Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flaser on March 30, 2010, 09:35:24 am
-
You're a SLAVE, you just don't see it yet!
(http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/gp.jpg)
Going Postal (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263873830&sr=8-2)
If Ward Cleaver were alive today, he'd rarely be home to see his wife and children; and when home, he'd an impossible crank, always getting called on the cellphone or buzzed on the Blackberry. The stress from seeing his health insurance get slashed would only be overshadowed by the fear caused by another round of white-collar downsizing and vicious memos from the senior executives implying that more fat way yet to be cut from the the company payrolls. Mr. Cleaver would work weekends and forego vacations, and likely vote Republican, forced to choose between the hypertension medicine and the blood-thinner pills since he can't afford both, not under the new corporate HMO plan... His anger and stress would push him into cursing Canada for being a hotbed of anti-American liberalism while at the same time he'd agonize over whether to order his medicines from their cheap online pharmacies. He'd have no time for imparting little moral lessons. "Not now, leave me alone," he'd grumble, washing down the last of his Cumadins with low-carb non-alcoholic beer while watching The O'Reilly Factor through clenched teeth. His wife June would be stuck at the three-day merchandising conference at Holiday Inn in Temple - if they weren't divorced by now - while the Beaver would be standing in front of his bedroom dresser mirror in his long black trenchcoat, clutching his homemade pipebombs, plotting revenge on Eddie Haskell and all other kids who call him "gay" and "*****" and make his life a living Hell.
Mark's artiles (http://exiledonline.com/?s=Mark%20Ames) on the Exiled.
"Ames takes a systematic look at the scores of rage killings in our public schools and workplaces that have taken place over the past 25 years. He claims that instead of being the work of psychopaths, they were carried out by ordinary people who had suffered repeated humiliation, bullying and inhumane conditions that find their origins in the "Reagan Revolution." Looking through a carefully researched historical lens, Ames recasts these rage killings as failed slave rebellions."-source article (http://www.alternet.org/story/24796/)
"Why did it all start in that point in time, in the mid-1980s? Why did these shootings start then, and not in the 1970s or 1960s? What changed?
It wasn’t as though guns suddenly became legalized in the 80s, or that movies just started to get violent. No, what changed was the Reagan Revolution, and the massive transfer of wealth from the majority of America’s workforce up to the tiny plutocrat class. Reaganomics changed the corporate culture, and since we spend most of our lives working, it means our lives were changed–our lives were literally transferred into the offshore bank accounts and Aspen cabins of our bosses’ bosses. For the rich to get richer, they had to destroy the old corporate culture which emphasized a mutually beneficial relationship between company and employee, thereby limiting how obscenely rich they could get, and put in its place an ideology which dictated that companies only exist to enrich the executives and major shareholders. Workers could **** off and die if they didn’t like it. So from 1981 on, companies squeezed workers of their “unlimited juice” (in the words of GE’s former CEO “Neutron” Jack Welch, nicknamed that for his firing of 120,000 GE workers while he took in hundreds of millions of dollars in personal bonuses), firing them en masse and stripping more benefits from them whenever the executives and shareholders wanted to drive up their quarterly earnings a few cents. This kind of treatment pushed people to the brink. While the executives’ lives got better and better, the average American middle-class worker’s wages stagnated, their benefits were slashed, and their work hours soared. The rich got so rich that they even left the rich behind to create a new super-rich class of their own, creating what the New York Times called the “hyper-rich”"-source article (http://exiledonline.com/alabama-shootings-just-another-bloody-battle-in-americas-thirty-years-class-war/)
-
And this is more or less why I quit my previous job. The constant "downsizing," rampant mismanagement, complete disdain for the people in the trenches who were busting their asses trying to maintain quality service and product... I couldn't look at myself in the mirror anymore knowing that every good job I did was just enabling them to screw someone else over.
So, I'm out. I am now working for a small privately owned company, have been since November, and I'm never going back. The corporate world with all of its CEO's, VP's, Directors, 12 hour work days, company provided cell phones that never stop ringing and you are forbidden to shut off, random layoffs with no rhyme or reason where they get rid of the people that actually did their jobs and leave behind the idiots who cannot be assed to stop internet browsing long enough to figure out what their actual job is...
Yeah, all that can go screw itself. I'm done. And God, it feels good to be out of there.
