• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!

Status
Not open for further replies.

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Chichikov said:
Eric Cantor is like something that was developed in a lab to piss me off.
He really does seem perfectly designed towards that purpose. Even his jawline projects douchiness, nevermind how he talks or what he says.
 
bill gonorrhea said:
Didn't the parents of the protesters let them know lifes not fair? That just because Jimmy has a Twinkie doesn't mean you get one too. I blame the parets for ows. #occupyparentshouse.... Oh wait I bet 60% do.

I see your username is indicative of the content of your posts.
 

Myansie

Member
bill gonorrhea said:
Didn't the parents of the protesters let them know lifes not fair? That just because Jimmy has a Twinkie doesn't mean you get one too. I blame the parets for ows. #occupyparentshouse.... Oh wait I bet 60% do.

If by Twinkie you mean job, then no, I disagree. That's something everyone who is prepared to work deserves.

Did you know the US has the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression? Unfortunately the real numbers are hidden because everyone in their 20s is at #occupyparentshouse, which is 60% according to you.

I know you're trolling, but do you believe that America is not facing a significant economic problem?
 

Slavik81

Member
Karma Kramer said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/us/occ...html?hpt=hp_t2

I have also noticed how unwilling the media is in categorizing the protestors as being opposed to both political parties. The focus seems entirely on creating the left wing Tea Party, when the foundation of their movement (Wall Street) is inherently caused by corruption from both political parties.
The Tea Party was actually pretty anti-establishment. Some Republicans managed to rebrand themselves, but a number of quite established party figures were thrown out in favour of Tea Party candidates. They were thoroughly Republican, yes, but they managed to carve out their own section of the party and bend it to their will.

Though, I suppose that's not quite as likely of an end result for the Occupy movement. The proposed solutions I've seen in the crowds vary from extreme left-wing ideas like a communist revolution, to extreme right-wing ideas like dissolving most government institutions.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
You guys see that one protestor who owned the Fox News reporter the other day (he blogs for Dailykos) appear on This Week?
 

Enron

Banned
Karma Kramer said:
As an example of how poor journalism effectively spins the story away from the objective truth... Enron is assuming all 200 people were pushing and storming the Smithsonian or wanted to. Categorizing them as "dicks."

He assumes this even after such news has been released such as:



This is why I question people like Enron in this thread, because I see them actively participating in the thread, but I don't see that same level of active participating in objectively determining the truth.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...useum-protest/2011/10/09/gIQAIKxCYL_blog.html

The problem I see with the way news is managed today is that because it is 24/7 and because the goal now is to be the first organization that has the story, little attention is given to investigating beyond the surface. Which allows for easy manipulation of the news

Sorry, but 200 people marching to the Smithsonian to enter and protest an exhibit, cause problems for security, ruining other's enjoyment of one of our national museums, and potentially creating an unsafe situation is a bunch of "dicks". I don't care that the troll in the crowd was the one that actually got in and got the place shut down...that was probably going to happen anyways. 200 people crowding in to yell and shout and wave signs? I guarantee you that would have gotten the place shut the fuck down.
 
Slavik81 said:
The Tea Party was actually pretty anti-establishment. Some Republicans managed to rebrand themselves, but a number of quite established party figures were thrown out in favour of Tea Party candidates. They were thoroughly Republican, yes, but they managed to carve out their own section of the party and bend it to their will.

Though, I suppose that's not quite as likely of an end result for the Occupy movement. The proposed solutions I've seen in the crowds vary from extreme left-wing ideas like a communist revolution, to extreme right-wing ideas like dissolving most government institutions.

Yes true, but the root problem that led to this crisis lies on the responsibility of both parties, so both establishments, despite any similarities there might be in philosophical outlook, are to blame. I would like to see more coverage on major reform of our electoral system. But that type of reform is inherently bad for those currently in political office, so I doubt Fox News or MSNBC will give those ideas much coverage. There truly is no progressive voice in mainstream media that promotes grander reform of our political system. If there is a consistent left wing message in the media, it is bigger government. Which isn't entirely popular due to the huge deficits, largely caused by the opposition ie small government republicans (Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr.)
 
