not!! Next!
OWS is calling for an end to political corruption, wall street corruption, official misconduct (in whatever form), more citizen participation in democracy, better relations among people, etc. Expecting a movement like this to produce some sort of monolithic economic thesis is a bit bizarre isn't it? I mean, OWS supporters do tend to have some ideas, which cross over into the economic realm. For instance, there's support for the idea that under more ideal conditions, workers would have an ownership stake in the places they work at ... and management would be participatory (and collaborative).
That's called owning "stock" in a company, and it's already possible.
I don't expect most people to write a monolithic economic thesis, but it makes sense to support one that has already been written.
I linked to it in the OP and will link it again: http://occupywallst.org/forum/work-conservation-is-the-solution-to-the-global-re/
If you think stock ownership = participatory economics, then before reading an economic thesis, I suggest reading some material on corporate law.
And there is good reason stockholders do not have direct control of corporations.
But there is nothing stopping OWS from creating new corporations where daily actions, such as how much debt to take on or how to invest profits that aren't immediately needed for new capital etc, are decided in a vote by workers. So this isn't really a "demand" or suggestion since it's already possible.
You're right, there are good reasons why corporate law is structured the way it is, but what I'm talking about is participatory economics. I'm not even saying that it would be effective in every application, but employee owned companies exist today (and in most cases they tend to outperform their conventional counterparts). But imagining that a protest movement could raise the capital, or for that matter find the talent that they would need to do this sort of thing themselves, is probably a stretch.
Because people (the media) would interpret as the problem having been "solved".
Work conservation, as linked in the first post, would solve inequality. There will (probably) always be ownership of capital resources in society, but as long as land doesn't somehow become a monopoly or oligopoly that society doesn't break up it should always be possible for a "rich" family to eventually become "poor" again.
In other words, the opportunity to be successful, and a guarantee of at least some job is all that some people want.
OWS seems to want something more: 'punishment' for the rich.
Speaking for myself, I like the fact that OWS has brought attention to extremely important issues, but I don't buy the idea that leadership is always a bad thing, or that it always implies some sort of master/slave relationship (or an affinity towards authoritarianism, etc.). I mean, saying that someone with rigorous academic training in whatever subject they purport to be an expert in, does not need to be interpreted as somehow devaluing those who lack rigorous training.
This might explain some of the underlying reasons for the "systemic corruption" you mention: http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-story-of-love-good-and-evil/
As for college, this site has some good posts on the subject:
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2010/06/15/the_scientist_shortage_its_a_d/
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2009/07/27/on_work_and_time_in_science/
This is an especially nice point that relates to work conservation:
"There is a perverse incentive to not be efficient. As Dr. Mom notes, given the scientific cultural imperative of appearing to work hard (even if one is playing Tetris), having to stay late because you screwed something up isn’t punished. In fact, it’s rewarded–you’re putting in long, albeit stupid, hours. This doesn’t help change the culture."
The takeaway is that that the US has three times as many science and engineering degrees as it has jobs for those fields, and it's widely thought that the reason that we accept many scientists from India and China is to keep costs for lab work down since there aren't enough 'real' jobs for people to advance beyond the post-doc lab-work phase of their careers.
I'm not sure where you get this information from, but the unemployment rate among scientists is remarkably low (implying there is a shortage of individuals with a scientific background).
January 27, 2011 Data released today by the National Science Foundation show the recent economic recession had less effect on doctoral degree holders in science, engineering and health (SEH) fields than it did on the general population.
According to a new NSF report, the unemployment rate in October 2008 for SEH doctorate recipients was 1.7 percent, whereas the unemployment rate for the total U.S. labor force was 6.6 percent . . .
Unemployment rates ranged from 1 percent among SEH doctorate recipients in mathematics and statistics to 2.4 percent for those in the physical sciences.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118467
Unemployment has always been lower for those with more education. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
This doesn't mean that people are working in the fields they studied for, or (with rising college costs) even that college was a good investment.
Malemployment rates for many fields have always been high and have become even higher with the recession: http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/05/21/many-college-graduates-have-always-been-malemployed/
29% of science majors aren't working in a science-related field.
But this was sort of a tangent from what you said anyway.~ I guess it was just random evidence that more education is not the solution to unemployment (unless via "employment of college professors and smaller workforce" but counterproductive if student debt is greater than wage increase...).