-
Is this gonna be a thread about ****ty jobs?
I was bitten at my last job. By a human.
-
While I do think tracking it all the way back to Regan is a bit extreme (no, I'm not defending the man, never really liked him), I do think there are serious issues with today's corporate/working culture.
-
While I do think tracking it all the way back to Regan is a bit extreme (no, I'm not defending the man, never really liked him), I do think there are serious issues with today's corporate/working culture.
It's blantantly two-faced. One face is presented to stockholders and executives; We're doing a great job. We make ethical decisions and follow all laws and regulations. We care about our employees and treat them well. Then on the flip-side, it's a "do it or die" situation for the employees. Don't like someone's hair style? Oh--we're downsizing. Don't like them making more money than you think they deserve? Oh--we're optimizing our operations. Can't afford to spend $5 on a pair of shoes that sell for $50 or $100? Outsource it, because a 2nd or 3rd World Country will make it for $1 or less. Percentage-wise, the difference appears huge. It's irresponsible spending and often a plain load of bull****. If a company makes money after paying all expenses, pay your damn dividends. If you can't afford to pay dividends, you're probably doing something wrong or just being greedy.
-
All I hear is whining and *****ing because the world is not some glorious communist workers paradise.
-
Sorry, Liberator. Us young folks didn't get the full blast of the anti-communist propaganda war from back in the day.
-
You're a SLAVE, you just don't see it yet!
why the hell do you think i hold a "nuke everything!" stance on the world. of course were slaves.
ima gonna go live in a shack in the woods, enjoy your radiation.
-
Neither did I, I was 12 when the Wall went down.
-
All I hear is whining and *****ing because the world is not some glorious communist workers paradise.
Uhm. So it's okay with you that corporations build factories overseas to avoid taxes and environmental/health regulations (especially for their workers) so that they can employ people (including children) for pennies a day?
That's a little ****ed up, man.
-
All I hear is whining and *****ing because the world is not some glorious communist workers paradise.
Communism. Really. You really think that's what this is about. Us wanting free handouts.
Let us cut the bull****. Between me and my wife we're bringing in easily $160,000 per year, and that's not counting bonuses if there are any. I do not want, nor do I need any free hand outs from anyone.
What I do need, what I do want, is a job where I am respected as a person, a human being, not some number on the payroll. Where my talent is recognized for what it brings the company. And, screw modesty, I brought easily 3 times my annual salary in profit (not revenue, profit) to my previous company within the first two months of the last year I worked there. I dare say my talent was not so insignificant to be unworthy of recognition. Nor were the talents of the wonderful group of people who were in the trenches with me actually "getting the job done." And yet they all got sacked for the flimsiest of excuses. No thought for their families or even the long-term best interest of the company. Nothing but the "bottom line" and the "shareholders." Those workers that were left were saddled with a whole bunch of additional responsibilities they were overqualified for but had no time to do, but oh well I guess they should just shut up and be glad the company in its infinite mercy decided to spare them. And in the meantime, anyone with "manager" in their title gets a "get out jail free" card, no matter how corrupt, useless, or flat out incompetent they were.
This is not about capitalism versus communism or anything else. This is about ****ing common decency and the fact that I have not seen one shred of it during my tenure in the corporate world. THAT is why I left.
Tell you what. You go and get a job in the corporate world yourself (as if). See how degrading it really is. Then we'll talk of bull**** like "communist workers paradises" to your heart's content. Right now all I see is trolling, and ignorant trolling at that.
-
All I hear is whining and *****ing because the world is not some glorious communist workers paradise.
I take it you've never actually worked in a corporate environment before, have you?
Dilbert is real.
Nor were the talents of the wonderful group of people who were in the trenches with me actually "getting the job done." And yet they all got sacked for the flimsiest of excuses. No thought for their families or even the long-term best interest of the company. Nothing but the "bottom line" and the "shareholders."
Short sightedness is exactly what is killing corporate america, and what got us into the financial crisis in the first place. Of course because they met short term profits the CEO's give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses and salary increases while to often shafting the people who made that profit.