Enron said:
Sorry, but 200 people marching to the Smithsonian to enter and protest an exhibit, cause problems for security, ruining other's enjoyment of one of our national museums, and potentially creating an unsafe situation is a bunch of "dicks". I don't care that the troll in the crowd was the one that actually got in and got the place shut down...that was probably going to happen anyways. 200 people crowding in to yell and shout and wave signs? I guarantee you that would have gotten the place shut the fuck down.

My understanding is they wouldn't have been let in with their signs. Which is why security first stopped them from entering. No one bothered to try and break through besides this conservative mole. So while you love to keep generalizing a group of people based on one individual action, you have no evidence what the protestors would have done after concluding their discussion with security. Perhaps they would have come to some form of agreement and been let in or perhaps they would have left politely or perhaps they would have been dicks and tried to break in anyway... point is we can't know.

You inherently dislike these protests so you are projecting your bias on every situation that is controversial and assuming to know what happened based on fuzzy journalism.

I would assume this part of your profile:

Occupation:
Serving Evil Corporate Republican Masters

Is sarcasm or a joke. But now I am beginning to wonder...
 

alstein

Member
Slavik81 said:
The Tea Party was actually pretty anti-establishment. Some Republicans managed to rebrand themselves, but a number of quite established party figures were thrown out in favour of Tea Party candidates. They were thoroughly Republican, yes, but they managed to carve out their own section of the party and bend it to their will.

Though, I suppose that's not quite as likely of an end result for the Occupy movement. The proposed solutions I've seen in the crowds vary from extreme left-wing ideas like a communist revolution, to extreme right-wing ideas like dissolving most government institutions.

If OWS ends up the way people seem to want it to end up, what's going to happen when the right is run by the Tea Party, and the left by OWS folks. There will be zero compromise and a ton of populism brewing. That's combustible.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
Myansie said:
If by Twinkie you mean job, then no, I disagree. That's something everyone who is prepared to work deserves.

I deserve a million dollars but that doesn't mean I should get because I want it. Same thing for a job. That sense of entitlement is ridiculous.
 
Ripclawe said:
I deserve a million dollars but that doesn't mean I should get because I want it. Same thing for a job. That sense of entitlement is ridiculous.

So a person is both not entitled to a job and not entitled to welfare if there are no jobs to be had. That's your position? You do realize that, at any given time in capitalism, there are less jobs than people, right? And that this is built-in to capitalism. Capitalism is supposed to be, however, for the benefit of all members of the society. Else, there is no reason for any society to utilize it. That being the case, we cannot deny people the sustenance they need to sustain themselves because the economic system our society employs denies it to them.

You cannot hold the position you do and believe in society. Because you apparently reject society, you deserve the respect of no other human.
 
Ripclawe said:
I deserve a million dollars but that doesn't mean I should get because I want it. Same thing for a job. That sense of entitlement is ridiculous.

Jobs should be available so people who want to work can work. That's not entitlement, thats the American dream.

The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.[1] The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States Declaration of Independence which proclaims that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[2]
 

Slavik81

Member
Ripclawe said:
I deserve a million dollars but that doesn't mean I should get because I want it. Same thing for a job. That sense of entitlement is ridiculous.
Your suggestion is that we should do nothing to improve the economy because those people don't deserve jobs? No? Then what's your point?
 

Slavik81

Member
cooljeanius said:
Fox News viewers agree with the Occupy Wall Street protests! Link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...street-protests-represent-your-views-economy/
How does the poll turnout reflect compared to previous polls? I went looking, but I couldn't find where old poll results were listed on their website.

I just wonder if this link might be getting posted around Occupy forums and such, resulting in a different group of people voting on it than normally would be voting on a Fox News poll.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
So a person is both not entitled to a job and not entitled to welfare if there are no jobs to be had.

