Do you think that the Occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements were totally constructive or were totally an utter waste of time and energy?
I think that depends on the person.
To me, the Occupy movements were a waste of time, and I honestly could not take them seriously. At the time, I was in college, and the bulk of my Occupy exposure was on the college campus. I kept thinking... Many of you are still dependents on your parents. They pay your tuition and fees. I know this because you have time to protest, instead of going to work after school. Yet you are complaining about "The 1%" as if you know anything about working to make a living.
Perhaps those in or around Wall Street may have had a different experience. But for me, it was just a bunch of dead beats camping outside of banks, spending time they could use to find a job.
What if I were paying my own tuition? Say I had a job after school?
Perhaps that one time you saw me was on my one day off after 10 straight days of working....
But you're right, anyone who protests before 5p.m is clearly a deadbeat.
No it's no biggie. You can attend classes and then go learn to rape and defecate on public property as a night class at Occupy.
The percentage of college students who pay their own tuition AND participate in protests, I think, you'll find is very low.
Good for you, however, to have time to work and complain about people making money, all the while making money yourself and investing in your future of money-making, and also haivng time to post on the internet about it
I think you'll find the majority of college protestors fit the bill of what I just described. Those who worked all through school? Probably no extra time to make signs and stand around the fountain with them.
To Kathleen and JS, the average student who works his/her way through college really do not have time to participate in the occupy movement. They are busy studying and making a better life for themselves. The average student who works his/her way through college often come from a lower middle, working class, or lower socioeconomic background. Believe me, these young people are extremely mature and serious about their education. They know that education is important because they definitely do not want to be poor and see education as a way out of poverty!
It is usually the more affluent students with lots of time on their hands and who have never know poverty who are doing the protesting. It truly amazes me that those who are more affluent tend to be attracted to socialist and/or communist philosophy. It must be a subconscious guilt on the part of these affluent young people! They come from moneyed backgrounds yet hate those who are earning monies! Really amazing!
I once saw a student protest (outside the window of my classroom) that lasted for 4 hours. They stood around the fountain with signs that had dead fetuses on them. Anti-abortion, I guess.
There are also the students who have time to play games like Humans vs. Zombies all over campus.
There are also the students who rally for gay pride parades and gender-neutral bathrooms.
Me? Didn't matter how much I was "for" or "against" something: I went to school all morning, rushed home and left for work to work a 2-11pm shift (because that's the only shift I got with school in the morning). I would do my homework on my lunch break, then do it before bed when I got home. I went to bed whenever I was done with homework. 7am? Repeat.
No time for bitching and moaning and the unjustices of the world. Spend any amount of time on a college campus, and you can pick out the ones that are there on their own money from the ones that are there on their parent's/student loan money. You can tell the difference between a student who works 10 hours per week on campus, and a student who works 30 hours per week off campus. There are those who sit and eat meals at the cafeteria, and there are those who stand on the sidewalk with a bagged PB&J in one hand, and a book in the other. The ones who had time to make posters and organize protests were not the ones working jobs while going to school; can almost guarantee.
Hey, Kathleen, you know it! I remember while I was in college( I was one of the blessed ones whose parents paid her tuition), there was one student who was rich who complained about her parents' materialism. Her parents, of course, paid for her tuition. The other students, some who had to pay their way through college, confronted her, telling her how lucky she was. One of the students who worked all of her way through college stated that if she had parents like hers, she would kiss the ground they walked on. Well, I am digressing. Some affluent students do not know how good they have it! Let them be poor for a day and see if THEY could survive! Hmmmmmm!
When I was in college, I was in it for the education. No time for shenigans and nonsense for me. College protests? Please, my education was more important. To me, what is the use of pointless protests. If I want to make changes, it would be inside the system, after I have learned about the system! There were youth protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s when I attended college. Had better things to do like study and get my education! The protests were not going to get me a job, put food on my table, and/or clothes on my back! In other words, I had better times to do with my idle time!
My suggestion to these young protesters: Maybe they should volunteer their time tutoring inner city youth, being a Big Brother/Sister, and volunteering in a homeless shelter. This would be a more constructive use of their time than to aimlessly protest class inequality!