-
If I had do you think I'd be living in my parents attic with about $150 in the bank wondering what I'll do to get out of the hole I'm in? The last job I had promised me a raise before the end of the year and 3 years later I was making the same amount and spending twice what I used to pay for rent in gas every two weeks because the rent went up and I couldn't afford to live there any more. So yeah I know what it is to be a wage slave, but you know what, I'm not some high and mighty rich guy like you with the means to prattle on.
So I sit here, broke with no prospects, and I yell, scream and cry about what I see happening because I know in my heart that it's the wrong way for us as a people to go.
Most of you jokers knew what you wanted to do by the time you hit high school, probably before. I'm 32 god damned years old and don't know what I want for lunch tomorrow, nevermind what I could possibly do as a career for the rest of my life.
So sit there and complain about executives making truckloads of money, in my world, it doesn't matter a hill of beans. To me you're all a bunch a folks with a gods damned Robin Hood complex only you are letting Prince ****ing John do the work for you.
-
Through a combination of corruption, turning a blind eye, greed, and general asshattery, the rich continue to get richer by taking money that other people worked their butts off to earn. The poor get screwed the worse in this equation. The middle classes have been forced to adopt a two-income-household approach and mortgage themselves to the hilt just to stay afloat. From what you are telling me, this clearly has affected you, has hurt you, and for that, believe it or not, you have my sympathy.
But all this, and you don't care? "It doesn't matter a hill of beans?" FFS how can you NOT care? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I want nothing but what I earned. And I want the same for everyone else. I'm not even talking about cash here. I'm talking about dignity and not constantly living in fear of the next random whim of some money-grubbing asshole who couldn't get down in the trenches with the rest of us and do REAL work if his life depended on it!
I'm working for a smaller, privately owned company now that is doing it right. I know full well it can be done. Most of corporations with their board members and CEO's just don't care. They can shaft those that give them the means to live opulent lives above the petty masses, and they get no consequence for their sins.
-
*snip*
Get a job, you bum.
/conservative
-
If I had do you think I'd be living in my parents attic with about $150 in the bank wondering what I'll do to get out of the hole I'm in? The last job I had promised me a raise before the end of the year and 3 years later I was making the same amount and spending twice what I used to pay for rent in gas every two weeks because the rent went up and I couldn't afford to live there any more. So yeah I know what it is to be a wage slave, but you know what, I'm not some high and mighty rich guy like you with the means to prattle on.
So I sit here, broke with no prospects, and I yell, scream and cry about what I see happening because I know in my heart that it's the wrong way for us as a people to go.
Most of you jokers knew what you wanted to do by the time you hit high school, probably before. I'm 32 god damned years old and don't know what I want for lunch tomorrow, nevermind what I could possibly do as a career for the rest of my life.
So sit there and complain about executives making truckloads of money, in my world, it doesn't matter a hill of beans. To me you're all a bunch a folks with a gods damned Robin Hood complex only you are letting Prince ****ing John do the work for you.
And to me you should pull your thumb out of your ass and stop wallowing in your parents attic before you presume to complain about the people who have a job and are contributing to society.
-
Why'd you work there for 3 ****ing years then? Couldn't find another place to work that would pay you more after a year? Were you that bad at your job they didn't see the need to give you a raise ever? Maybe that was some sort of hint? Or was it really the case that it was a poorly performing company and there was no one else around to work for that would even pay that much, etc blah. Sounds fishy to me.
-
Why'd you work there for 3 ****ing years then? Couldn't find another place to work that would pay you more after a year? Were you that bad at your job they didn't see the need to give you a raise ever? Maybe that was some sort of hint? Or was it really the case that it was a poorly performing company and there was no one else around to work for that would even pay that much, etc blah. Sounds fishy to me.
Liberator's story is nothing new. In fact that's what has happened to the middle class in America.
What's really astounding though is the power of Reagenomics Indoctrination. Even after all this trouble he won't speak out against the corporate elite who exploited him.
-
conservatives are fine with redistribution of wealth, provided that redistribution is only in an upward direction.
-
They think hard work magically creates money and that it doesn't mainly have to do with where you're born, who your parents are, how much money your family has, etc.
-
ITT we make broad assumptions about groups we're not part of.
-
No, it also has to do with not having an attitude like...yours (iaz).
-
Hard work helps, but even that's dependent on the intelligence you're born with, how many opportunities for education you have, how good the education you get is...
Hard work, determination, etc, relatively small factor in determining how much wealth a person will accumulate.
