PDA

View Full Version : More Irony At OWS



NJCardFan
10-11-2011, 03:42 AM
Again, am I the only one seeing the irony in how these idiots are recording and texting what's going on on their corporate made cell phones? And if they're so poor, how can they pay for a cell phone?

txradioguy
10-11-2011, 03:44 AM
Again, am I the only one seeing the irony in how these idiots are recording and texting what's going on on their corporate made cell phones? And if they're so poor, how can they pay for a cell phone?

Just goes to show that these idiots don't really know what they're protesting about...they were just told to show up and they have.

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 06:19 AM
Again, am I the only one seeing the irony in how these idiots are recording and texting what's going on on their corporate made cell phones? And if they're so poor, how can they pay for a cell phone?

Keep these original points coming from that big ol brain of yours.

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 06:29 AM
You have problems with how labor is used and wealth is appropriated? You don't like big money influence in the political spectrum? You find corporate-owned media to be one-sided and disinformative? You think our current economic/social/political systems are unsustainable? You want universal healthcare? You think campaign finance laws need to be reformed? You want labor to have a greater say in the economic sphere? You don't support wars? You don't like that our wealth distribution more closely matches those of developing nations than it does with other advanced western nations?

Well guess what?













You own a cell phone! booya.
http://i.imgur.com/FPbow.gif

Rockntractor
10-11-2011, 07:34 AM
Keep these original points coming from that big ol brain of yours.

You have never had an original thought hive boy.

txradioguy
10-11-2011, 07:43 AM
You have never had an original thought hive boy.

That's about the only thing Wee Wee can reply with given the fact the spoiled little trust fund kids that comprise OWS make any other thing he could possible come up with instantly hypocritical.

NJCardFan
10-11-2011, 11:41 AM
Keep these original points coming from that big ol brain of yours.

Instead of coming off as the tool you are, explain this to me you idiot. How can "poor" people afford things like cell phones. Can you explain that? Of course you can't.

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 01:01 PM
Instead of coming off as the tool you are, explain this to me you idiot. How can "poor" people afford things like cell phones. Can you explain that? Of course you can't.

1. Not everyone is claiming to be poor, this is a strawman.

2. You can be poor and have a cellphone. You can be homeless and have a cell phone. Phone companies give phones away for free or for low cost with contracts. Even pay-as-you-go phones like Cricket sell phones for under $40 (or free) with service around the same amount per month. If you are homeless or home-insecure (living out of your car or motels), cell phones are the cheapest option possible for having a line of communication. Having some kind of phone is often required for people trying to get jobs, so it's not unusual. You can't exactly receive calls for interviews if you don't invest in a cheap cellphone.

A homeless family may not be able to afford $1,200 a month for rent (especially when you consider that most rental homes require proof of income that is a few times more than the monthly rent amount to get approved), but that doesn't mean they can't afford $50 a month for communication.

In fact, people in 3rd world countries are getting cell phones at an ever-increasing rate, they are extremely cheap to produce.

This cell phone argument is a strawman.

But back to point #1:

Not everyone there is claiming to be poor. A good number of the people at those protests are middle class, but that doesn't mean that they can't have opinions about the working or poor classes.

Just because someone has a job, has some money, has nice things, doesn't mean they aren't allowed to question the economic/power structure. Another strawman.

Believe it or not, some people actually care about others, so even if they are doing okay, they still want social justice for their fellow Americans.

AmPat
10-11-2011, 01:43 PM
Believe it or not, some people actually care about others, so even if they are doing okay, they still want social justice for their fellow Americans." social justice" is guaranteed in the Constitution. You have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Nobody said life was fair. Nobody guaranteed a job, health, HEALTH CARE, happiness, reefer, free cell phones, etc. Take your social "justice" and shove it in your Marxist hole.

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 01:56 PM
Protesting, asking tough questions, criticizing the status quo, challenging the leading power structure, these are all part of that pursuit.

Nubs
10-11-2011, 02:14 PM
Protesting, asking tough questions, criticizing the status quo, challenging the leading power structure, these are all part of that pursuit.