No one is entitled to a job and sure as hell not entitled to a welfare check because you can't find a job. The system should have a safety net to keep people from fall to the bottom but only just to catch them not let them live off of it.

Capitalism is supposed to be, however, for the benefit of all members of the society. Else, there is no reason for any society to utilize it. That being the case, we cannot deny people the sustenance they need to sustain themselves because the economic system our society employs denies it to them.

Capitalism is a benefit of all society but only of those members of society work to better themselves not have a segment doing the work and others sitting around waiting to be given a job because they feel they are entitled to it. Capitalism has and should be the system that weeds out those can and cannot to various economic levels.

I agree we can't deny a welfare check only because the chance of criminal activity and greater harm to productive members of society increases. What you are talking about is your version of what you want society to be which is unsustainable and unrealistic
 
Ripclawe said:
No one is entitled to a job and sure as hell not entitled to a welfare check because you can't find a job.


So I work in a manufacturing plant, I am 40 years old. I have done this one job all my life, worked hard. Then all the manufacturing jobs get shipped overseas... I can no longer find work. Even work that is way lower pay than what I was making. What should I do? I have a family to feed
 
Karma Kramer said:
So I work in a manufacturing plant, I am 40 years old. I have done this one job all my life, worked hard. Then all the manufacturing jobs get shipped overseas... I can no longer find work. Even work that is way lower pay than what I was making. What should I do?
Stop being so un-American.
 
Has this been posted yet?

309671_10150330657339475_632674474_8349910_1938695688_n.jpg


People have been posting it on my facebook feed.
 
Karma Kramer said:
So I work in a manufacturing plant, I am 40 years old. I have done this one job all my life, worked hard. Then all the manufacturing jobs get shipped overseas... I can no longer find work. Even work that is way lower pay than what I was making. What should I do? I have a family to feed

Well if you were a good worker then you would move your family over seas to keep your job, even if it does pay 1/10 of what it did in the states. Otherwise you are simply complaining and not being appreciative of the fantastic opportunity that you had been given lo these many years. Herman Cain would move and then ascend the company ranks to become CEO and he'd do it while being in a coma. Why can't you? Answer? You're lazy, OBVIOUSLY.
 
Ripclawe said:
No one is entitled to a job and sure as hell not entitled to a welfare check because you can't find a job. The system should have a safety net to keep people from fall to the bottom but only just to catch them not let them live off of it.

Capitalism is a benefit of all society but only of those members of society work to better themselves not have a segment doing the work and others sitting around waiting to be given a job because they feel they are entitled to it. Capitalism has and should be the system that weeds out those can and cannot to various economic levels.

I agree we can't deny a welfare check only because the chance of criminal activity and greater harm to productive members of society increases. What you are talking about is your version of what you want society to be which is unsustainable and unrealistic


Current society is unsustainable and bloody unreal when you look at it.
 

Myansie

Member
Ripclawe said:
Capitalism is a benefit of all society but only of those members of society work to better themselves not have a segment doing the work and others sitting around waiting to be given a job because they feel they are entitled to it. Capitalism has and should be the system that weeds out those can and cannot to various economic levels.

I agree we can't deny a welfare check only because the chance of criminal activity and greater harm to productive members of society increases. What you are talking about is your version of what you want society to be which is unsustainable and unrealistic

Unsustainable and unrealistic is allowing the banks to regulate themselves. How many fraudulent cases let off with a tap on the wrist, how much money do you have to lose before you realise your being taken to the cleaner. We're in the trillions already. The vast majority of unemployed in America are not "sitting around waiting to be given a job because they feel they are entitled to it." Those jobs have been wiped out because of Wall Sts insatiable drive to make money at whatever cost.
 

Slavik81

Member
Karma Kramer said:
So I work in a manufacturing plant, I am 40 years old. I have done this one job all my life, worked hard. Then all the manufacturing jobs get shipped overseas... I can no longer find work. Even work that is way lower pay than what I was making. What should I do? I have a family to feed
Personally? If you can find a healthier sector to work in, retrain. Also, consider moving.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Ripclawe said:
Capitalism is a benefit of all society but only of those members of society work to better themselves not have a segment doing the work and others sitting around waiting to be given a job because they feel they are entitled to it. Capitalism has and should be the system that weeds out those can and cannot to various economic levels.