-
Hard work, determination, etc, relatively small factor in determining how much wealth a person will accumulate.
To be honest, I agree.
The world ain't fair, but it's still fun. :yes:
-
So your point is that people who are less equipped - and not just by birthright - end up with less. That sounds okay to me.
-
People don't all have the same opportunities to succeed. It's silly to think they do.
-
So your point is that people who are less equipped - and not just by birthright - end up with less. That sounds okay to me.
It sounded mainly like birthright, since that determines most of those things.
-
So your point is that people who are less equipped - and not just by birthright - end up with less. That sounds okay to me.
No, I think that's the opposite of the point being made.
They're saying that people who are equally equipped in terms of drive, intelligence, and so on can end up with very different life outcomes because those factors aren't very important. Birth class, race, opportunities presented by the environs - those matter more. Stuff that's not in your control.
-
"but even that's dependent on the intelligence you're born with"
How many smart, driven people do you know who couldn't find a way to make it?
-
Lots. A huge number.
Especially those who never get a chance to get a good education.
-
Think about how many smart, driven people get the opportunity to "make it", and then realize that people (all people) with those opportunities are very small percentage of all the people there are. So -most- of the smart, driven people are probably lost.
-
I'm also astounded by how many complete idiots I meet on every college campus I've been on.
-
Why'd you work there for 3 ****ing years then? Couldn't find another place to work that would pay you more after a year? Were you that bad at your job they didn't see the need to give you a raise ever? Maybe that was some sort of hint? Or was it really the case that it was a poorly performing company and there was no one else around to work for that would even pay that much, etc blah. Sounds fishy to me.
You're assuming that all companies will compensate their employees appropriatly for a job well done. Sadly, this doesn't seem to happen as much as before.
EDIT:
So your point is that people who are less equipped - and not just by birthright - end up with less. That sounds okay to me.
It also isn't always true. Take our last president, virtually all of his accomplishments were a result of one thing: his daddy's connections. Birthright does matter.
-
Pointing out instances where birthright _does_ help doesn't prove that the opposite is true.
-
Malcolm Gladwell's 'Outliers' is a good treatment of the topic.
-
Read this on Digg:
"I am a conservative.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its
valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."
-
Seriously.
-
I saw that here (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/21/u-t-how-san-diegans-would-be-affected/#comment-41250491). Wonder where it originated from.
-
Regulation and actually offering it are different things. Bank regulation was fine until government backed banks started competing with the private banks, and look where that left us.
-
Regulation and actually offering it are different things. Bank regulation was fine until government backed banks started competing with the private banks, and look where that left us.
Fallacy. Canada has one of the most heavily regulated banking sectors in the democratic world, and is in much better shape financially than pretty much all of the Western world. And we have both private and government-backed financial institutions. That shoots your theory right in the foot.
Corporate greed, lack of regulation, and capitalist idiocy are what's put us in the global financial pickle we're currently in. The really hilarious thing is how the current mess is a direct result of the American Republican attitude towards regulation in general, but the Democrats are taking the fall for it. That's slick.
-
Pointing out instances where birthright _does_ help doesn't prove that the opposite is true.
The overwhelming predictor of your income and social status is your parents' income and social status. That's been shown in several dozen studies over the last thirty years. The "American Dream" is a complete myth. Class structure is more entrenched in countries where it is "invisible" - like the US - than countries where it is institutionalized - like Britain. The United States has the largest income distribution disparity of any Western nation - it has the richest rich, and the poorest poor.
-
I said I was fine with regulation. And our government-backed institutions are what caused the problem, not the smaller regulated banks. So regulate the **** out of the insurance industry, fine. I'm not even against everyone having to have health care. I just value my privacy, my right to choice, and an explosion of unnecessary taxpayer-paid government jobs.
We're also the biggest western nation, and were the first to get to many levels of industrial and technological achievement. So either the others got the privilege of learning from our mistakes, or they're just a little behind.
-
I'd call that 'a little ahead.'
-
In December, 1916, Fisher delivered an address titled “The Need for Health Insurance,” at a joint session of the American Association for Labor Legislation, the American Economic Association (he was president of both), the American Sociological Society, and the American Statistical Association. “Germany showed the way in 1883,” Fisher told his audience. “Her wonderful industrial progress since that time, her comparative freedom from poverty . . . and the physical preparedness of her soldiery, are presumably due, in considerable measure, to health insurance.”