So a tough question -- As an employee, is you paycheck derived from a portion of the production or the sale of a product or service?

NJCardFan
10-11-2011, 02:15 PM
Protesting, asking tough questions, criticizing the status quo, challenging the leading power structure, these are all part of that pursuit.
No it isn't. They want the U.S. to devolve into a socialist shithole like Venezuela or any other socialist country. They are too lazy to actually work a living so they want a government model that strips away from the achievers and gives it to their collective lazy asses. Socialism has never, ever risen anyone up, however, it has lowered people. This is what you people want. There is no want to improve under socialism. No want to better yourself because no matter how hard you work, you will never be able to achieve any goals because you will get the same as people like you. People who sit on their asses and do nothing. Oh, and do me a favor. Look at all the signs at a Tea Party rally. Find me the one's advocating a political party. You won't find it. However, in these so called protests you will see a bevy of Socialist Workers Party and Communist Party of America signs. No, these idiots know that the average American would never voluntarily abdicate to a socialist country so they are trying to do it by force. It isn't going to work.

NJCardFan
10-11-2011, 02:18 PM
1. Not everyone is claiming to be poor, this is a strawman.

2. You can be poor and have a cellphone. You can be homeless and have a cell phone. Phone companies give phones away for free or for low cost with contracts. Even pay-as-you-go phones like Cricket sell phones for under $40 (or free) with service around the same amount per month. If you are homeless or home-insecure (living out of your car or motels), cell phones are the cheapest option possible for having a line of communication. Having some kind of phone is often required for people trying to get jobs, so it's not unusual. You can't exactly receive calls for interviews if you don't invest in a cheap cellphone.

A homeless family may not be able to afford $1,200 a month for rent (especially when you consider that most rental homes require proof of income that is a few times more than the monthly rent amount to get approved), but that doesn't mean they can't afford $50 a month for communication.

In fact, people in 3rd world countries are getting cell phones at an ever-increasing rate, they are extremely cheap to produce.

This cell phone argument is a strawman.

But back to point #1:

Not everyone there is claiming to be poor. A good number of the people at those protests are middle class, but that doesn't mean that they can't have opinions about the working or poor classes.

Just because someone has a job, has some money, has nice things, doesn't mean they aren't allowed to question the economic/power structure. Another strawman.

Believe it or not, some people actually care about others, so even if they are doing okay, they still want social justice for their fellow Americans.

You are such an incredible idiot that it's really sad. It really is.

JB
10-11-2011, 03:05 PM
The local news outlet was covering Occupy Philly. The reporter says (paraphrased) "Occupy Philly is still going strong but the number of people thins out during the day when the protesters go to work. And then picks up again at night".

LMAO

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 03:46 PM
No it isn't. They want the U.S. to devolve into a socialist shithole like Venezuela or any other socialist country.

The people of Venezuela elected Chavez because their country was already a shithole and they wanted something different.

He has become entirely open about his socialist philosophy and has been reelected.

Different countries have different conditions. The government and country of Venuezuela which falls under the label of "socialist" is different from the government and country of certain European nations which some call "social democracies".

Lumping them all together is intellectual laziness at best, and intentional obfuscation or conflation at worst. It's a thought-terminating exercise which links anything roughly connected to social democracy to socialism, which links to communism, which links to Stalinism. It's just as intellectually lazy as calling any authority figure a "fascist", and it drains the word of it's actual meaning.


Increased social democracy in the US is VERY far away and different from State Socialism.


They are too lazy to actually warn a living so they want a government model that strips away from the achievers and gives it to their collective lazy asses.

That is not what this is about at all.


Socialism has never, ever risen anyone up, however, it has lowered people.

This is just not true. Socialistic policies in Europe have created greater social mobility, decreased poverty, provided robust benefits and social safety nets.

Offering free education through college for everyone absolutely rises people up, it gives more people the education needed to succeed in modern economies. Your assertion that socialistic policies can only ever be all bad is childishly simplistic.