But... the people "sitting around wanting jobs" generally want jobs so that they may better themselves like good little Capitalists.

This sounds like the classic circular rationalization of the entitled who merely wish to push the inconvenient away and forget about them.

"I don't have a job."

"Clearly you are a lazy person who doesn't want to Better Yourself (tm)"."

"But I want a job."

"Why should we give you a job?"

"So I can be like you and Better Myself (tm)"

"Who do you think you are? You don't deserve job!"

And this "weeding out to various economic levels" only works when there are valid levels for most people to actually exist in above an unfair or unethical quality of life. The entire point of why people are angry is that the middle class has been eroded for decades, and it's getting to the point that it looks absurd to shrug and tell people they're just lazy if they're not rich yet.

It also gets harder and harder to swallow sound bytes about what Capitalism is and why it's so wonderful for us all, when a bunch of people sit on literal pyramids of most of society's resources, many of them having gotten there by making money by moving more money around. Not every rich person is Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (R.I.P.) who actually did something to create unique new value and profited from it.

And you know what the irony there is? The rich people who are not the modern robber barons, the ones who actually got rich because they went out there and "bettered themselves", did actual work that created more assets and value for society? They increasingly don't think the rig is fair either.

Society is being held hostage, basically, by men who sit on money and make their fortune by insuring as few people as possible have it. They take society's resources and lock them away in vaults to retain power.
 
empty vessel said:
Curse that Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended up as policy! Curse it to hell!

As shitty as his quote is, it's nice to get a reminder that protest really does shape policy (from a conservative, no less!). It's a good rebuttal to all those believe this movement won't accomplish anything.
 
Just read about a protest by right wing extremist in some city in France, unrelated to all of this, but it made me sad thinking that right wing groups in Europe are able to gather hundreds of people all the time (600 in this case). Literally all the time, for their sick, perverted causes. Yet it seems so hard to get the majority of ''normal/average'' people to stand up for stuff like this. Sad world really.
 

Drkirby

Corporate Apologist
Karma Kramer said:
haha no, just an example of many, where hard working americans lost their job and now cannot find work
We are in a Post labor scarcity society. We have more labor then we need in just about every sector. Watch, in 10 years we are going to have to many people in the medical field, and then someone will actually figure out how to out source it on top of it.
 
Karma Kramer said:
haha no, just an example of many, where hard working americans lost their job and now cannot find work

What is wrong with re-training?

I agree that it sucks that one has to do it but some times you have to. i have an computerised instruments degree but there are not many jobs like that in norway so i am now working in IT.
 

Belfast

Member
electristan said:
What is wrong with re-training?

I agree that it sucks that one has to do it but some times you have to. i have an computerised instruments degree but there are not many jobs like that in norway so i am now working in IT.

When your resources are already strained and you have other people depending on you, even re-training cannot be accomplished without significant sacrifices.

It's not as if re-training happens overnight and there's no guarantee an employer would take you anyway since they are becoming pickier and pickier about the amount of experience they're willing to accept.

At least, that's how it is here.
 
Drkirby said:
We are in a Post labor scarcity society. We have more labor then we need in just about every sector. Watch, in 10 years we are going to have to many people in the medical field, and then someone will actually figure out how to out source it on top of it.

I agree that our current problems economically deal with a lack of demand (both in the marketplace and job market), but I don't think this is unfixable. Obviously this is a very complex issue, so this might be a bit naive and simplistic. But hear me out.

We can create demand by scaling back outsourcing and investing in new energy/infrastructure. Increasing our productivity we will increase demand in the marketplace and grow the economy.

To scale back on outsourcing we will need a new tax code as well as new labor laws. The tax code should be structured around a few things. Obviously increasing taxes on outsourcing is one way, but another way is to increase taxes on products that were manufactured overseas. Balancing out the advantage American businesses save with cheap labor. Promoting competition and new businesses here in America. Chinese exports from Chinese businesses should be promoted with tax incentives, which would promote internal growth and trade.