You can probably already see where this is heading. The United States declared war with Germany in April, 1917. Health care was dead. Critics said that it was “made in Germany” and likely to result in the “Prussianization of America.” In California, where the legislature had passed a constitutional amendment providing for universal health insurance, it was put on the ballot for ratification: a federation of insurance companies took out an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle warning that it “would spell social ruin to the United States.” Every voter in the state received in the mail a pamphlet with a picture of the Kaiser and the words “Born in Germany. Do you want it in California?” (“If you are opposed to a thing these days,” one frustrated health-care advocate wrote, “the cheapest way to attack it is to call it ‘German.’ ”) The people of California voted it down. By 1919, John J. A. O’Reilly, a Brooklyn physician, was calling universal health insurance “UnAmerican, Unsafe, Uneconomic, Unscientific, Unfair and Unscrupulous.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/12/07/091207taco_talk_lepore#ixzz0ju7WXj2y
-
It's true! Socialized health care leads to fascism!
-
<snip>
We're also the biggest western nation, and were the first to get to many levels of industrial and technological achievement.
<snip>
I'm afraid that's not entirely correct. Although in terms of gross output, the USA is still no. 1, when you go into detailed makeup of the output you'll see that other countries have overtaken the US in terms of industrial output weighted by GDP. (So yes, the US makes more, but compared to its GDP it produces less high technology than SE Asian countries).
The "advance" that you speak of though is not one of technology, but a legal "invention" of Reagenomics: outsourcing. Also: boundless credit and an unwillingness to save.
Watch these videos:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-12-debt
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-13-national-failure-save
Finally this is a real cold shower:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers
If you undo all the data manipulation that's become standard in the last 20 years a shocking picture will realize before your eyes:
The USA is actually in a recession.
If that's true that a lot of things make sense.
...also it's not surprising. Without increased production, innovation and at the same time aggressive downsizing, outsourcing what could the end result be but lowered GDP?
-
I literally meant biggest, in terms of population.
People aren't (usually) born into debt. Abuse of credit is one's own doing. I have no sympathy for those who constantly are biting off more than they can chew. One of my best friends is this close to filing bankruptcy, I'm not blaming anyone but himself for making stupid decisions like buying a stupidly expensive truck he couldn't afford. He's in the hole he put himself in. I help when he can but I can't do much until he decides to help himself.
-
Pointing out instances where birthright _does_ help doesn't prove that the opposite is true.
The overwhelming predictor of your income and social status is your parents' income and social status. That's been shown in several dozen studies over the last thirty years. The "American Dream" is a complete myth. Class structure is more entrenched in countries where it is "invisible" - like the US - than countries where it is institutionalized - like Britain. The United States has the largest income distribution disparity of any Western nation - it has the richest rich, and the poorest poor.
-
We're also the biggest western nation, and were the first to get to many levels of industrial and technological achievement.
I'd like to point out that's only been true post WW2, before that the center of science and innovation was Europe, especially England and Germany.
People aren't (usually) born into debt. Abuse of credit is one's own doing. I have no sympathy for those who constantly are biting off more than they can chew.
Actually in a way they are born into debt because the hospital bills for having children cost so much. :p I'm also going to point out (again) that according to a Harvard Medical School study done before the Financial Crisis, at that time the number one cause of household bankruptcy in america was medical bills.
One of my best friends is this close to filing bankruptcy, I'm not blaming anyone but himself for making stupid decisions like buying a stupidly expensive truck he couldn't afford. He's in the hole he put himself in. I help when he can but I can't do much until he decides to help himself.
And that's one thing.
Bank regulation was fine until government backed banks started competing
So the bad debt caused by derivitives had nothing to do with it? :wtf: There's at least a quadrillion dollars worth of bad debt that came from derivitives. Source (http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/The_Quadrillion_Dollar_Powder_Keg_Waiting_To_Blow) The derivitive market was completely unregulated.
And btw, which "government backed banks" were you referring to?
-
The too-big-to-fails. And I don't know a lot of parents that actually hold their children to paying for their births.
-
The too-big-to-fails. And I don't know a lot of parents that actually hold their children to paying for their births.