At least 29% of majors in the sciences are in subjects that aren't in high demand. I mean, if you look at specific areas, molecular biologists, physicists, mathematicians, computer engineers, etc., you'll find very little unemployment (these fields are pretty much at "full employment"). In other areas of science, there's less demand. Also, it obviously matters how you define the term scientist. If you look at people with a bachelors degree in a science (who didn't go onto grad school), then yes, you'll find a high percentage of people doing things like patent work, pharmaceutical sales, etc.
Did you read this post? http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2010/06/15/the_scientist_shortage_its_a_d/
. Earning a doctorate now consumes an average of about seven years. In many fields, up to five more years as a postdoc now constitute, in the words of Trevor Penning, who formerly headed postdoctoral programs at the University of Pennsylvania, the “terminal de facto credential” required for faculty-level posts. . . . Paid out of the grant, these highly skilled employees might earn $40,000 a year for 60 or more hours a week in the lab. A lucky few will eventually land faculty posts, but even most of those won’t get traditional permanent spots with the potential of tenure protection.
It does vary between fields, yes, but at the national level, as pointed out in the article, the US 'needs' science jobs more than it needs more science majors.
In short, you don't become a scientist to get rich (so narcissists need not apply) :)
Becoming a tenured professor did lead to comfortable, upper-middle-class existence.
The point of the article (the long one linked from the blog post) is it is no longer the case that getting a PhD (the highest educational attainment) will guarantee a good job like it used to.
But I admit that isn't that relevant from where this discussion branched off:
"I mean, saying that someone with rigorous academic training in whatever subject they purport to be an expert in, does not need to be interpreted as somehow devaluing those who lack rigorous training."
Nothing guarantees a good job like it used to :)
Exactly. They never want to start their own businesses with their own ideas, they simply want to invade someone else's already successful business.
What they want is already perfectly possible. But it doesn't happen because their ideas and capabilities are so weak, not because anyone is stopping them.
Well, "they" is probably not most of OWS :) The 'hope' is that by making a fuss, things will be fixed. As the first comment in this reply thread said, "Expecting a movement like this to produce some sort of monolithic economic thesis is a bit bizarre isn't it?"
That's why OWS has a reputation for not having specific policy demands. I am just wondering if people will realize that work conservation would basically fix all the problems they mention.
Now I just wish we would develop a simple core message that would embody all of the things we're about. There is no excuse as to why we have went this long without that. Its critical because a core message to easily tell people what we stand for and what we're fighting for brings more people on board to the movement.
But I agree with your post.
I think a practical suggestion to fix the movement's concerns would be better.
There was, for example, the GlobalMay statement which occupywallst.org linked to, but the closest thing it had to a suggestion to fix the economy was "guaranteed basic income".
politics is money 3.7 trillion dollars a year
[Removed]
This is what the OWS think about when it comes to a plan for jobs or for that matter the betterment of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
OWS also doesn't seem much concerned that America has become a POLICE STATE
I mean, OWS is the only movement I can think of right now who's directly challenging the strand of authoritarianism, which has emerged in our society; so I'm not sure what you're basing this opinion on?
On their emphasis on wall street, student loans, income disparity. I am far more concerned about the erosion of our liberties and the growing (fire) power of police. I mean, every podunk town has a swat team that has the same toys as a Special Forces Unit. Cameras on every corner, NSA taps on most phone calls, swat teams deployed to serve warrants, civil asset forteture, NDAA, Patriot Act, and the list goes on. OWS seems more focused on "I want my share".
I mean, isn't it OWS protesters who are getting the shit kicked out them on an almost daily basis by the police state you're talking about? I get it, you're obviously a Ron Paul guy (not sure what gave it away :)), and I guess it's true, while OWS "obviously" cares about (and I'd say aggressively speaks against) everything you mentioned, they also care about all the other ills in our society (and they realize that private power can be just as destructive as government power).
Speaking for myself, my conclusions taken from observation is that it's all interlinked. Authoritarianism exists for at least partly the same reasons poverty exists, human thinking is trained to tolerate this shit (it sort of accepts the existence of these things as a foregone conclusion). Humans tend to accept power relationships as a foregone conclusion, and so authoritarianism is not a surprising result.
Most people are more concerned about jobs and the economy. 22% say economy is the most important, 26% jobs. "The US is becoming a police state" is not even 1% of responses in polls.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/19/us/politics/20120419_poll_docs.html
[Removed]
[Removed]