Outsourcing countries would be facing a decrease in manufacturing from foreign businesses, so they would also need to shift focus to creating internal marketplace demand. Which would be parallel to the methods used here (better labor laws, better wages, etc).

It would have to be a multi-lateral approach and the transition would need time. Not something you can implement overnight. So that might make this approach unrealistic, depending on cooperation, but it is hard to imagine other paths to sustain our economies. If we do nothing, the American economy will most likely weaken even more , shrinking marketplace demand even further, weakening all economies globally.
 
Re-evaluating the value of labor is what is necessary. We need to do away with the extremes on both ends of the income scale.

I feel like one of the reasons that demand is low is because too much money is flowing straight into the pockets of already wealthy people. The research into the effects of the stimulus showed that tax cuts for the richest groups had barely an effect on demand, while tax cuts for the poor and middle class had positive effects. Rich people already have money, having even more money just means more to put on their savings account. For poor people having more money means paying off debts or buying things they couldn't before. The richest people already had enough money to buy what their hearts desired.

This is obviously a simplification, but oh well.
 
Rocket Scientist said:
Re-evaluating the value of labor is what is necessary. We need to do away with the extremes on both ends of the income scale.

I feel like one of the reasons that demand is low is because too much money is flowing straight into the pockets of already wealthy people. The research into the effects of the stimulus showed that tax cuts for the richest groups had barely an effect on demand, while tax cuts for the poor and middle class had positive effects. Rich people already have money, having even more money just means more to put on their savings account. For poor people having more money means paying off debts or buying things they couldn't before. The richest people already had enough money to buy what their hearts desired.

This is obviously a simplification, but oh well.

Exactly, the wealth gap is similar to where it was before/during the great depression. Class warfare exists but on the middle and underclass. Only way to balance this is by targeting businesses which are eliminating jobs through cheap labor overseas and businesses which haven't increased wages proportionally with profits. This creates more marketplace demand, which promotes small business creation/start ups, which in turn also increases competition and innovation.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
There's a small 'Occupy Dame Street' protest here in Dublin, outside the Central Bank.

It amazes me how passive we are here. This kind of movement is something you'd think Irish people would jump all over - given that bailing out banks has brought us to the brink economically, brought the IMF to town, etc. etc. Of course, I say this while I sit here myself, not really doing anything in support of these protests. I suppose there's a bit of a sense here that it's too late to do anything anyway. If there was a time for protest, it was on that quiet night a couple of years ago when the government agreed to guarantee all bank debt behind closed doors...
 
Belfast said:
When your resources are already strained and you have other people depending on you, even re-training cannot be accomplished without significant sacrifices.

It's not as if re-training happens overnight and there's no guarantee an employer would take you anyway since they are becoming pickier and pickier about the amount of experience they're willing to accept.

At least, that's how it is here.

That is all fair enough, and there are of course cases were that is not an option at all, but i do think it is an option for many people and they don't do it for what ever reason.

We have issues here in Norway because a vast majority of people go into business study and then cant find a job when they graduate. the thing is that we don't need any more so they should take it upon them selves to maybe figure out an alternative.

This is just one example and there are many other cases that this doesn't apply to of course, but saying that re-training isn't a viable option for many seems wrong.
 

Drkirby

Corporate Apologist
Karma Kramer said:
I agree that our current problems economically deal with a lack of demand (both in the marketplace and job market), but I don't think this is unfixable. Obviously this is a very complex issue, so this might be a bit naive and simplistic. But hear me out.

We can create demand by scaling back outsourcing and investing in new energy/infrastructure. Increasing our productivity we will increase demand in the marketplace and grow the economy.

To scale back on outsourcing we will need a new tax code as well as new labor laws. The tax code should be structured around a few things. Obviously increasing taxes on outsourcing is one way, but another way is to increase taxes on products that were manufactured overseas. Balancing out the advantage American businesses save with cheap labor. Promoting competition and new businesses here in America. Chinese exports from Chinese businesses should be promoted with tax incentives, which would promote internal growth and trade.