I can critique capitalism all day, but I can also see that it's created massive amounts of wealth and risen many people out of poverty and given many people comfortable livings and so on.

Is your world so rigidly black and white that everything is 100% good or bad, 100% right or wrong, 100% good guys and bad guys? Hell even Disney movies have a little more depth than that.


This is what you people want. There is no want to improve under socialism. No want to better yourself because no matter how hard you work, you will never be able to achieve any goals because you will get the same as people like you.

Let me propose something, say we had a law that required every major company to split it's management/board of directors 50/50 - 50% chosen by shareholders and 50% chosen by workers. yes yes someone surely just shit their pants reading this but stay with me for a second if you can.

Doing that would certainty ensure that workers were treated better, compensated better, had better opportunities, ect.
This probably falls under your definition of "socialism", but it would certainty benefit working class people.

The labor movement in the United States made amazing strides forward, giving generations of working people standards they could believe in, like workplace safety, overtime compensation, child labor laws, ect. These movements were led by socialists.

Give some credit where credit is due.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-11-2011, 04:27 PM
" social justice" is guaranteed in the Constitution. You have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Its kinda funny how often these scholars of American history and ideals fuck that one up.

Odysseus
10-11-2011, 04:45 PM
Protesting, asking tough questions, criticizing the status quo, challenging the leading power structure, these are all part of that pursuit.
The only tough question for these idiots is "when is the last time that you showered?" Mindlessly attacking the status quo without knowing what you want to replace it with is simply adolescent destruction.

The people of Venezuela elected Chavez because their country was already a shithole and they wanted something different.

He has become entirely open about his socialist philosophy and has been reelected.
After "nationalizing" all media in the country and jailing the opposition leadership, he was "reelected", just as every dictator has been "reelected", often with 99.9% of the vote in their favor. Only an idiot would fall for that.


Different countries have different conditions. The government and country of Venuezuela which falls under the label of "socialist" is different from the government and country of certain European nations which some call "social democracies".

Lumping them all together is intellectual laziness at best, and intentional obfuscation or conflation at worst. It's a thought-terminating exercise which links anything roughly connected to social democracy to socialism, which links to communism, which links to Stalinism. It's just as intellectually lazy as calling any authority figure a "fascist", and it drains the word of it's actual meaning.

And yet, when asked to define the differences between socialism and communism, you floundered and offered an incoherent babble about how one might lead to the other. Ultimately, even you cannot clearly demonstrate what separates them, because nothing separates them. It's all cosmetic.


That is not what this is about at all.
No, that's pretty much what it is about. These are incoherent, ignorant protestors who are incapable of defining what they want, but are demanding that they get it now.


This is just not true. Socialistic policies in Europe have created greater social mobility, decreased poverty, provided robust benefits and social safety nets.
Right up until the governments run out of money and threaten to default, at which point somebody who isn't as far along on the road to serfdom has to bail them out. As Margaret Thatcher said, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.


Offering free education through college for everyone absolutely rises people up, it gives more people the education needed to succeed in modern economies. Your assertion that socialistic policies can only ever be all bad is childishly simplistic.
You want childishly simplistic? This is a perfect example. Free college degrees don't lift people up, they lower the value of the degree. What is the value of a college degree when everyone has one? Marketable job skills don't come exclusively through classrooms, and in the case of some majors, they are deliberately excluded. What is a women's studies major qualified to do except teach women's studies? How about a sociology major? By churning out degrees for which there is no demand, you make college degrees worthless and force students to pursue higher academic degrees just to maintain the same level of competitiveness that a bachelors degree offered just a few years ago. Meanwhile, a plumber, electrician or other tradesman has skills which are in demand and yet denigrated by our elites. Your simplistic college fetish flies in the face of the laws of supply and demand.


Let me propose something, say we had a law that required every major company to split it's management/board of directors 50/50 - 50% chosen by shareholders and 50% chosen by workers. yes yes someone surely just shit their pants reading this but stay with me for a second if you can.