I worked 4-1130 after going to class from 8-11 a.m. Had homework and stuff to do as well.
I still found time to live a life.
You don't have to alter your whole life, ignore your education or anything like that to take a few minutes out of your time to speak up about a cause you care about.
I'm pretty sure that the kids who work 30 hours a week work at least one day during the weekend. That frees up an afternoon a week. If you really care about something, spending your free time devoted to that cause is admirable.
What Kathleen references has been the norm from the 60's onward. So many of the "Baby Boomer" gneration found their niche protesting the Vietnam War....it became a life-long pursuit for them moving from one cause to another. Much of what we see in terms of social issues and rabid environmentalism comes from this need to "belong" and to rebell against the establishment. It is their "badge of intellect"...that social and/or environmental awareness puts them on a shelf about most Americans and give them a sense that their reasoning is one of higher intelligence. That is okay if it is just about feeling good about self. Beyond that...they have lost touch with simple common sense. LIfe experience goes a long way to showing us that our intelligence quotient in our early 20's does not open doors to new knowledge mainly because it ignores too many details and it assumes that the parts they like will remain untounched while they change what they do not like....models do not work that way....most things have a level of interdependence. If one does not grasp that...then take the back off your watch and try fiddling around with the parts for a while....there is a lot of "interdependence" going on in there. ~WB
Oh look amateur psychology, wonderful.
Or you know it could be just that some people care about things and sacrifice the time and effort to try to change them because they are good human beings... nah.
Tell me, then, what purpose is protesting on a college campus about Occupy? This was a not-for-profit state university, by the way. They weren't exactly leeching money to become rich. Professors made like 40k.
What is the point of protesting abortion on a college campus? It's not like they happen there.
Take the time to stand up for things, but do it somewhere that people will actually take you seriously. If you are protesting for Occupy, perhaps Wall Street was a good place. Not college campuses. Not local banks and businesses, that employ local people. If you wish to protest abortion, how about standing in front of Planned Parenthood instead?
Days like that were my catch-up day, where I would do as much homework ahead of time as I could. Of course, I was an engineering and design double major...
I wish I had had this work ethic when I was in college. My high school education came easy for me, I excelled at academics, and was prioritized by my family as the only "job" I needed. I look back and wish I had been encouraged to work, earn, save, budget and study, as that is the grind of life. Now as a thirty something I struggle to hang in on the grind, and lament my early youth as being wasted.
Good for those who find time to stand up for what they believe in, I wish we all as a humanity would rally behind a cause in greater numbers. Good for the seed of the Occupy movement being a cry against the promise of the American Dream being muddied and outsourced and politicized away. Bad for the overall look and air of the occupiers in many cities (they were in my city in large number as well and I saw them regularly) which was more like idealistic street urchins looking for a fight with local law enforcement than educated, disillusioned people with a legit complaint. It was a mess and an embarrassment and really did nothing for anyone.
It was very constructive. It got us talking about the 1 percent vs. the 99 percent. To the critics, how do you know the occupiers don't have jobs? How do you know anything about them? Don't make blanket statements based on assumptions.
I do think, though, that they need to take it to the next level. Continued occupation probably won't have much of an effect. Awareness has been raised, so now they need to do something with it.
With no central organization and helter skelter protests there seems that there was no possible chance of success.
Oh sure...they learned how to rape and defecate on public property. Just what they wanted to do.
Hi JS, was that everybody involved who learnt how to rape and defecate on public property, or just one or two?
Here's a short list:
And it's multiple types of crime.
Interesting, and how many of these offences happened solely because of Occupy and how many would have happened any way?
And how do they know about all the unreported crimes?
And, considering the numbers involved, not really that much for a society inclined to violence anyway.
Well John considering this list was compiled of calls being responded to at Occupy sites I would say all of them had to do with Occupy sites.
Now look....we can't go claiming these folks are more peaceful and better educated and so forth and them act as though these things don't fly right straight in the face of that.
That list was from almost a year ago just about two months after Occupy started. Have no idea since....
But that's not to say that they only happened because of Occupy! People carry grudges and act on them when the opportunity presents itself.