Outsourcing countries would be facing a decrease in manufacturing from foreign businesses, so they would also need to shift focus to creating internal marketplace demand. Which would be parallel to the methods used here (better labor laws, better wages, etc).

It would have to be a multi-lateral approach and the transition would need time. Not something you can implement overnight. So that might make this approach unrealistic, depending on cooperation, but it is hard to imagine other paths to sustain our economies. If we do nothing, the American economy will most likely weaken even more , shrinking marketplace demand even further, weakening all economies globally.
I believe the idea to try and put walls in the way of Globalization are short term solutions that will not only flat out fail, but set us up even worse for the Future. If we stop producing the products over seas, local companies over seas will make the products. We built the infrastructure, it isn't going anyplace.

We need new tools to solve these problems.
 

Slavik81

Member
electristan said:
What is wrong with re-training?

I agree that it sucks that one has to do it but some times you have to. i have an computerised instruments degree but there are not many jobs like that in norway so i am now working in IT.
He was saying his scenario was hypothetical, rather than personal. I don't think the point was that retraining is bad.

I pointed those two things out because jobs will never return in some industries, and because labour mobility is seriously low these days. Both problems require societal-level changes to ease adjustment, but ultimately what's needed is thousands of individuals acting on a personal level.
 
Slavik81 said:
He was saying his scenario was hypothetical, rather than personal. I don't think the point was that retraining is bad.

I pointed those two things out because jobs will never return in some industries, and because labour mobility is seriously low these days. Both problems require societal-level changes to ease adjustment, but ultimately what's needed is thousands of individuals acting on a personal level.

oh ok, it is a really sad state of affairs. Before moving back to Norway i lived in Waterford were Waterford Crystal was located. There is a place that has been there for a few hundred years, with a lot of workers that have 40-50 years experience (the ones making the trophies) and it gets shut down. terrible shame that its gone.
 
Drkirby said:
I believe the idea to try and put walls in the way of Globalization are short term solutions that will not only flat out fail, but set us up even worse for the Future. If we stop producing the products over seas, local companies over seas will make the products. We built the infrastructure, it isn't going anyplace.

We need new tools to solve these problems.

Globalization is inevitable, however because we don't have consistent labor laws, there can never be equal growth globally. If one large country or multiple have poor labor condition/wages decreasing demand internally while also decreasing job market globally, there is no way demand can sustain globally. There needs to be global regulations on wages and labor laws, so each country can sustain demand internally. We are already seeing what happens globally if revenues diminish due to heavy spending and high unemployment with Greece. One country falls, the rest follow.

Companies should not all flock to one country due to cheap labor. Globalization should just be the spread of services and products... not the spread of jobs to China/India. The wealth gap has to be adapted under each currency. It is the only way to insure enough revenues locally for education and insure local competition and growth to continue creating new jobs and businesses/services.

This would be a dramatic change in how the world functions economically, but it is a necessary change due to a significant shift in how corporations operate. Corporations essentially have the whole world to explore and invest in, they are people sure and they may even be Americans. But unlike you and I, they can operate anywhere that benefits their interests best. How can an American compete locally against an American who is competing globally? The playing field has to be fair for businesses otherwise it drives down incentives to start new businesses while also destroying the local economy new businesses need for expansion.
 

RJT

Member
There's a great article on McKinsey Quarterly about the digital economy that I think correctly frames the jobs issue:

Of course, as with most changes, there is a downside. I am concerned that there is an adverse impact on jobs. Productivity increasing, say, at 2.4 percent in a given year means either that the same number of people can produce 2.4 percent more output or that we can get the same output with 2.4 percent fewer people. Both of these are happening. We are getting more output for each person in the economy, but overall output, nationally, requires fewer people to produce it. Nowadays, fewer people are required behind the desk of an airline. Much of the work is still physical—someone still has to take your luggage and put it on the belt—but much has vanished into the digital world of sensing, digital communication, and intelligent response.