Doing that would certainty ensure that workers were treated better, compensated better, had better opportunities, ect.
This probably falls under your definition of "socialism", but it would certainty benefit working class people.
But America does have companies that are owned by workers. The vast majority of stocks are owned by workers, through mutual funds, retirement accounts and other investment vehicles. Capitalism eventually generates so much wealth that all but those who deliberately reject its benefits end up participating in the distribution of wealth that you keep demanding. What we are seeing on Wall Street is what happens to those who do deliberately reject it, those who pursue studies in fields that nobody will ever need, who will not take responsibility for their own lives and livelyhoods and who eventually end up blaming everyone but themselves for their self-imposed failures.


The labor movement in the United States made amazing strides forward, giving generations of working people standards they could believe in, like workplace safety, overtime compensation, child labor laws, ect. These movements were led by socialists.

Give some credit where credit is due.
We've had this discussion before, and you lost. Socialism didn't provide workplace safety, technological advances did. Child labor laws came about because of the Great Depression and the need to restrict jobs to adults who were out of work. I could go on and on, but why bother? We both know that you won't learn anything from it.

NJCardFan
10-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Wee Wee is a microcosm of the braindead fools currently protesting the achievers. Anyone who believes that a ditch digger should make the same amount of money as a brain surgeon is a total moron. And here's something else I need to trot out for the wee wee's of the world and I know what I'm about to say is as cliched as all hell but it may be cliched but it's also true: Life Isn't Fair. Yep, it's really that simple. You want to be financially successful? Then do something that's marketable to society. As Ody says, there is no law that states that a college degree should equal success and to touch on that a tad more, say everyone had a degree. Where would we be then? Would everyone be employed? Nope. And in a world where everyone has college degrees, guess what? There is still going to be a need for ditch diggers, trash collectors, security guards, landscapers, etc. And guess what else? Unskilled laborers still shouldn't make the same amount as someone who has sacrified their time and money in order to be a brain surgeon.

DumbAss Tanker
10-11-2011, 06:16 PM
Protesting, asking tough questions, criticizing the status quo, challenging the leading power structure, these are all part of that pursuit.

As is questioning the independence, motives, integrity, and sincerity of said protestors.

AmPat
10-11-2011, 11:05 PM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Its kinda funny how often these scholars of American history and ideals fuck that one up.

Honest mistake Stinky Shoe. You got me. I can actually quote the preamble and the first paragraph to the declaration. Now that you are finished thumping your bird chest, care to comment on the content or are you satisfied to crow about technicalities?:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 11:41 PM
The only tough question for these idiots is "when is the last time that you showered?" Mindlessly attacking the status quo without knowing what you want to replace it with is simply adolescent destruction.

Right, hippies and such.



After "nationalizing" all media in the country and jailing the opposition leadership, he was "reelected", just as every dictator has been "reelected", often with 99.9% of the vote in their favor. Only an idiot would fall for that.

You're just making statements without facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006

Several non-veneuzuelan polls, including Americans polls, showed Chavez as the clear, predicted winner.





And yet, when asked to define the differences between socialism and communism, you floundered and offered an incoherent babble about how one might lead to the other. Ultimately, even you cannot clearly demonstrate what separates them, because nothing separates them. It's all cosmetic.

This would be a great discussion to have in it's own thread.





No, that's pretty much what it is about. These are incoherent, ignorant protestors who are incapable of defining what they want, but are demanding that they get it now.

There are many different people with different ideas, what's going on is a discussion, and that's precisely what's needed right now.

They are sounding the alarms, and inspiring a discussion about the current economic and power structure. Discussion is good.




Right up until the governments run out of money and threaten to default, at which point somebody who isn't as far along on the road to serfdom has to bail them out. As Margaret Thatcher said, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

Our own system is unsustainable. It's like in the roadrunner and coyote cartoons where the coyote runs off the cliff and remains suspended in the air for a while, until he looks down and realizes that there's no ground underneath him. That's where we are today.