Something like Occupy will all ways attract a cross section of the population, those in earnest and those looking for trouble, even some who'll get involved purely with the intent of discrediting the goals.
Occupy events in the UK have largely been peaceful with no recorded rape or external defecation.
If these things are not by the good people then the good people need to take the others in hand. Otherwise they look like a bunch of ill educated rabble.
That is why opponents like to infiltrate and defecate!
Oh please John! Infiltrators now!
You and I are both older than that and not that stupid. You didn't have to have infiltrators and you know that full well.
One of the things I continually have to fight against is the continuing dialog from the left in which they want to insinuate that you would never know the had been to the bathroom by any odor that might have been left behind. There will certainly be one just like everyone else. I will be a happier individual when that sort of intelligence insulting dies.
The fact that you didn't have to have something doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
I don't know about your country but over here we have whole sections of the police who do nothing but infiltrate left wing movements.
Yeah...ok John. It's a vast right wing conspiracy.
I should have known that because after all Liberals do no wrong.....ever...right?
I don't know whether it's a conspiracy or not JS, just as I don't know the reasoning behind people who travel to football matches, not to support the football but to fight and cause unrest.
Neither do I believe that it a right-wing conspiracy and not a conspiracy of bad buggers of either side.
You just don't seem to believe it can occur without the intent of someone doing it to deliberately make the movement look bad. I contend some of them have those tendencies.
"You just don't seem to believe it can occur without the intent of someone doing it to deliberately make the movement look bad. I contend some of them have those tendencies."
Ditto to your remarks about some of the discusting people in the "Occupy"
Were there enough pictures to support the racial slant of "some of those" in the Tea Party movement? Hoss?
Oh those would probably do even if Josak did it for you. I have to challenge those things because sometimes there aren't any.
Course I'm sure you didn't look at what I sent him now did you?
It is an American right to protest any issue that people want to.
Where did I say people couldn't protest. Just don't rape the women and crap on the front porch. Or the car.
Where did I say ANYTHING else about what could or couldn't be done?
Your broad brush of the whole movement was and is evident even though you think it is not. By the way the arrests were your proof that these people were criminals. Not all of them were arrested for what you charge.
And you still didn't answer the question you are just obviously unhappy with the idea I think they shouldn't rape and pillage. I thought that was a Conservative problem?
Don't be foolish to suggest that I would condone such a thing but who are "they" is my point? All of them? Most of them? A few of them? Perhaps it's just your broad brush that makes me uneasy or maybe not hearing what I have said.
I don't think anybody should rape and pillage. Unfortunately many do and it isn't exclusively left leaning "liberals" that are guilty of such things..
It's like this. You have to be on the defensive from their defensive because you aren't supposed to point out wrong unless it comes from the right.
I don't actually remember anybody disagreeing that it was wrong, just that it didn't involve everybody.
I really fail to see your point actually, I mean, we're agree that there are some bad buggers in the world of many different political shades so what are you actually trying to prove?
That's just like out of the clear blue someone wants to bring up racist posters in the Tea Party which of course was over on the opposite side.....
Anything to try and deflect.
By the way:
I'm not a Tea Party person. I'm a Democrat.
Here's another link that was lost in my bookmarks. This one much larger and specific to Occupy:
God yes, there's some really bad beggars in amongst this lot - arrested for chalking - arrested on suspicion of not having a sound permit - Cameraman shoved during arrests at Occupy rally - Disabled Occupier arrested for sidewalk chalking - and I suspect the majority of the other arrests were for equally trivial offences.
Yeah the other list I sent you had the homicides and stuff on it. Right?
Of course I realize they are angry people, they may kill a few or assault a few or any number of other things and be perfectly justified because it's all OUR fault.
For pete's sake man. Crime is crime. Yes some of it is smaller but lot's of it ain't and it needs to be known.
Yes, crime is crime but that does not mean that everybody involved in something is a criminal.
Look,even some police officers commit crimes but that doesn't mean that they all do.
JS, there is a documentary regarding the occupy movement. It is called Occupy Unmasked. This documentary discusses in detail how the left wing socialists and communists are using the protesters to achieve the former's goals of a so-called classless society. The documentary also details the crimes committed during the occupy movement. The real purpose of the movement is to instigate a class war and later a race war. This documentary is quite eye opening. Of course, the movement did not serve any purpose at all.