They don't have to. Merely not having enough money to send children to good (read:private or moving to a good district) school ensures that their chances will be a lot worse. Add up the inability to get a degree and you end up with generation after generation forced to take worse and worse jobs and not moving ahead an inch regardless talent or diligence.
-
So don't have kids until you're in a better spot. For christ's sake it's not like I made anyone have them.
-
Double repost...
Pointing out instances where birthright _does_ help doesn't prove that the opposite is true.
The overwhelming predictor of your income and social status is your parents' income and social status. That's been shown in several dozen studies over the last thirty years. The "American Dream" is a complete myth. Class structure is more entrenched in countries where it is "invisible" - like the US - than countries where it is institutionalized - like Britain. The United States has the largest income distribution disparity of any Western nation - it has the richest rich, and the poorest poor.
No point in spouting rhetoric without data. You don't have any data.
-
So the rich are like Keyser Soze, the greatest trick they've ever played is convincing the masses that class structure doesn't exist?
-
The too-big-to-fails. And I don't know a lot of parents that actually hold their children to paying for their births.
They weren't government backed when they got themselves into that mess, that only happened afterwards when they came running in wanting handouts (ie, socialism). Privitizing profits, socializing losses.
-
Fannie Mae has been a GSE since the '60s. Freddie Mac since 1970.
-
So the rich are like Keyser Soze, the greatest trick they've ever played is convincing the masses that class structure doesn't exist?
Nothing so conspiracy-like. Unlike countries like Britain, the United States has never had a true class system in the sense of inherited social hierarchy. Instead, the myth of the American Dream propagated long beyond the days when it was actually possible. During the early settlement of the 13 colonies, it was indeed possible and not entirely uncommon for someone to come from abroad and greatly increase their standard of living. However, this was a result of two things: (1) a large, unclaimed land mass, and (2) decentralized governing structures. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent creation of the United States, government began the long process of increasing centralization and expansion of territorial interest. This pushed new immigrants further and further into the interior of the continent, and many of them did not have the financial resources to push inland. The American Dream is only possible through freely available property space and promotion of agriculture.
What is commonly known as the American Dream today - rags to riches stories of people who work hard and get ahead - is a complete myth. Hard work alone does not escalate social status (though it can elevate income level) and eventually even the hardest worker may hit a social ceiling, at which point further income growth becomes exponentially more difficult. This is because part of increasing wealth is having it in the first place in order to make the social contacts with banks, industry, etc. There are exceptions; every now and then you run across someone who has totally changed their social status level, but this is an anomaly rather than the rule.
However, because of the mythos concerning rags-to-riches stories in the United States, it is convenient to maintain the idea of the American Dream despite the fact that it is a rare anomaly because it gives the lower classes hope and reduces discontent. This is actually the reason why the only Western country to endure a Marxist-based revolution was Russia, and also why it failed so spectacularly (aside: Karl Marx was an absolutely brilliant guy who would have hated everything that Communism has become). In Russia, the elite structure did not have a mythos to contain popular unrest at social disparity, and it result in a revolution (that made things worse). Marx actually predicted the countries likely to switch to a communist system were Britain and Germany, and the entire premise of communism was based on the assumption that the country would be industrialized. Instead, however, Britain and Germany evolved the "middle class," a class structure which was entirely unheard of prior to the late 1850s.
The middle class in the United States is actually the result of that American Dream mythos we were talking about. Poor people do not live with the hope of entering the upper classes (the 2% of the population that controls 80% of the wealth in a Western nation), but rather they aspire to the middle class. Middle-class folks, on the other hand, aspire to a sub-divide frequently referred to as the Upper-middle class (typically this encompasses the income bracket of $300,000 to $5000000 gross family income). The class system in the United States is entrenched based on finances, rather than influence, but there is also a social component that is derived from it and creates an invisible ceiling on upward mobility.
The more the rich consolidate their wealth, the more legal influence is directed toward the maintenance of it. This also serves to produce limits on upward mobility and increase income disparity in all social classes except the upper class, as any legal tools that benefit the maintenance of wealth tend to be to the detriment of wealth accumulation (through no intent, it just tends to work out that way). So it's not a case of the rich sitting down together and scheming how to keep the masses poor, but rather an attempt to keep themselves rich. However, the American Dream myth continues to be propagated to reduce social upheaval. This last year is truly the closest we've come to revealing the truth wealth disparity in Western nations as the finances of the upper classes were exposed when financial institutions collapsed. You will, however, note how quickly the outrage over corporate bonuses has diminished and been swept out of the spotlight, and how no real revision to these practices has occurred.