You've mentioned before how places like Hong Kong, Sinapore, and mainland China are, in some ways, more "free" in their economic realm. It's easier for businesses to get started and regulations are simplier or thinner, creating a VERY pro-business environment. Unfortunately, this is matched with a non-democratic political system which suppresses political and civil freedoms. By doing this, they are able to respond to marketsquickly and effectively.

China, for example, was able to weather this economic storm because their political structure doesn't get locked up in partisan bickering or congressional deadlock. They simply make quick decisions based on experts and implement them quickly.

This is great for Capital, it keeps their financial system stable and growing, it prevents catastrophic market collapses, and the economic wheels keep on turning. This is true in Singapore and Hong Kong.

I am worried that as our system continues to devour itself alive, it will become more and more clear that State Capitalism (or Capitalism with Asian Values) as they have in these asian markets, is a more stable economic system.

If it turns out that representative democracy isn't necessary for capitalism to function, and that it actually functions better with less political freedom, then we will end up with less political freedom. The economy will win out, capital will do what it needs to survive, even at the expense of other values we might have.




You want childishly simplistic? This is a perfect example. Free college degrees don't lift people up, they lower the value of the degree. What is the value of a college degree when everyone has one?

First of all, universities are not trade schools, some people actually attend institutions of higher learning because they have a passion for learning, not just for a piece of paper that will give them a promotion.


Second, as modern economies become less focused on manufacturing and more focused on service, creativity, systems analysis, ect. you need more people with higher educations to get these jobs.

A more educated populace is better when your government is voted on by the people.


Marketable job skills don't come exclusively through classrooms, and in the case of some majors, they are deliberately excluded. What is a women's studies major qualified to do except teach women's studies? How about a sociology major? By churning out degrees for which there is no demand, you make college degrees worthless and force students to pursue higher academic degrees just to maintain the same level of competitiveness that a bachelors degree offered just a few years ago.

A hundred students getting sociology degrees doesn't decrease the value of an engineering degree one bit. It doesn't decrease the value of other sociology degrees either.

People with liberal arts degrees can become social servants, they can become educators, there's plenty of things.

Besides, not everyone with a college degree has to work directly in their field. Plenty ofpeople I went to college with used their degrees to get entry level jobs in an office environment, jobs which required a bachelors degree, and ended up specializing further after that.

Also, offering university education to everyone doesn't mean forcing everyone to go to college. It's just giving the option to people who want it.

If you don't value higher education and you don't want to get a specialized degree, then don't go, it's as simple as that.


Meanwhile, a plumber, electrician or other tradesman has skills which are in demand and yet denigrated by our elites. Your simplistic college fetish flies in the face of the laws of supply and demand.

Tradesmen, skilled labor, and even unskilled labor are all important parts of our society. We need all of these people doing what they do, there's nothing to denigrate.

In fact, I think plumbers, electricians, even janitors and dishwashers should be paid more, should be respected more, should have access to healthcare, should be able to move up should they want to.

I want a janitor to be able to live, afford a home, transportation, health care, education for his children, food, clothes, and even some vacation time. Janitors are important.

Our system is the system that denigrates low-skilled workers, with people brushing them off saying they failed in life therefore they should be punished with no benefits and low pay.





But America does have companies that are owned by workers.

Some, but mostly no.


The vast majority of stocks are owned by workers, through mutual funds, retirement accounts and other investment vehicles. Capitalism eventually generates so much wealth that all but those who deliberately reject its benefits end up participating in the distribution of wealth that you keep demanding. What we are seeing on Wall Street is what happens to those who do deliberately reject it, those who pursue studies in fields that nobody will ever need, who will not take responsibility for their own lives and livelyhoods and who eventually end up blaming everyone but themselves for their self-imposed failures.

This is just not true.

Financial Wealth Distribution
http://i.imgur.com/IVwyM.gif
Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.

Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004, 2007, & 2010).


http://i.imgur.com/32xYh.png
http://i.imgur.com/YvOqt.png


Rhetoric is nice, facts are better.


