Wreck the economy because it only works for the billionaire class.
2y 8mon ago by lemm.ee/u/eee in workreform from i.imgur.com
MOD NOTE: BE NICE.
It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to insult or threaten other posters with violence.
Billionaires the original welfare queens.
What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.
It's not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We're practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we're threatening social fabric.
Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.
Fuck yea, love to see militant labor fighting for what they need
Even China knows this. Give the hard working people a better job than mom and dad had and they won't rebel.
The people who are rolling in their next billion have forgotten what happens when you take that away.
The UAW has always been pushing for Americans as a whole. Hats off to them.
Yeah, but Fain is the first democratically elected UAW leader (prior leadership was chosen by delegations and was fraught with racketeering and embezzlement) and it shows.
✊
Wasn't it that same episode where Rom basically says word for word that he doesn't support unions because one day he might own Quark's bar and then he'll be able to oppress people too? What a great show, some people dislike the ferengi episodes but they're some of my favorites in the series.
Who could dislike the Ferengi episodes??
People with the same mindset as Ferengi and who don't like to be called out for their shit.
Ikr? Some people hate 'em. They're really goofy and cartoonish so I guess I get it. Profit and Lace is pretty tough to watch. The Magnificent Ferengi is my personal favorite (Iggy Pop guest stars too, what a treat!) And I quote the Rules of Acquisition in real life somewhat regularly, heh
The first couple episodes Rom is a real dick pushing the shit downhill onto Nog but once he goes from basic greedy goblin to engineer savant the dynamic is great
Yeah the Ferengi were cartoonish evil space goblins at first and weren't very well received. They worked much better as comic relief when the writers toned them down.
Quark is also a great foil to the stiff backed Federation ideals that Sisko is always preaching. It’s nice to see life on the station outside of the rules of Starfleet, and the Ferengi episodes became some of my favorites cause it’s heartwarming in a way to see them try so hard, especially Nog. Toss up between Quarks and Ten Forward
No contest, Ten Forward doesn't have a Dabo table 🤣
And Quark never defended Roman Polanski.
I don't follow?
Jfc I never knew any of that. Yikes
Stop! BRUNT FCA!
I'd watch Wallace Shawn read a newspaper.
They're the best.
🖖
I vote for wrecking the rich's yachts. There's even a great capitalist reason to do it: the companies that build them might make new sales! Win-win!
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.
Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.
Not to mention the natural resources used for one person's benefit.
There's nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,...) being built. Don't let the flow of money confuse you.
the problem is actually how the rich keep buying the houses and making the prices increase for inorganic reason making people who really needs house cant afford it while at the same time the rich keep the house they bought empty
To be clear my comment was intended purely as satire. I definitely don't view the construction of yachts as positive in any way.
Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person.
And then they take the money they earn and they buy shit, directly helping other people
Nah, directly helping other ppl would be the person who bought the yacht instead spends their money on things that enrich their community/society/their workers.
Their workers
Like paying yacht staff?
No, like building public third spaces (that aren't built around consumerism), building free housing, paying off people's houses, paying for medical facilities, improvements to schools, public transit (or something like free mechanic services), paying off medical debt, taking care of homeless, etc.
Billionaires are the ones with the power to change the status quo and fix so many issues with society.
Look at what can be accomplished with just a portion of a single billionaires wealth in a single area (Mark Cuban with CostPlus). Billionaires have an ethical obligation to use their wealth for the food of humankind.
This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.
Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.
However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.
Money goes from the billionaires to the millionaires that owns the yacht companies 😅
The argument is sloppy.
The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.
If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.
The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.
Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.
“We were very wealthy,” says Errol Musk. “We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe.”
With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.
“And then there'd still be all these notes sticking out and we'd sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”
You are willfully ignorant.
You're an idiot if you thinks fucking safe holds any real amount of money, or that one South African semi-rich person counts as any sort of evidence.
Cash depreciates over time. No rich person keeps a ton of cash, because it means they get less rich every day.
Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, 1 disaster away from bankruptcy and absolute poverty. What the actual fuck are you taking about??
Yes, and a big part of that is that rather than get bank accounts, savings accounts, and any sort of money discipline, they fly blind and end up turning to terrible shit like payday loans.
See, one of us has actually worked to help change the spending habits of low-income people and the other person gets their information from memes.
Source- trust me bro!
That's a pretty cool story you've got going on in your head there lol. You're a fucking 🤡
Thanks for driving my point home about your memes-based-worldview.
But if you want a source, because you can't Google basic facts, then sure
https://www.gao.gov/blog/more-7-million-u.-s.-households-have-no-bank-account.-why
7 million out of 39 million living in poverty don't have bank accounts. Lol, that's your proof for your argument. And that's not including the working poor. Wow, I don't know what's scarier- the fact that you think this is proof that the PoOr aRe CoNdItiOned tO noT uSe bAnKs- If OnlY thEy'D oPen Savinzgs AcCoUnts, or that you think that you "got me" with that stat. Fucking 🤡
What I think is scary is that people born into immense privilege, like you, think you understand how the "working man" feels, but I console myself with the knowledge that you're not very important.
Lol, go console yourself you fucking retard
I guess if you push a useless mouth too far they have nothing left to do but punch down.
Yes. What a great victory for you. Go console yourself some more 😅
Your parents failed you.
Lol 9d old post. Trying to get the last word. You're a joke.
I was busy, and responded when I saw the notification.
Stop being such a nerd.
Underbanking is a problem, and so is underinvesting. Both are caused by profit motives because investors rather put in pay day loan services instead of grocery stores in historical redlined districts🤷
But sure, blame the habits of poor people.
Yeah, all those poor folks literally sleeping on cash under their mattresses because they don't have to spend it immediately on things like, you know... staying alive.
It boils down to poor people are poor because they don't invest, and rich people are rich because they invest 😂 nothing else matters!
He's talking like poor people can just put money into a savings account and make money lol. What a fucking out of touch clown
What internalizing articles from "the economist" does to a mfer.
Tell me you don't actually know any poor people without telling me you don't actually know any poor people.
Lol. Sure sure. Apparently I've been living poor incorrectly by immediately spending my money on things like food, shelter and childcare instead of hoarding it like some kind of Scrooge McDuck wannabe.
You think poor people have money they don't need to spend, so they just keep it stashed away in a shoebox or something? How out of touch are you?
This is an endemic problem with poor people, actually, because poor people are often conditioned not to "trust" banks.
You'd know that, if you knew them.
You must be right. I've never lived in and among poverty. Thank you for explaining my life to me. Is there anything else I didn't actually experience?
Tact and schooling, apparently.
Good to know you're keeping those gates safe. Keep up the good work!
You'll eventually matter if you stay in school and work hard
No foolin'!? Gee, thanks mister!
Eh I was being nice. Probably not.
Yeah, cause poor people and low income people are so much more rare to encounter during a day, then a millionaire/billionaire or people in top 5%..... /S
Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.
Damn, maybe poor people should just hire a full-time broker and give them the $20 they can spare this month and let that smart person invest it so they're not poor anymore 🤓
Being poor in the US is a literal trap. It is intentional. It is exploitation. The lack of financial education isn't the fault of poor people who grew up going to schools that could barely afford to run, and/or went to school hungry.
And once you're poor, it can be extremely difficult to escape, bc the system is designed to punish poor ppl. Poor ppl sit on cash bc if it's in a bank the money they need for food might get taken away bc of some bullshit overdraft fee or similar. I know bc I've been poor and know poor ppl.
Poor people aren't poor because they don't invest wisely enough. They're poor bc the system is designed in so many ways to keep it that way.
Also rICh pEoPle dOnT Sit ON tHeiR MoNey ThEY iNvEsT it
Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it "investing 🤓" or whatever. It's still hoarding, it's still immoral and detestable.
You sound like you're 17 and just started listening to Fox Business for financial advice.
Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it “investing 🤓” or whatever. It’s still hoarding, it’s still immoral and detestable.
This has no factual basis.
You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.
This has no factual basis.
Yes it does.
See I used as much logic in that response as u used in ur comment, so my answer is just as valid as yours. But since I used more logic in the comment you're replying to, my original point still stands. Try again, lil bro.
You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.
I do not give a flying fuck whether you were making fun of someone or trying to get a billionaire to see ur comment so they'd let u suck their dick, bootlicker. You're wrong.
Also billionaires can literally just use their stock value as cash, genius.
Why you simp for billionaires bruh. U ain't gonna become one.
You can't be this dumb 😂
The only one talking about vaults of cash is the comment i replied to 😂 what no reading comprehension does to a mfer, the "vaults of cash" is something he pulled out of his ass.
What i am saying is that he is dumb to think rich people are rich because they invest and poor people are poor because they don't invest.
Wow...The mask came off, huh... who else from what base is notorious for saying "Go back to (insert country here)" yeah.. the mask always comes off
Fucking right wing fascist apologists are worse than commies but that nuance may be lost on you due to brainwashed propaganda you have been consuming...
Go back to (insert country here)”
Lemmygrad is not a country.
Comprehension is hard, huh.. I'm sorry buddy
Lemmygrad got defederated, which is as big a "not welcome" sign as can be put up on Lemmy.
Communists should be shouted down everywhere because they do not exist in reality.
You're kidding right?
-
The yachts are probably insured
-
Just because they don't literally have millions sitting in a checking account doesn't mean they can't liquidate some of their investments and get it in short order.
Better yet, train orcas to attack yachts!
Buddy, youre not gonna believe this...
Gibraltar Orcas: "Way ahead of you there buddy"
Do a new Boston Tea Party except this time we launch barrels of tea at yachts.
I need a couple of their yachts to drag over some sturdy icebergs. Re-enact a much more expensive Titanic.
That's red hot commie stuff right there. I like it :)
Image Transcription:
X/Twitter post by user Teddy Ostrow TeddyOstrow reading '"In their economy, workers live paycheck to paycheck while the billionaires buy another yacht... So we're gonna wreck their economy cuz it only works for the billionaire class," says UAW prez Shawn Fain in Detroit.'
Attached is an image of UAW president Shawn Fain speaking passionately at a targeted strike rally against the Detroit Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis).
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
I like this Shawn. I really do. He's saying the words and doing the actions. Go Shawn! Go!
The more I hear about this guy, the more I like him.
Why not? Megacorps and billionaires wreck the economy all the time, and exploit it for their favor.
Why not let the poor and worker class wreck it for once.
Set the whole goddamn thing on fire, and throw the rich into it.
Workers of the world, unite!
Fucking legend. Hats off to him and the UAW
That is something I wonder about. Inflation makes the poor poorer but when asked, economists are like "trust us, inflation is good".
Hell yeah
hell yeah fuck the oligarchy
At this point I am all for a plan that will fuck me over but takes them down with me. Let's do this shit.
When you have no roof over your head and it rains, just make a tarp from the skin of a landlord.
Ill roll those dice.
Let's goooooo 🔨
Only problem with this is that this doesn’t even hurt the ultra rich - every catastrophe is just a new investment opportunity for them. E.g. after Brexit they just moved their money and businesses out of the UK, leaving the poor schlebs who live there to deal with it.
What are the odds this fella doesn't get CIA'd soon?
Burn everything down if that happens.
What's that? Given a fat pay check quietly and the next day he calls everybody back to work and increases Union dues
Oh look a bootlicker!
No, that's called a Biden, except for the last part.
Care to explain that one?
I've got no particular love for Biden beyond him being better than the alternative (although he's made some pretty strong pro-union moves lately). I just haven't heard of this stuff.
Biden has been collecting checks from and acting on behalf of corporations and executive side industry lobbies his entire career and strongarmed Congress into violating the rights of and defanging railway workers by passing a bill ending their strike.
although he's made some pretty strong pro-union moves lately
No he hasn't. People more pro union than him that he hired at the advice of other people more pro union than him (and the people that work for them)have.
Don't be like the establishment media by giving him the credit that Lauren McFerran and the rest of the NLRB have earned.
"I don't understand how cabinet positions work, and I don't know how to use Google" is all you needed to write.
Also there's this:
“We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Imagine pretending to care about unions enough to act all pissed on their behalf but not caring enough to just Google what the outcome was.
Imagine pretending that the IBEW speaks for all railworkers because they and one other of the dozen unions involved accepted a crappy deal and has a leader who loves kissing neoliberal ass.
Here's over 500 labor historians disagreeing in an open letter.
You are overplaying it though. I am active in my union and in the organized labor movement more broadly here in the PNW. The railway strike left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, but there's also a recognition among leadership that the administration didn't have any great options if they didn't want to further tank the economy and cause even more inflation with potentially worse long-term results for everyone.
On the flipside he has appointed by far the most pro union NLRB in history, so this is kind of a case of letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.
he has appointed by far the most pro union NLRB in history, so this is kind of a case of letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.
That's true and the only pro union thing he DOES deserve at least some of the credit for, even though there's no way it was his own idea.
He forced a contract after taking away the power to strike. The contract he forced was in the favor of the rail owners while taking power away from labor.
Shortly afterwards the disaster in East Palestine happened and lots of people were justifiably pissed at the Biden admin for their part. It was only after East Palestine that the admin started working to get rail workers some of the demands they were originally asking for.
They got 4 days sick leave, which is breadcrumbs, but the Biden admin and mainstream media are attempting to sell it as a huge win for labor. The truth of the matter is if Biden was truly pro labor and was attempting to mitigate the economic impact of a strike from "essential workers" he could have just as easily forced a contract in labour's favor from the start. Everything else is cover for that fact, don't get it twisted.
Cool. Everything you say is true, but I'm just telling you that you're wrong if you think that organized labor is or should be somehow against the Biden Administration.
The reality is that he has appointed the most pro-union and labor-friendly NLRB in modern history.
I'm actually a bit disgusted with people like you who think you know how it is down at our local union halls.
You are the elitist motherfuckers who tell us what we should and shouldn't do or believe in.
Here's a cordial fuck you!
Local 10 till I die!