Physical jobs are disappearing into the second economy, and I believe this effect is dwarfing the much more publicized effect of jobs disappearing to places like India and China.

There are parallels with what has happened before. In the early 20th century, farm jobs became mechanized and there was less need for farm labor, and some decades later manufacturing jobs became mechanized and there was less need for factory labor. Now business processes—many in the service sector—are becoming “mechanized” and fewer people are needed, and this is exerting systematic downward pressure on jobs. We don’t have paralegals in the numbers we used to. Or draftsmen, telephone operators, typists, or bookkeeping people. A lot of that work is now done digitally. We do have police and teachers and doctors; where there’s a need for human judgment and human interaction, we still have that. But the primary cause of all of the downsizing we’ve had since the mid-1990s is that a lot of human jobs are disappearing into the second economy. Not to reappear.

Seeing things this way, it’s not surprising we are still working our way out of the bad 2008–09 recession with a great deal of joblessness.

There’s a larger lesson to be drawn from this. The second economy will certainly be the engine of growth and the provider of prosperity for the rest of this century and beyond, but it may not provide jobs, so there may be prosperity without full access for many. This suggests to me that the main challenge of the economy is shifting from producing prosperity to distributing prosperity. The second economy will produce wealth no matter what we do; distributing that wealth has become the main problem. For centuries, wealth has traditionally been apportioned in the West through jobs, and jobs have always been forthcoming. When farm jobs disappeared, we still had manufacturing jobs, and when these disappeared we migrated to service jobs. With this digital transformation, this last repository of jobs is shrinking—fewer of us in the future may have white-collar business process jobs—and we face a problem.

The system will adjust of course, though I can’t yet say exactly how. Perhaps some new part of the economy will come forward and generate a whole new set of jobs. Perhaps we will have short workweeks and long vacations so there will be more jobs to go around. Perhaps we will have to subsidize job creation. Perhaps the very idea of a job and of being productive will change over the next two or three decades. The problem is by no means insoluble. The good news is that if we do solve it we may at last have the freedom to invest our energies in creative acts.
This part is especially important:

"This suggests to me that the main challenge of the economy is shifting from producing prosperity to distributing prosperity. The second economy will produce wealth no matter what we do; distributing that wealth has become the main problem. For centuries, wealth has traditionally been apportioned in the West through jobs, and jobs have always been forthcoming. When farm jobs disappeared, we still had manufacturing jobs, and when these disappeared we migrated to service jobs. With this digital transformation, this last repository of jobs is shrinking—fewer of us in the future may have white-collar business process jobs—and we face a problem."

Link
 

Enron

Banned
Karma Kramer said:
My understanding is they wouldn't have been let in with their signs. Which is why security first stopped them from entering. No one bothered to try and break through besides this conservative mole. So while you love to keep generalizing a group of people based on one individual action, you have no evidence what the protestors would have done after concluding their discussion with security. Perhaps they would have come to some form of agreement and been let in or perhaps they would have left politely or perhaps they would have been dicks and tried to break in anyway... point is we can't know.

You inherently dislike these protests so you are projecting your bias on every situation that is controversial and assuming to know what happened based on fuzzy journalism.

I would assume this part of your profile:

Occupation:
Serving Evil Corporate Republican Masters

Is sarcasm or a joke. But now I am beginning to wonder...

You are right, we DON'T know what people would have/wouldn't have done - but you can use your head. 200 angry people who were angry enough to try and storm into a museum - what do you think would have happened? All it takes is one person pissed off enough to cause some damage. Crowds like this are unpredicatable, and the security guards were 100% correct to deny them entry...signs or no signs.

I can speak the same thing for you. You inherently support these protests so you are projecting your bias on every situation and assume that everyone has the purest, noblest of intentions and no harm or wrong could be done.

Digging through my profile? What's next, googling my nick? You seem to be a little preoccupied with me. That's kinda weird, dude.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom