People Power

[Eki]

The question wasn't about unemployment insurance. I asked who is forcing that person to take the low paying job? Said another way, why don't they have a better paying job?

Lack of connections, ideas, skills, talent, education, job experience or wrong age, wrong gender, wrong ethnicity or sheer luck among other things. Of course they would take a better paying job if they were available.

[race aficionado]

That's a cute definition of socialism you dug up there. Try this one
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com


So, as I said, by the very definition of socialism you can not have rich socialists as the ownership and control of production, capital, and land are vested in the community as a whole.



How is capitalism putting a "big boot on your throat"? And how are social programs, emplemented by the government, not putting a "big boot on your throat"? Remember, governments can only give out something that it first takes from someone else.

You and I are totally opposite on how we look at this one. I see no common ground and that's perfectly fine with me.



mokin:

[BDunnell]

How do you not see the irony in protesting "evil corporations" that make "too much profit" while at the same time using products produced by huge corporations making massive profits? I mean most of these people down occupying Wall Street have macs, ipads, and ipods. Apple's profit margin is a whopping 23.43% Apple Profit Margin (AAPL). And to top it all off they're built by outsourcing jobs to China. How do you not see the humor in that?

Tell me what the alternative is if someone participating in the protests wants a computer. Are they supposed to make one themselves, or get a group of anarcho-syndicalists to do it for nothing, using wood and lentils?

One of your problems in this discussion is that you assume no middle ground between Communism and an unfettered free market. You assume that those protesting must be socialists, or even further to the left than that. I know some people who have taken part, and they are nothing of the sort.

[BDunnell]

I wouldn't say that bland corporate homogeneity is good or bad. It just (at the moment at least) makes economic sense. I would rather support locally owned businesses, and do when I can. But do you honestly expect people to pay more for goods, just to support locally owned businesses? To hell with balance family budgets, hey?

And the fact that large chains are currently dominating the high street does not prove nor dis-prove barriers. I suppose you might be making the argument that they have a certain buying power based on scale. Ok I'll buy that. But why is that bad? And why is that necessarily a barrier to my entrance into the market? Is it even sort of a barrier to entrance into the market? What large chain doesn't have a competitor? Even if there is a monopoly somewhere, why is that inhearently bad?

Let's take an example from my life. I don't know if you are familiar with Lowe's (do they have those in Europe?). It's one of those large chain hardware stores. Stuff there is dirt cheap. The drawback to Lowe's is that they employ mostly high school and college kids at minimum wage that have no clue what the difference is between a light bulb and a 2x4. I go there when I know exactly what I want/need simply because it's cheap, and pretty much the same thing I'll get anywhere else. But if I need a specialty item I'll go to my local shop down the street because they have people in there that know what they're talking about. Sure I'll pay more there, but I'll get the right thing. You see each store has it's niche, they're good at what they do. What you seem to be proposing is for everyone to be forced to go to the mom & pop shop down the road out of some sort of "good for the community". Why is supporting someone who is expensive "good" even though I have to pay more than is necessary?

I made no reference to 'expensive' meaning 'good', and find it quite telling that you make that connection.

EDIT: As, indeed, it is that you apparently have no opinion on homogeneity. I see it as an almost indisputably bad thing in any sense. In the case I was describing, you say that '(at the moment at least) [it] makes economic sense'. By 'at the moment', what you mean is 'as a result of an unstoppable process dating back very many years'. And given attitudes such as yours, is this any surprise? What consumers are left with is less choice — not what you free-marketeers would deem a good thing. What, after all, is the rightful purpose of a company if not to seek to gain market domination and thus increase its profits?

[chuck34]

Lack of connections,

BS, plenty of job listings on the internet.

ideas,

BS, many jobs do not necessarily require one to have original ideas.

skills, talent, education,

BS, many jobs will pay for training, or there are technical schools out there and plenty of financial aid to go through the program.

job experience

BS, plenty of entry level jobs that are not minimum wage.

or wrong age, wrong gender, wrong ethnicity

BS, there are laws protecting from descrimination.

or sheer luck among other things.

Pure simple BS

Of course they would take a better paying job if they were available.

Of course they could find a better job, if they made that a priority rather than sitting around watching TV, or "occupying Wall Street", or b!tching about how unlucky they are, or whatever else one might do rather than improving one's lot in life.

[chuck34]

You and I are totally opposite on how we look at this one. I see no common ground and that's perfectly fine with me.



mokin:

I have no problem with someone with opposite views than me. I just like debating issues. Apparently you do not, that's cool.

mokin:

[Eki]

BS, plenty of job listings on the internet.

Much more unemployed.

[Eki]

BS, many jobs will pay for training, or there are technical schools out there and plenty of financial aid to go through the program.

I don't know about the US, but in Finland it seems that the companies expect the government and/or the applicants take care of the training. In other words, they have outsourced the training to the government and the applicants. They have also outsourced much of their research and development to the government.

[Eki]

BS, there are laws protecting from descrimination.

Do they work?

[chuck34]

Tell me what the alternative is if someone participating in the protests wants a computer. Are they supposed to make one themselves, or get a group of anarcho-syndicalists to do it for nothing, using wood and lentils?

How about a Dell? Their profit margin is only 22.9%. Let's bend the curve a bit.

One of your problems in this discussion is that you assume no middle ground between Communism and an unfettered free market. You assume that those protesting must be socialists, or even further to the left than that. I know some people who have taken part, and they are nothing of the sort.

No I understand completely that there is a middle ground. But it's not much fun to debate the middle.

I too have heard from some that have taken part in these protests. The rational ones that really do have a beef are, in my opinion, protesting the wrong thing. They are upset about the bailouts. And so am I. The government bailing out Wall Street firms was horrible. The firms that made bets on risky "securities" should have lost when their bet went south. But the blame for the bailouts lies not with the Wall Street firms (at least not totally), most of the blame rests on Congress.

But the other problem I have with the OWS folks is the fact that even if the majority are there for rational reasons, and they aren't hard core socialists/communists, the "face" of the movement has become those who are. Look at the TEA party as a counterpoint. Yes there were racist @ssholes that showed up to some TEA party rallies, but by and large those people were shouted down and forced to leave. So the "face" of the TEA party is not racist. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I've made that point 100% clear.