If we look at the history of the labor movement, victories happen when we are organized outside of the two political parties and force their hand. The same thing happened with civil rights and women's rights. It's only by taking an antagonistic approach that has both strong demands and sharp criticism of failures that the needle can be moved.
When you make excuses for Democrats and give them cover for their failings, they have no reason to go further next time.
I was a member UFCW 3000 for 7 years in my teens and 20s. My father in-law has been a member of IBEW Local 77 his entire career. My wife and I have been dragging our kids to picket lines for local unions striking since their little legs could march, not because we personally had anything to gain, but as an act of solidarity.
We are on the same side, I don't understand how you can say in one hand that what I say is truthful and then call me an elitist and swear at me. I am not out here trying to convince anyone to vote for Trump instead, I am just trying to be real about how we, as workers that want to increase labor's political power, can best accomplish our goals.
Your labor historian letter is from the year prior.
December 2, 2022, 9:00am
Mine is from this June.
June 20, 2023
You didn't care enough to follow up because none of this is real to you. It's just posturing. That's sad as fuck
Just admit you don't actually give a fuck about people's lives. You have your worldview and the reality doesn't matter.
Just admit you don't actually give a fuck about people's lives. You have your worldview and the reality doesn't matter.
Hey look, I found a picture of you! 
Except I actually cared about the union, and stayed up to date.
You picked a talking point and, like a Fox News anchor, stuck with it regardless of reality.
Ever hear the term "recency bias"?
The labor historians tried to stop the government from making a huge mistake BEFORE it happened because that's usually the best time to stop things from happening. They did not change their opinion after the mistake was made in spite of their warnings.
That your one Biden bootlicker opinion happened after that doesn't make it more valid than that of hundreds of experts any more than me being born after Napoleon makes me more skilled at battlefield strategy than him.
PS: if you care so much, why are you still pretending that IBEW was the only union involved rather than one out of a dozen?
that reality occurred is inconsequential to how I feel
Thanks for clearing that up.
Hooray, another ridiculous strawman! If that's the best you can do, please stop wasting my time.
You might wanna give "straw man fallacy" a Google, because this ain't it, chief.
You're changing my argument to a ridiculous one that's easier to attack. That's the definition of a strawman. Might want to stop being a cocksure idiot.
Also, I told you to stop wasting my time.
I didn't make that argument. You did. I just pulled it out and mocked it.
Again, I never said that. You're pretending that i did because it's easier to attack than what I'm actually saying. A more textbook strawman doesn't exist.
Now leave me alone.
You can just stop posting, you know?
And no I'm not gonna let you pretend you've done anything but lie this entire time.
There you go projecting again. Just fuck off.
I brought receipts. You brought lies.
Again with the fucking projection and pretending that one asskissing union leader is more important than hundreds of labor historians and the 10 unions who AREN'T happy with having the government take away their hard won rights and their most effective bargaining tool.
If conditions are unlivable for too many people, that's bad and it calls for a re-negotiation of everything. It also bears reminding today's leisure class/ultra-wealthy that part of the basis for their existence as such was always a trade-off between them paying their workers enough to live with dignity and the metaphorical torches and pitchforks and guillotines staying in mothballs
"For the fired auto workers Who were twisted, tricked and robbed To the peasant in Guatemala In a sweatshop got your job And she can't feed her family On the pennies that she makes Meanwhile the crime rate's rising Up and down the Great Lake states
Like vegetables left in the field The signatures smell rotten On the contracts and the deeds That push the race down to the bottom As they load the rubber bullets As they fire another round I'm heading into the tear gas Dig in man, hold your ground
For Joe Hill and Cesar Chavez Who fought in their own time For our brothers and our sisters Up and down that picket line For the unnamed and unnumbered Who struggle brave and long For the union men and women Standing up and standing strong"
Tom Morello/The Nightwatchman - Union Song
On my commute home yesterday I encountered a "wide load" convoy that was hauling a millionaire's yacht down the highway. Not a mega-yacht, just a yacht. I don't care that it was just a millionaire's yacht, I felt compelled to roll down the window and give it the bird.
Based
Hell yeah brother
I think a perspective shift is necessary.
"Destroy the economy" is about sabotage.
"Work for each other and against wealthy investors" would result in a smaller economy, but the focus is on the positive thing built, instead of just sabotage.
Is it a smart move? No. But it's the only one that could work
Where do I sign up
The Federal Reserve is a scam
Based
Way to go. Bring them down on their knees. Force them to share. They've proven they will never share the wealth with the workers unless forced to.
That... is a very...VERY BAD IDEA.
Billionaires have enough money to survive an economic crash without batting an eyelid. Do you?
Controversial: how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
Rent would be cheaper if renters would unionize and wouldn't spend above an agreed on limit.
It's so hard to coordinate that only some workers can ask billionaires for better deals. Why? Why is not everybody ashamed that they cannot coordinate with their neighbors?
Roman's walked out of town once a year to remind the elite of their value. The west models itself after the Roman Republic but tries to skip on the hard parts.
How does the working class not realise that the wealthy are the sodden bitch in a bog handing out the sword? Jeeebus
The amount of well meaning idiots upvoting this who dont seem to grasp who actually suffers when this happens is depressing.
I'd rather not be sent into poverty like in 1930s Germany tyvm. The "winner takes all" mentality though needs to go. The US especially has a lottery winning mentality.
Right, the economy isn't something that supports the life of all humans. Billionaires have yachts so it must only be working for them. And since only billionaires benefit from the economy, we can wreck it no problem. There won't be deaths from starvation and exposure, because food and housing aren't part of the economy we're going to wreck.
The "economy" will exist whether it's a capitalist system or something else. Blaming the system is a stupid take when it's the actors within it causing the issues you complain about.
It's like blaming gravity.
The economy isn't perfect, but it pays my bills.
I don't get it, do they think that wrecking the economy will not wreck them as well? The rock bottom is still pretty far.
Seems very ungrateful to the job creators and innovators that just because the economy doesnt work for you, you want to wreck it for us too. Why not try starting up your own car company instead of cutting into the profits of the hard working Ford and GM families.
Billionaires aren't the ones that starve when the economy implodes.
This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions. Sure we support your goals but the side-effects of that cure are ten times worse than the disease itself.
You’re talking out of your ass.
75% of Americans support the UAW
Just because there is public support does not mean it's right. Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice. It's not just the UAW that's impacted, there's huge ripple effects. Many suppliers were barely hanging on and this will probably be a death knell. And honestly, this is what makes me fucking hate working in Financial Services for one of the big 3.
I run a department that performs forecasting that eventually influences the affordability of leasing globally and I'm responsiblefor a $25B portfolio. I work my ass off and I have a new family with a 1 year old - we were having a decent year finally after 3 bad ones, then this fucker comes along and is going to tank it.
So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance. He makes sound bites, but the sides are so far apart it's ridiculous. They accuse the companies of negotiating in bad faith, yet the UAW has yet to respond to any offer with a counter. They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for, but they've literally thrown that in the trash. My bet is all he will accomplish is more factories moving to non-UAW locations or Mexico.
What exactly is the advantage of being American made when the workers turn out the worst quality for the highest wages and they can shut down production on a whim every few years? It's honestly very frustrating to see this issue not being taken seriously here and there seems to be such little appreciation for the broader impacts.
Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice
You're talking about another recession where they can scoop up assets on the cheap and weather the storm while less fortunate people die. We're talking about dismantling the system that makes that possible.
What does it mean to dismantle the system?
Asking for specifics, unable to grasp obvious concepts or being a sealion?
Several reasons.
First of all, a lot of people argue in bad faith online and it's not worth my time and effort to feed trolls, sealions and shills.
Second, the question without further context implies that only people who know exactly what to replace it with are allowed to advocate the end of a horrendously wrong system.
Second and a halfth, why are you talking me with being more specific when the question was far too vague to even know if that's what they were asking for? Why demand specificity from me and not them?
Third, in this specific case I'm tired and thus have less energy left to spend on what might be another futile back and forth. If they're not serious about discussing it in good faith, I'd much rather spend my remaining energy on something fun like Baldurs Gate 3 or something..
I dunno about him, but I'm asking for specifics.
It is a lot easier to tear down the hard work of others than to build something up yourself.
The UAW is not some benevolent non-profit out to help the poor people of America. They are an organization that represents less than .05% of Americans in one of the best paid low-skill jobs in America, and they say they are willing to try and tank the economy for the benefit of their members at the cost of everyone else.
They are in no way going to dismantle the system that has made them wealthier than their friends and neighbors. They are just holding out for a bigger package with more benefits, and are willing to play Russian Roulette with the economy to get it.
Even if all three CEOs gave up their salaries and benefits packages to benefit the UAW workers they would each only gain about $1 an hour based on my napkin math.
This Fain guy's rhetoric is nothing more than that and it makes him and the union sound like an asshole to a neutral observer. Not that there are any neutral observers in this post.
How about if the three auto companies gave up 5% of their profits instead?
I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn't asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.
No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they're making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
not what profit margin they're making.
True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.
do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don't know if it makes up the difference or not.
Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren't seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.
there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren't seeing returns.
So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.
I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse
So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.
This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.
Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn't just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn't understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
Edit: phrasing of italicized part.
The problem with the stock market is something we could be debating for hours here (fails to deliver, repacked bonds getting rating upgrades, margin requirements getting waived for big firms, lack of any transparency within the equities swap market, most trades being made off market, 401ks being used for locates in predatory shorting, etc). So I'll just touch on one thing here before it shoots into something completely morphed from the original discussion.
Even then, do keep in mind, when someone sells a company it isn't just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn't understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
I know which is why I specifically stated we bar those bigger investors from pulling out to con the middle class/poor worker thinking they can make it big off some investment advice from a paid wall street mouth piece like Jim Cramer or countless other 'financial advisors'.
stated we bar those bigger investors
Oops, somehow missed that you were referring to the original bigger investors.
It seems like it should be easy enough to get those financial advisors for market manipulation. If a large firm says a stock will do better than otherwise expected and then sells their clients' stocks as soon as the price rises, how is it anything except simple market manipulation? Not going after them makes the SEC look like a captured organization, though I easily found articles stating that it isn't captured with a web-search.
It seems like it should be easy enough to get those financial advisors for market manipulation.
One would think until you see the actual suits brought against these entities where, just like fox they argue its purely for entertainment purposes and any rational person would understand this and not treat it as truth (i.e think when cramer called bear sterns a great investment about a week before tanking, or the fact we have an etf which does the opposite of cramer that makes like a 20% yield ytd). It's fucked to say the least in that regard.
If a large firm says a stock will do better than otherwise expected and then sells their clients' stocks as soon as the price rises, how is it anything except simple market manipulation?
the world of venture capital and algorithmic trading has entered the room
Yeah it's not done that simply. The basic game plan is as follows:
You never tell your clients directly what is great or not you point them to journals which can pump out articles like MontleyFool or yahoo finance who love their little disclaimer of this is not financial advise. Once you have primed the clients to want to invest for this upcoming ipo the next steps can follow: See YOU don't have to sell the stock when your funds are managed by a trading algorithm like Aladin used by all your big firms from Blackrock to Citadel, because now you get to say it was an automatic sale based on risk assessment made by your algorithm with zero human interaction. So, you had your buddies in the VC world give inflated investment offers to the budding company in question, allow a couple rounds of investments with some nice articles about put out from those financial jourals along this journey, which serves a dual purpose one allow other firms to persuade investment from clients and two that when the company decides to go public their growth goals become untenable and the initial IPO crashes. You as a VC want to hedge your bet right? So you make some equity swap deals with some unsuspecting banks under a couple of different shell corporations. These swaps allow you to essentially open a net short position, but thanks to some great CFTC regulations that came out barring reporting requirements on these swaps it's been even harder to see what's inside them. As an addition, since these are equity swaps, the bank does not need to report their position to the SEC nor does the entity in question who created this swap with the bank in the first place as they technically don't own the assets on hand (this is how archegos blew up and took creddit suise along with it). Now when the IPO hits your buddies down at the hedge fund's algorithms are going to see the risk in the reported financial data from the IPO and the over valued IPO share price. Place in some articles from something like the MontleyFool about how all of a sudden this IPO doesn't look so great and those VCs are going be screwed. Now you have the ammo, tools, and contracts set up to profit from the downside of this IPO. Then as a bonus by utilizing derivatives, you can short more than a hundred percent of a companies shares allowing you to profit in your equity swaps that have been going unreported obscenely. Now your coffer is full again you can pick up the next chump who is claiming to be the next 'Steve jobs' or at least pickup their assets for penny on the dollar when the company proceeds to bankruptcy. Then by the beauty of delisted stocks and warehoused FTDs on stocks who have been delisted no one ever has to know you shorted the fuck out of a company nor do you ever need to by back the 'shares' remember the scheme takes advantage of derivatives which bet on the price of a stock and allow you to buy/sell the shares at the price the contract was for.
There is a lot more nuance here in practice and some aspects were simplified for brevity sake, even if it already seems like a wall of text. The simple answer is its not simple to prosecute and yes the SEC is a mainly captured organization. Gary Gensler has been making strides in some regards but your previous heads, people like Hester Pierce and the constant revolving door from regulator to head executive at trading firms shows another issue with the system. Read the comments on SEC proposals. Another decent starting point if you haven't had any exposure to these issues is taking a look into the problem with Jon Stewart and his episode on the stock market. It's not perfect but can give you some insights into how rife with conflict of interest wall street and the SEC truly are.
This was indeed a fairly decent wall of text, but still well worth the read. I didn't realize these multi-layer scams went to this depth.
Also, it always seemed to me like listening to public trading advice and buying into a company at the same time as everyone else was a questionable proposition at best. Only so many would get the stock at a "good" price and everyone else was just buying in late anyways.
look into the problem with Jon Stewart and his episode on the stock market
I pulled up the video and will check it later. I look forward to hearing more about these issues.
Just watched the Jon Steward Stock Market video. I actually got to watch that Robnhood mess unfold live on reddit. It was quite the shock. Before then, I was under the impression that they were just doing batch trades, not all the backroom fuckery.