Like I said, the strongest predictor of your income level is the income level of your parents. Class mobility is exceedingly rare, despite the fact that the American Dream myth is pervasive.
Incidentally, I should mention that, politically-speaking, my beliefs are virtually neutral on a left-right political scale, but skewed heavily towards libertarian principles. I'm a student of sociology, so I'm quite familiar with the writings of Mill, Marx, Durkheim, Foucault, Adam Smith, and others. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm some "Liberal" (as the term has become demeaning in the United States) hack that ideologically believes in nothing but socialism. Individual responsibility in society should be paramount, but the reality is that individuals are responsible for very little when it comes to their social status. Anecdotes of bankruptcy actually support that, as we are all conditioned to aspire outside our actual means.
The problem with self-proclaimed "conservatives" today is that the majority don't actually understand what conservativism versus liberalism is. Politically, I vote Conservative; ideologically, I associate with liberalism - as did virtually all of the founding fathers of the United States. People get all wrapped up in political ideology and then tack emotions to the idea of the Unites States as the great capitalist republic, but the truth is that the founding fathers weren't even capitalists in the modern sense of the word; Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were fellows of the great liberal thinkers, and actually incorporated their ideals into the US Constitution. The zealous ideals of modern conservatism are actually what a lot of them stood squarely against.
-
^I strongly endorse this analysis.
-
Fannie Mae has been a GSE since the '60s. Freddie Mac since 1970.
They didn't start this mess. It was companies like Goldman Sachs, Citi group, meryl lynch, lahman brothers, etc.
-
Fannie Mae was a huge subprime lender by the way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html)
-
True, but they didn't start the derivitives mess.
-
Reading MP-Ryan's post in the parts that concern the "American Dream", its hard not to draw a parallel to the myth of the metals in Plato's Republic, where class unrest is kept in check by a story with roots that only glance the surface of reality. I would argue, however, that it was a firm reality at a few points, such as back when we had factory jobs here in Michigan, particularly Detroit and Flint. At the height of union power, the automotive companies could move anyone firmly into the middle class, and simply investing back in the company moved you to the upper class or at least the upper-middle class.
Then came Reagan. :(
Now, of course, there is nothing left of this state but two smoldering ****holes.
-
It wasn't the fault of any presidents economic policy that the Rust Belt became so, well, rusty. A large factor of that was colossal mismanagement and wage/benefits inflation. By the late 70's the big three were making cars that no one wanted at prices people weren't willing to pay. That's what nearly destroyed them.
-
I totally get (although I don't condone in the slightest) how some people go totally bonkers and decide to shoot up a place. Most of them were normal people pushed way beyond what they were capable of handling and they didn't have a good support structure (friends, caring family, etc.) in place to help them before they totally lost it. It's horrible for everyone involved.
I'm counting myself as one of those wage slaves and I'm trying to figure out a new plan to get out of it. The problem is complex and politics and politicians and American companies have a fair bit to do with it but there are other factors too. The baby boomers and the economy in general are a problem too. The boomers were able to move up through the ranks and fill all kinds of positions. Because they are living longer and capable of working for longer than ever before AND because of the economic turmoil for the last decade they have been holding on to their jobs and refusing the retire. There are people in their 60s and maybe even 70s still working full time professionally.
The generation after the boomers has been stuck waiting for these people to finally retire so they can move up the ranks too. They have had to make due with lower paying more junior positions all the while trying to attain that middle class lifestyle that the boomers had. And now my generation enters the mix... the so called boomer echo. There's nowhere for us to go.
Between the constant outsourcing, lack of available senior positions, corporate top heavy quasi-royalty class, and the state of the world economy there is no where to go. It doesn't matter if you work hard or slack off. It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.... Actually no... if you belong to the right wing then you might honestly believe that this is all of a good thing so you might be ok with it. To get all colloquial... it does suck pretty hard.
Hopefully things get better someday.