We've had this discussion before, and you lost. Socialism didn't provide workplace safety, technological advances did. Child labor laws came about because of the Great Depression and the need to restrict jobs to adults who were out of work. I could go on and on, but why bother? We both know that you won't learn anything from it.

Actually individual state bagan adopting child labor laws in the late 1800s, and the movement to end child labor really sparked up before the 1920's. Many laws were passed and the movement gained popularity before the Depression even hit.

Workplace safety and women's rights were issues before the depression as well. The famous Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, and associated labor protests occured decades before the depression.

Denying the influence of the labor movement in the US is ignoring history.

Wei Wu Wei
10-11-2011, 11:55 PM
Wee Wee is a microcosm of the braindead fools currently protesting the achievers. Anyone who believes that a ditch digger should make the same amount of money as a brain surgeon is a total moron.

No one is saying that. Are you having a discussion with me or are you just arguing with the voices in your head?


And here's something else I need to trot out for the wee wee's of the world and I know what I'm about to say is as cliched as all hell but it may be cliched but it's also true: Life Isn't Fair. Yep, it's really that simple.

Okay.


You want to be financially successful? Then do something that's marketable to society.

Something marketable? Let's think about that, pretty much every office needs people doing janitorial work, as such, cleaners are in very high demand. Janitorial work is very marketable being that it is necessary. These people aren't "financially successful" though.


As Ody says, there is no law that states that a college degree should equal success and to touch on that a tad more, say everyone had a degree. Where would we be then? Would everyone be employed? Nope.

I never implied that giving everyone access to university education would be a magic silver bullet that solves all of our problems. I didn't even suggest that everyone would have a degree.


And in a world where everyone has college degrees, guess what? There is still going to be a need for ditch diggers, trash collectors, security guards, landscapers, etc.

Absolutely, because these people and these jobs are important. Those are hard jobs that require a lot of hard work.


And guess what else? Unskilled laborers still shouldn't make the same amount as someone who has sacrified their time and money in order to be a brain surgeon.

That's fine, but they should not be treated as failures and they should have pay and benefits that reflect how much we need them.

You illustrated it perfectly, even if everyone had a college degree (not something I implied, but okay for the sake of discussion I'll go with it), we would still need people to dig ditches and collect trash and be security guards, because those jobs are important.

Those are necessary jobs which everyone else rely on being done. If someone does one of these important, necessary jobs, they should not be punished or ridiculed, and their children should have all of the basic opportunities that the child of a college educated professional has.

If a child's parents work a security guard and a maid, that isn't the child's fault and those parents are not failures, they are doing important work that is in demand, and they should be paid enough to support their family, afford a place to live, and that child should have the same access to college as any other.

Rockntractor
10-12-2011, 12:00 AM
Right, hippies and such.




You're just making statements without facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006

Several non-veneuzuelan polls, including Americans polls, showed Chavez as the clear, predicted winner.






This would be a great discussion to have in it's own thread.






There are many different people with different ideas, what's going on is a discussion, and that's precisely what's needed right now.

They are sounding the alarms, and inspiring a discussion about the current economic and power structure. Discussion is good.





Our own system is unsustainable. It's like in the roadrunner and coyote cartoons where the coyote runs off the cliff and remains suspended in the air for a while, until he looks down and realizes that there's no ground underneath him. That's where we are today.

You've mentioned before how places like Hong Kong, Sinapore, and mainland China are, in some ways, more "free" in their economic realm. It's easier for businesses to get started and regulations are simplier or thinner, creating a VERY pro-business environment. Unfortunately, this is matched with a non-democratic political system which suppresses political and civil freedoms. By doing this, they are able to respond to marketsquickly and effectively.

China, for example, was able to weather this economic storm because their political structure doesn't get locked up in partisan bickering or congressional deadlock. They simply make quick decisions based on experts and implement them quickly.

This is great for Capital, it keeps their financial system stable and growing, it prevents catastrophic market collapses, and the economic wheels keep on turning. This is true in Singapore and Hong Kong.

I am worried that as our system continues to devour itself alive, it will become more and more clear that State Capitalism (or Capitalism with Asian Values) as they have in these asian markets, is a more stable economic system.

If it turns out that representative democracy isn't necessary for capitalism to function, and that it actually functions better with less political freedom, then we will end up with less political freedom. The economy will win out, capital will do what it needs to survive, even at the expense of other values we might have.





First of all, universities are not trade schools, some people actually attend institutions of higher learning because they have a passion for learning, not just for a piece of paper that will give them a promotion.


Second, as modern economies become less focused on manufacturing and more focused on service, creativity, systems analysis, ect. you need more people with higher educations to get these jobs.

A more educated populace is better when your government is voted on by the people.



A hundred students getting sociology degrees doesn't decrease the value of an engineering degree one bit. It doesn't decrease the value of other sociology degrees either.

People with liberal arts degrees can become social servants, they can become educators, there's plenty of things.

Besides, not everyone with a college degree has to work directly in their field. Plenty ofpeople I went to college with used their degrees to get entry level jobs in an office environment, jobs which required a bachelors degree, and ended up specializing further after that.

Also, offering university education to everyone doesn't mean forcing everyone to go to college. It's just giving the option to people who want it.

If you don't value higher education and you don't want to get a specialized degree, then don't go, it's as simple as that.



Tradesmen, skilled labor, and even unskilled labor are all important parts of our society. We need all of these people doing what they do, there's nothing to denigrate.

In fact, I think plumbers, electricians, even janitors and dishwashers should be paid more, should be respected more, should have access to healthcare, should be able to move up should they want to.

I want a janitor to be able to live, afford a home, transportation, health care, education for his children, food, clothes, and even some vacation time. Janitors are important.

Our system is the system that denigrates low-skilled workers, with people brushing them off saying they failed in life therefore they should be punished with no benefits and low pay.






Some, but mostly no.



This is just not true.

Financial Wealth Distribution
http://i.imgur.com/IVwyM.gif
Total assets are defined as the sum of: (1) the gross value of owner-occupied housing; (2) other real estate owned by the household; (3) cash and demand deposits; (4) time and savings deposits, certificates of deposit, and money market accounts; (5) government bonds, corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and other financial securities; (6) the cash surrender value of life insurance plans; (7) the cash surrender value of pension plans, including IRAs, Keogh, and 401(k) plans; (8) corporate stock and mutual funds; (9) net equity in unincorporated businesses; and (10) equity in trust funds.

Total liabilities are the sum of: (1) mortgage debt; (2) consumer debt, including auto loans; and (3) other debt. From Wolff (2004, 2007, & 2010).


http://i.imgur.com/32xYh.png
http://i.imgur.com/YvOqt.png


Rhetoric is nice, facts are better.



Actually individual state bagan adopting child labor laws in the late 1800s, and the movement to end child labor really sparked up before the 1920's. Many laws were passed and the movement gained popularity before the Depression even hit.

Workplace safety and women's rights were issues before the depression as well. The famous Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, and associated labor protests occured decades before the depression.

Denying the influence of the labor movement in the US is ignoring history.

Where are your links for your data?

Rockntractor
10-12-2011, 12:05 AM
Where are your links Wei?

Wei Wu Wei
10-12-2011, 12:14 AM
Where are your links for your data?

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1235

Rockntractor
10-12-2011, 12:23 AM
http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1235

Hyman P. Minsky
Communist drivel

Wei Wu Wei
10-12-2011, 12:29 AM
Yes some man's name was on the side of that page, it's not related to this paper but you spotted a thing. I'm not familiar with minsky but he doesn't seem to be a communist. Anyway, do you have some critique of the research or the methods in the paper? or...what?

Rockntractor
10-12-2011, 12:59 AM
Yes some man's name was on the side of that page, it's not related to this paper but you spotted a thing. I'm not familiar with minsky but he doesn't seem to be a communist. Anyway, do you have some critique of the research or the methods in the paper? or...what?

It is like if we were discussing proper race relations and you sent me to Stormfront!