Still the video was definitely worth the watch. Are you aware of any other similar schemes with such interesting explanations?
Ahhh ok, so you really are talking out of your ass.
The workers are not asking for much. Just their fair share
Fuck right off with the 'low-skill' shit.
Am I wrong? I was using it as a comparison to jobs that require a similar amount of education and training.
I tried to check and it seemed to be categorized as "unskilled". Didn't really seem like a completely fair assessment so I used "low-skill" instead.
What would you call jobs in this category?
nothing but a bunch of pro-establishment and anti-union gaslighting nonsense
We're done here, bootlicker.
Thanks for the report CNmsNbc! Much appreciated
You’re talking out of your ass with bs anecdotes. I don’t care.
The corporate executives are tanking the economy not the workers. If you believe otherwise you’re an idiot…… or just talking out of your ass
The Dollar is the world reserve currency. Most billionaires wealth is directly tired to its stability. It's why China/Russia may hate our government but they don't try and fuck with wall street, they have their value tired to the same piggy bank. Destroying the US economy would directly impact the billionaire class and to act like it wouldn't is such a fucking cop out.
So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance.
Considering you seem to not give two shits about the others getting affected by shit outside of their control and now that we are working to get rights for everyone else you feel slighted because your fucked corporate role aided in fucking everyone else, I have no fucking sympathy for you. I hope your affected because then you might just fucking get it because you clearly fucking don't. Go pound sand dumb ass.
They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for
They want CEOs, and the billionaires reading the benefits of their work to be striped of most their wealth and redistributed to the masses where it's needed. They don't want scraps and what should of been given in the first place, they want fucking change. Honestly the fact you think this is enough clearly defines how fucked your mindset is and clearly demonstrates why you need to feel the hurt from this change. Go cry to your ceo I'm sure he will toss you to side just as quickly as everyone else even though you feel so strongly you need to defend those incompetent pieces of shit.
Most Americans would like a cost-of living increase ourselves. It is easy to support the UAW when they are going for a goal we agree with; especially when it costs us nothing.
If the UAW intentionally makes that cost another economic recession/depression, we will see how strong that support is.
You mean when the corporate executives hurt the economy. Get your head out of your ass
how dare the workers try to use their labor to survive, why won't anyone think of the poor rich people who may lose some stock value
No I mean when the guy in the picture says, "we're going to wreck their economy."
If you don't like his phrasing then it sounds like we agree.
We agree that I can not tell if you are farting or if you are talking with your head very deeply lodged in between your buttocks.
Either way, very impressive
Funny thing is that you are the one with the verbal diarrhea.
All your old, tired,disproven, neoliberal, corporate, 1% talking points are completely and quite literally made up bullshit meant to enrich the donor class at the expense of the working class.
There’s literally no point in responding to anything you say other than with verbal diarrhea, because ALL of your talking points are completely made up… whether or not this is intentional on your part doesn’t really concern me at this point.
you are the one with the verbal diarrhea.
Fun, fun. Gonna hit me with the old "I'm rubber and your glue" next?
Thanks for the trip down nostalgia lane.
"moderates"
Yes, "moderates".
Those of us who realize the building we all live in is old, has holes in the windows and floors, and never had an elevator installed, but would still prefer to renovate it than burn it down. Yes, we know some people are getting wet, or fell through the floor, and a few can't even get to their rooms, but the majority of us are warm, well-fed, and mildly entertained. We definitely need to get the holes patched and we should work on some sort of lift, but burning the place down is not going to help those who are missing out now and will harm everyone else in the process.
You know that they tear down dilapidated buildings with good reason, right? The foundation is crumbling, the floor won't support weight and the roof is more leak than barrier.
Trying to apply repairs to a crumbling and unsafe building is actually a great analogy for how your "moderate" bullshit is keeping most of society in a death spiral. Nice self-own.
Even if we are approaching a point where a tear down would be more cost effective, we are not at a point where we can unite enough to rebuild anything from the rubble.
Maybe pushing it any farther is risking a collapse, but I rather like being one united nation sitting at the top of lists for economic and military power, rather than 3 or 4 smaller nations barely in the top 10.
We are way past the point where a tear down is necessary to save millions of lives, never mind "cost effective".
sitting at the top of lists for economic and military power
You KNOW that all that economic power belongs to the rich and the rest are poorer than most western countries, right?
Also, celebrating military power as a virtue is some North Korea type shit, not something a modern democracy should be doing.
Military power is neither inherently virtue nor vice it is a tool that can be used for good or ill. However, without it the voice of a nation becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes non-existent without the support of others.
Military power is neither inherently virtue nor vice
False. It's an evil. Some would say a necessary evil, but that's debatable.
without it the voice of a nation becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes non-existent
Bullshit. Organised murder isn't free speech, nor does it protect free speech. It's very often used to SUPPRESS free speech and democracy, though.
but that’s debatable.
Do you think Zelensky thinks military power is a useful tool? Do you think he and NATO are doing evil by defending Ukraine?
Putting my cards on the table; I am not the biggest fan of the US getting involved in another overseas war, even if it is only providing weapons. I am curious though how a defensive war fits into your "military power is evil" mindset.
Organised murder isn’t free speech
Having a military does not mean you have to participate in offensive wars.
Do you think Zelensky thinks military power is a useful tool?
I think the people of Ukraine would have found it useful for Putin to not use that "tool" against them.
But yeah, while I'm of course on his side with regards to the war itself, I also think that Zelinski is finding emergency war powers a very useful tool to suppress political opposition and otherwise further his own political power.
Do you think he and NATO are doing evil by defending Ukraine?
Of course not, but there'd be no invasion to defend against in the first place if not for the military power of genocidal war criminals like Putin
I am curious though how a defensive war fits into your "military power is evil" mindset.
As I pointed out above, it fits fine since there would be no necessity to defend yourself against military power if not attacked with military power.
there’d be no invasion to defend against in the first place if not for the military power of genocidal war criminals like Putin
I completely agree though with a caveat. I can't imagine a just way we would completely eliminate people like Putin.
The only way I could imagine is becoming the most oppressive and dominating force and pointing our weapons at anyone that glances at other territories. Incidentally, I think this pretty much what we did for 40 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, which explains the era of relative peace we are coming out of. Not that there was ever true peace, but mostly the world powers only played their proxy war games in much smaller nations.
I also think that Zelinski is finding emergency war powers a very useful tool to suppress political opposition and otherwise further his own political power.
I have been noticing the same.
I completely agree though with a caveat. I can't imagine a just way we would completely eliminate people like Putin.
You institutionalize them instead of giving them the keys to castels. Vikings turned their psychopaths into their most vicious fighters and isolated them from the rest, we decided to put them into positions of power both goepolitically and economically, then glorified them and it's now killing us. Before that psychopaths have been described and usually killed off on the spot. If we ever get to be a space fairing civilization it might be smart to utilize them as resource allocators on multi generation ships as their lack of empathy could actually benefit the survival of the whole in those situations but not when we allow them to use accumulation of wealth as their tool as it drains everyone's resources.
That is a lot to unpack, but I think you definitely have a few good ideas.
as their lack of empathy could actually benefit the survival of the whole in those situations
This in particular is an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what "good" a "psycopath" could do within certain limits.
This in particular is an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what "good" a "psycopath" could do within certain limits.
There are definitely many avenues in which they could excell at. I mean decisions which need complete objectivity maybe something they excell at consulting for where as if you allow them access to gaining unmitigated power your in for a bad time as we see today.
Before that psychopaths have been described and usually killed off on the spot.
What a naive misreading of history. What mythical era do you think this happened in?
Are you stupid? You know The Unscrupulous Man described in Ancient Greece? Countless times throughout early history they are frequently described based on their personality types and ways to "deal" with them....
Menelaus: "Am I a joke to you??"
Bruh, in your analogy where are you getting the money and materials to patch up the building? It’s being hoarded by the guy that owns a giant state of the art mansion up the street that needs 0 repairs.
And that mansion has TWO elevators.
Fair question.
In my hastily put together analogy, the rich guy would live up on the top floor which he converted to a pent house, probably with a helicopter pad. That guy like in real life is going to try to squeeze the money out of the guys a few floors down from himself. If it actually comes to a building collapse or something catastrophic, he probably tries to escape to another building.
Really though, this analogy is probably stretched to its limit.
Why wouldn't he escape before the building got that bad? Why wouldn't he escape the first time someone fell through the floor?
Presumably their part of the building is holding up fine. We certainly aren't seeing a lot of rich people flee the US so far.
Incidentally, not that it really matters, the holes in the floor were not meant to indicate the building itself was rotting away, just that the layers had worn through and need to be replaced. Basically everything after the first post has just been shoe-horned into the analogy on the fly.
We certainly aren’t seeing a lot of rich people flee the US so far.
Interesting. New Zealand seems like an odd choice for a prepper bunker. I'm sure it is wonderful to live there now, but that seems irrelevant if civilization collapsed. I have been working under the assumption that there were billionaire bunkers littering the Rockies and Appalachians.
Personally, if I was a billionaire, I would go full Fallout and build several sustainable vaults of various kinds that could each hold enough people to rebuild the human race from. That and dump every spare dollar possible into an off-world colony.
Or you could build a new and better building instead of patching up poor construction.
Sure, if you can get most of the residents to agree on what kind of building they want the new one to be, you might even make it happen fairly smoothly.
As is, we have at least a half a dozen groups who each want different designs and the two largest groups aren't even sure they want to live in the same building anymore. Those two groups have already started drawing lines down the middle of the current building and are demanding everyone pick a side. To make matters worse the other groups don't agree with each other enough to even band together for their own defense. In the end, we will be lucky if we get a couple small condos where once a sky-rise stood.
There is no reforming capitalism, and by pretending there is (or that "the alternative" which you are clearly not even able to articulate, is worse) you are helping to maintain the status quo, at best.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://libcom.org/article/capitalist-democracy-illusion-choice
Of course they don't starve, they're often the cause, or accessory to said implosions, and governments are all too happy to bail them out of their bullshit while telling people to suck it up and go back to work.
This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions
No. That would be the constant drone of pro-establishment and thus pro-billionaire propaganda from the billionaire-owned corporations that dominate the media landscape.
Also, here's a song about moderates for you.
Thank you for the link from a billionaire-owned corporation. I would consider listening to it, but I don't use google products anymore than necessary. Also, youtube transcript doesn't seem to work on it.
Here's an alternative link to the same video: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
And here's a separate link for the lyrics in case you hate good folk music
I like good folk music but I'm not allowed to wear headphones at work, so I appreciate the lyrics link! Looking forward to listening to the song later, seems like a good one.
Happy to help! Speaking of helpfulness, or rather unhelpfulness though, this is one of the most incongruous "see also" boxes I've ever seen 😂 
Phil Ochs was too good for this world.
Damn right he was. We just have to try our best to honor his memory by improving the world.
Billionaires? Starve?
Ohh look a centrist! what a disgusting piece of shit
Very constructive. I am sure you convince a lot of people of the rightness of your opinions with your eloquent speeches.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything dipshit, I know your type, you will vote for whoever will keep your privileges, "don't rock the boat" "keep the status quo", that's is what you really think, so why the facade? hypocrite
At least fuckin fascist will tell me that they want to make me a slave or put me in gas Chambers, communists are honest about wanting to meat grind the rich, even Anarcho-capitalists accept they want to fuck kids.
But you, you are the silent supporter of the exploitation of the people, keeping silent because you are too coward to admit you are a piece of shit.
And you know why I know that? Ask a person who works 2 or more jobs to survive, believe me they will no tell you they are "centrist" or "moderate".
Have you considered it may be your attitude holding you back? I'm not a business owner, but I haven't done a decent number of interviews and participated in hiring decisions. Someone who gave even a hint of this toxicity would never be considered for any decent paying job. Most people as extreme as you seem to be can't hide it very well.
Oh, look, you worked for a company without ethics, making sure they can keep their status quo, congrats dumb ass, you're part of the problem as was described before. Any company with a backbone doesn't give a shit and will allow you to participate in community outreachs that help progressive initiatives. You are to worried about your creature comforts that you can't fathom that their are massive portions of the population without such comforts and instead of sticking up for the right to those comforts for all (which you somehow think would strip you of your comforts instead of excess from those whom are accumulating obscene amounts of captial beyond reason), you would rather villianize those attempting to make change as it could mean an inconvenience for you in the short term as changes are made, fucking pathetic.
I'm not a business owner
I'm, and I don't exploit people.
Since you clearly missed it that was sarcasm. You are obviously doing nothing but spewing self-righteous textual diarrhea.
I am truly sorry for you that you don't realize many self-proclaimed moderates and centrist could be your natural allies. Not me of course, I would never intentionally associate myself with a zealot that thinks anyone who doesn't share his exact opinion is his true and natural enemy. It is a shame that you are probably an atheist, you would fit right into a fundamentalist sect.
Oh now it's sarcasm? Are you gonna cry and say it's a joke now? Stupid.
I am truly sorry for you that you don't realize many self-proclaimed moderates and centrist could be your natural allies.
You are not, you vote for shit people just like you, because you are afraid of change, silent supporters of bloody regimes, happy in their gated communities, with zero empathy for their fellow men.
They are the good ol' I support what ever doesn't inconvenience me. Fuck em, they want to side with fascists because it's easy, they can be treated the same as its 'easier' to not distinguish them. Let em reap what they sow.
War* is never worth it for the ones who die fighting it. That is why we honor them for their sacrifices.
*so long as the war is for a good cause.
As long as they chose to join the fight sure, but when you start dropping bombs in civilian areas it becomes harder and harder to justify that war.
People like you ARE the disease
Thank you for your well-thought-out and oh so eloquent opinion.
You're the one welcoming your own oppression.
No problem. A scalpel is not always the correct tool
Thanks to people who want to retain the status quo that economic crisis are handled by fucking the poor and bailing out the rich. That is not a law of nature btw. It is a choice made by both large american parties every time.