-
It wasn't the fault of any presidents economic policy that the Rust Belt became so, well, rusty. A large factor of that was colossal mismanagement and wage/benefits inflation. By the late 70's the big three were making cars that no one wanted at prices people weren't willing to pay. That's what nearly destroyed them.
Reagan allowed rampant outsourcing.... The factors you mention did initialize the slump, but the corporations would have eventually had to accept the rude awakening and adapt. Instead, they simply outsourced. They didn't have to adapt. He gave them a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The result is that the companies were able to instantly add about 30 years onto their lifespan, but at the permanent cost of Detroit and Flint. Clearly whoever kept their jobs at big 3 management have been wallowing in their own complacency, because the mismanagement and corruption within the big three are still at critical levels. All the blue collar jobs left a long time ago. The white collar ones are mostly intact, but they are going away now too. They employ a lot of brilliant, hard working people, but its just an old boys club now. All of these people live in the suburbs, anyway.
As for the laid off blue collar workers, the final nail on their coffin was the war on drugs, another Reagan delight. Thats all Detroit is nowadays. I sat in a courtroom for hours and virtually every case was a drug charge. Glad to see Regan left a permanent legacy of employment security for some people....
-
You do realize The Big Three simply could not support the pensions and health care they were paying? Oh, and the Jobs Bank was another wonderful invention, where people got paid money to do nothing and wait for a job opening. Detroit would have gone bottoms-up sooner or later, whether or not Reagan did anything. The Big Three could have adapted and made different cars, but choosing to outsource was a corporate decision first and foremost, so they deserve the blame for making the choice, not Reagan for simply allowing them a choice. Oh, and Toyota and the like happen to be doing just fine with their non-union auto plants in places like Kentucky, which could be considered them outsourcing jobs from Japan and Korea to the United States.
-
Sparda, the difference is that, culturally, it's difficult for them[the management] to treat they're workers poorly so long as the workers treat the management well. It's a matter of honor that they all work together to make the company greater as whole, which is something that's been lost in American culture sadly. If Joe Bob hurt his leg and couldn't work for a few months, you made sure he didn't lose his house and had food on his table, in return Joe Bob was happy and probably worked harder than he did before his accident.
-
That 'honor the company' attitude is very strong in Japan, and look how well that's working.
-
Sparda, the difference is that, culturally, it's difficult for them[the management] to treat they're workers poorly so long as the workers treat the management well. It's a matter of honor that they all work together to make the company greater as whole, which is something that's been lost in American culture sadly. If Joe Bob hurt his leg and couldn't work for a few months, you made sure he didn't lose his house and had food on his table, in return Joe Bob was happy and probably worked harder than he did before his accident.
This is absolute bullcrap. It has nothing to do with cultural Japanese restrictions; being a salaryman in Japan is many times more dangerous to your mental and physical health than it is to be a worker in a factory for Toyota in the United States. Even a cursory knowledge of Japanese work environments and societal pressures would teach you that.
-
Sparda, the difference is that, culturally, it's difficult for them[the management] to treat they're workers poorly so long as the workers treat the management well. It's a matter of honor that they all work together to make the company greater as whole, which is something that's been lost in American culture sadly. If Joe Bob hurt his leg and couldn't work for a few months, you made sure he didn't lose his house and had food on his table, in return Joe Bob was happy and probably worked harder than he did before his accident.
This is absolute bullcrap. It has nothing to do with cultural Japanese restrictions; being a salaryman in Japan is many times more dangerous to your mental and physical health than it is to be a worker in a factory for Toyota in the United States. Even a cursory knowledge of Japanese work environments and societal pressures would teach you that.
He does have a point that there is still a certain honour system that is in place. All too often it is abused and far too often Japanese workers have literally worked themselves to death. There is a certain collective spirit that ironically isn't being called communism here but you can bet that a few Right wing mouthpieces would call it that if anything like that were to take root in North America.
As usual we're both far on the extremes. Working to death because the company said to style of worker loyalty versus I'm only in it for myself and screw everyone else. There has to be a middle ground...
-
I find the notion that corporate exploitation didn't exist prior to the arrival of Milton Friedman laughable at best. Certainly the way both Regan and Thatcher embraced his economic philosophy created a much larger wealth gap in both America and the UK than was previously there, but it didn't suddenly change the relationship between corporate employer and employee. It changed who they were having the relationship with.