The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies... That would bring the economy back on track and also help everyone to prosper.
What you describe is the result of deliberate disaster capitalism, where crisis are embraced as an opportunity to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
seize assets from rich people
I agree with everything you said except this bit. The 4th Amendment is supposed (glares at imminent domain) to protect us from a tyrannical government seizing our assets just because they want them.
both large american parties
Whoa whoa whoa let's not "both sides" this shit. There is one party doing this, and another party sometimes having to make concessions to them.
The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies…
Guess which party is working on all of this right now (minus the higher taxes part)?
Hint: the answer is not "neither"
the US democrats are far right conservatives by most countries standards. You saw how they fiercly opposed the idea of a somewhat lefty candidacy and instead brought on Clinton, who is a neoliberal economist and war hawk and Biden who is also a neoliberal economist and has a strongly racist history.
Who gives a fuck, they're not regressive fascists. "Both sides" is bullshit propaganda.
I am not saying that "both sides" are equal and it doesnt matter what to vote. I am saying that the problems will not resolve as long as the democrats are not moving towards being an actual center/progressive party. So it needs the activism on the streets and in the companies, because there is no political solution available in the current US party system.
Why does it seem like you guys have never heard of primaries? Or democratic party elections?
I stood in line to vote for my local reps who go to the national Dem party who decide what the party platform is and what to spend money on and who to support. Did you even know that was a thing?
How does that relate to the US democrats mostly having conservative/right wing positions? Also how do the primaries help you, when the US elections are significantly influenced by who can muster the most money in return for representing the interests of their money givers? Your constitutional court even argued, that bribing politicans is a form of protected speech.
Ah I see, you're not American so you literally don't know.
General elections for us are binary. We vote for Democrats or Republicans or we throw away our vote. There's no 3rd party.
Primary elections are where we determine the candidates that will be put forward for each party. This goes for President but also every other executive branch office, at the federal and state levels.
Internal party elections are where we decide the party reps who decide funding, advertisement, official party endorsements, etc.
Bernie lost the primary election because his core supporters have no idea any of these other races exist. They show up, barely, every 4 years to vote for president.
More centrist progressives like me show up every single election. We are constantly pushing our agenda up the chain.
Flighty Leftist voters don't stand a chance until they consistently show up to push their agenda.
i know what the primaries are. The system to remove political options from the general elections and push them into party internal factually excludes people from political participation and making their voice heard. You know, the working class people that cannot get leave from work to participate on these elections.
Also the difference between a two party system and a one party regime is one party. So US democracy is rather fragile by design. That is why people need to take the struggle to the factories and streets. The system and also the democratic party in itself is structurally rigged against them.
The idea of some glorious revolution that will fix all the problems in our democracy is the equivalent of Christians believing that Sky Daddy will send them to heaven.
And that is why you are the economically best developed and militarily most well armed third world country.
The parts of us that consistently vote Democrat are nomal, rational places to live. Funny how that works.
your normality is not our normality. Of course it is possible that all the European countries are crqzy communists and have a skewed view on the world, but i find it more probable that the US is out of order. For instance having protected leave when expecting a baby is guaranteed by all but two countries in the world. One of them is the US and the other is some island state in south asia iirc. That is something i'd expect a centrist government to solve imnediately. Obama himself made the ACA so that still most people need to get private insurance argueing that its 3 million jobs in that system. Even Maggi Thatcher did not dare to fuck public health insurance in Britain.
Of course your reference frame is the US, but i can only emphasize how eye opening a look into Europe might be, to see how far right the entire political system of the US really is.
the US
...is a conglomerate of 50 different countries.
Parental leave is a right in my state. Health care is nearly universal. Vote by mail is universal. My state guarantees sick leave and paid time off to vote, care for a sick family member, or other circumstances. My state has sane labor laws, rent control, anti-corruption measures, and progressive taxation.
You clearly have no idea what the US is like, so kindly stop talking about something you have no knowledge of.
The US is not a "conglomerate" nor is it different countries. You do not have a passport from your state and if your state would seceede there wont be many international recognition.
Also it is quite telling that you say that you have these rightsin your state, so workers who dont habe them shouldnt fight for them. Then again i think you just saw recently in the abortion decision of the supreme court, why it is dangerous to leave these things to the state level and not have them on the federal level or better yet constitutionally protected.
Waah waah technicalities. Stop distracting. My original and central point was that in Democratic strongholds, the US more closely resembles a European standard of living. Do you agree?
so workers who dont habe them shouldnt fight for them.
Stop making shit up and pretending I said it.
My point was that the workers need to fight, because they have no political means. You showed that they do have some political means, which i interpreted as an arguement against them fighting and trying the political way.
While i agree that there is different states with different levels of workers rifhts, i still think that the political route is not reliable, in particular in the states where republicans are dominatinf but also because of the reluctance of the federal level of the democratic party to grant and protect workers rights. These need to be governed by federal law and their principles should be in the constitution.
The federal level democrats are NOT reluctant, they just literally don't have the numbers to enact change. In most cases, you need 60/100 senators to pass a law over the objections of the other party, and Republicans object to almost every single bill democrats put forward.
If we vote in more democratic Senators, federal law gets better.
The problem is that the billionaires never starve. They just end up with slightly less fathomless oceans of cash while we can afford rent or a mortgage.
If this doesn’t work, it’s time for some guillotines, then nobody has to starve at all.
then nobody has to starve at all.
Ah yes, more cannibalism! How long exactly do you think 999 people can survive off of eating one?
I don't know. Let's find out 😈
Lol a ton of people literally starved during the Reign of Terror
You keyboard warriors are so annoying
There was a lot of the same thing back in the Roman Empire. The reason many more emperors weren't gutted like a fish was due to their Praetorian Guard. If we had a solid way to get past the tear gas and national guard en masse, there'd be much less rhetoric and a lot more action. Hopefully we co-opt them, much like what happened back then. The Praetorians killed quite a few shitty emperors, hopefully we get after the oligarchs in the same manner.
Jesus you fucking kids
"Is there a crime here that goes beyond denunciation? No. It's the grapes of wrath who are wrong."
Poor aren't either, since they got some nice rich to cook on a spit roast.
Yes, haha very funny, let's all become cannibals of the rich. I'm sure that everyone will get a mouthful of that yummy long pig. What are the poor going to eat after that?
Yeah, it's not like food grows on trees!
Is it fair to assume you have those trees growing outside your house?
Personally, I have a flock of chickens running around the yard, but only one sad little plum tree that has a couple years yet before I will have enough extras for neighbors or canning. Thinking about putting some potatoes in the ground in the spring though.
Is it fair to assume you have those trees growing outside your house?
Yes?
Why is that so hard to believe?
It isn't. That is why I mentioned my own plum tree and chickens. Was just curious if you were trying to blow smoke up my ass.
Even if I don't have those trees, those that have excess can share with those who do not.
Growing enough food to feed even one family takes time, effort, and resources. I am sure they would be glad to share, if you are willing to trade one of those things. Pretty quickly we end up working for or bartering with those guys though.
And the problem with that is?
I don't have a problem with it, but it is just a simplified version or maybe predecessor of what we have now.
Without billionaires hoarding their wealth, yes.
You just have the workers go to the same plants produce the same food and give it away instead of allowing profits to go to the billionaires. The system is in place we just need to ignore the dumb fucks siphoning everything away. We already produce excess, and we can continue to do so....
We produce excess of something things, but usually that is in trade for not producing enough of others. Scarcity is not a creation of the uber rich, it just exacerbated by them.
Someone would have to decide whether the avocado farm, almond farm, or the winery got more water in California. Right now it is mostly decided by economic power and a byzantine set of rules and laws dictating who owns the water. Unless we want farmers killing each other over it, we would need to put a new system in place.
Scarcity is not a creation of the uber rich, it just exacerbated by them.
40% of food is thrown out in the US every year, food scarcity is not an issue in the US at least. Sure there are certain decisions that need to be made but once again, these decisions are not required to be done by the billionaire class and are already being handled by your lower level municipality workers. It wouldn't delve into chaos because Joe stopped telling investors why they should invest, we simply need to forget about there bullshit profit motives and manage resources without a dollar valuation and instead based on how scarce the resource and its utilitarian value is when utilized in a specific process.
Scarcity is not a creation of the uber rich, it just exacerbated by them.
Exactly scarcity is the the means at which we can judge how something can be utilized, when you complicate that with dollar valuations instead of the utility and efficiency it can generate you end up in a corrupt broken system extracting wealth to those who can name prices, instead of proper resource allocation that can benefit all.
Right now it is mostly decided by economic power and a byzantine set of rules and laws dictating who owns the water.
As stated it's currently handled by municipality workers who can continue with the current process or switch to one which values the utilitarian output of a decision versus its economic value. None of the issues described are solved by or aided by the inclusion of a billionaire class, instead they, as you stated, exacerbated by such classes of individuals.
As stated it’s currently handled by municipality workers
If you live in the eastern part of the US, you might find it interesting to look up water rights west of the Mississippi; it is an absolute madhouse.
Spent a year in Colorado not long ago. The water that fell from the sky was owned by someone else before it even hit the ground, though I think I heard that there were some changes specifically in regards to rain barrels since I left.
If you live in the eastern part of the US, you might find it interesting to look up water rights west of the Mississippi; it is an absolute madhouse.
I'll have to check out how the west coast allocate water than should be an interesting rabbit whole to dive into.
Spent a year in Colorado not long ago. The water that fell from the sky was owned by someone else before it even hit the ground, though I think I heard that there were some changes specifically in regards to rain barrels since I left.
I mean, even if that's the case, who enforces the rights to "sell" that water? I'd assume it's some lower level employees or still municipality government that could just also up and not give a shit that some billionaire has staked claims to sell this water to whoever they please instead of allowing it to flow to those in need. Almost all the claims of ownership from those obscenely rich are more or less just expected to be respected and enforced by those who suffer from their exploitation, most systems could continue on tomorrow and gain efficiency I'd we gave the middle finger to the wealth hoarders and banks.
some billionaire has staked claims to sell this water
I don't really know how true it is, but my horticulture buddy up there made it sound like the water flowed through a number of small farms that really weren't worth much until the population boom made land prices sky-rocket over the last 20 years.
The bigger issue in the area is that it is more how long the water rights have been retained. If your family bought your farm 150 years ago, you will get your water before the person that bought theirs 20 years ago. It doesn't matter in wet years, but as soon as a drought hits the 150 year farm will get 80-100% of their water, while the 20 year farm will be lucky if they get 20%. If you bought water rights last year, you better conserve your seed and sell your animals quickly because you aren't getting any water.
In a way it is completely fair, it isn't the long-term farmers fault that the state is having an unsustainable population explosion. However, as one of those new residents who really didn't understand the local laws when I moved there, I hated it.
Will they though?
What are the poor going to eat after that?
The same food they are forced to slave away to produce. Are you fucking stupid? Poor people are literally the foundation of your society not some executive flying around to talk to clients. Literally fuck off. IT has access to security controls in an org. Accountants can access funds if they need as they have the rights. Billionaires add nothing of value to this society nor to its functioning. The driver who delivers your produce, the farmer who produces it, the factory worker who packages it, the restaurant employees who cook and serve you, the gas station clerk who turns your pump on and off, the grocery store workers, the municipality workers managing waste water and electrical infrastructure, all the jobs foundational to a society are not done from billionaires and seeing the rich gone tomorrow would not change that instead it would release a burden and allow progress. Honestly it takes just a miniscule of common sense to understand this, which shows how disconnected and stupid the billionaire class and those who defend it are.
Please stop arguing against your own fantasies of what I might think and actually comment on what I said. Doing the former makes for nice campaign speeches, but we aren't politicians.
Billionaires aren’t the ones that starve when the economy implodes.
Nowhere here did I say billionaires are a good necessary parts of society and we should support them. Crashing the economy will cause mass starvation, but not by those who have the resources and foresight to prepare for turbulent times.
Poor people are literally the foundation of your society
Agreed, but those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.
The guy making the tools can't do anything with 100,000 heads of lettuce, he needs something he can pay metallurgists with, who in-turn need something to pay the miners with. That lettuce is going to rot before it changes hands enough times to get into someone's belly.
those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.
You are too ingrained with a monetary system you cant even imagine a system in which one doesn't exist. The miner doesn't need a currency when his food and tools are provided for. The metallurgist doesn't need to sell tools when they can give away the excess. The farmer doesn't need to sell his food when he can give away the excess. We don't need constant accumulation to distribute resources in an efficient manner. Especially when the only reason these excess products weren't given away in the first place is profit motive. Not to mention most of the labor intensive work could be outsourced to robotics where we not hoarding the physical resources for profit and war time motives, making them overtly expensive.
We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity however we have allowed those at the top too use that efficiency to hoard profits and resources as power management tools instead of utilizing these resources for growth and equity across our species.
You are too ingrained with a monetary system you cant even imagine a system in which one doesn’t exist.
I can imagine it, but only in a post-scarcity society. It just doesn't seem plausible to me until we are at least a Type 1 Civilization, more likely Type 2.
When two people want or need the same limited resource how do you decide who gets it? Money solves that issue. While it is a poor solution, I have yet to see something that wouldn't have just as many problems, though admittedly different ones
Even if we had post-scarcity potential, I am not at all sure human nature would allow it. Some people have a fundamental need to stand above other people, others have a fundamental need to collect things, and then there are takers. Takers being those who would gladly take from others but would never give away their own stuff without being forced, even if it was pure excess.
We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity
I agree that we are definitely approaching an era where robotics/automation could replace the need for most human labor. Though I don't really think we are there yet. One of my favorite sayings a few years back was, "humans should be in the business of thinking and creating, not laboring." Sure I can buy a "perfect" machine made wooden chair but there is a certain character and richness to having one an artisan made.
I was a fan of taxing the labor of robots that replaced humans and using those funds to cover a UBI long before I ever heard the name Andrew Yang, though even that doesn't get rid of the monetary system.