Get a huge amount of young people in a single place for a long time and of course there will be some crimes committed, totally irrelevant.
As for Race war from what i saw there were people of every race under the sun campaigning together, sharing their food etc. the occupy I saw was pretty much a mini hippie commune and while that's not really my scene there was certainly not much warlike potential there or any racial division at all.
Every protest particularly protests as big as these have been (and international) have a massive impact they let politicians know what the will of the people is more directly and they are essential to a healthy democracy.
What's your point? There were communists at Occupy? Would you like me to find videos of racists at right wing protests? individuals are not representative of the whole and that video proves nothing at all, you're smarter than that JSC.
Yes, but all the individuals had the same idea...
Another example of groups of people with shared ideals that I do not like is the KKK. Oh, I don't really like the Nazis, either. I am sure there are plenty of nice, moderate people who are members of these groups, but I still don't like them.
No, I am not comparaing Occupy Wall Street to KKK or Nazis. Them, I can stand living around. I'd probably move if there were KKK members or Neo Nazis next door.
I just don't like the anti-establishment attitude that they have. The idea that they are victims of society, and specifically, the "top 1%."
You should go in Josak, to the channel of the man who made that video and take a look. He spent quite a bit of time and has hours of footage at Occupy. You will find it interesting.
I think it funny you find that that is a learned behavior. On the other hand the stars and bars flags and racially charged posters of the Tea Party is possibly in the same category.
Show me some Tea Party racially charged posters, boss.
Plenty more if you want, judging the whole Tea Party on the basis of this would be daft... which is precisely what you are doing with the Occupy movement.
Well i guess those are a few,
Of course the left had these for Bush:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/index … sh+posters
These are always ignored or justified.
Which is precisely my point, every group will have... lets say people of small intelligence or with anger management problems, it says nothing about the overall make up of the group to point them out and laugh, it's pointless when either side does it.
I see no rape or fecal matter, here. Just a bunch of idiots with signs. I have the same opinion towards these individuals as I do any other protesters. Gah, there are more effective ways to make change then stand around with signs.
I'm not sure exactly what their platform is, but I do appreciate the symbolism which represents a truely authentic approach to politics.
Wait, that's not it.
Here it is! Oh, hang on a second.
Ah finally! Show your support in the fight against capitalism with this trendy OWS pendant for the low cost of only $13.66. Act now and get free shipping from whatever third world country they are made in!
I think the Occupy Movement events on Wall Street were reactionary and didn't come together in terms of "organization and proper call to action."
I think an impact was made on the consciousness of North Americans by the fact that such a large group of protesters formed, spoke out, etc - however - the "Movement" is different from an "event" involved in the movement.
Tho' the happenings with Occupy protesters didn't achieve a great deal, they set off a strong "Movement" that is still palpable and dynamic today.
I think there will be more protest events and if people involved in these wish for the events to create an outcome or "result," then anyone involved will have to be more organized, present reasonable calls to action and also methods by which to move toward the goal that the call to action calls for.
I do not think the Movement is a waste of time at all, nor the events within the movement... every event can be analyzed for its degree of success in delivering information, calls to action, and methods for following a call to action.
I think they got a good education on rape and defecating on public property.
I was one of those people who was not blessed to have Mom and Dad pay for college. It was not that they didn't have the money (they were pretty much middle of the middle class), it was that they didn't believe in it. So I served in the Army for four years and used the GI bill/Army college fund to help pay for school. Even though that covered my tuition, I found I had little time for anything other than work or school.
It has always amazed me that some of the people who have benefited the most from free markets are those who crizisize it the most. There was a recent cover to Forbest that had Bill Gates, Oprah, and Warren Buffet on it. Three people who would not be rich if it were not for the free market system...and yet they are hard core liberals who criticize the very system that made them rich.
But see that's rubbish (not the college stuff) the free market is great and it helps us succeed but for most of us in a pure free market system we would never have succeeded for myself I only have a successful business because of the help of a union, I was partially raised in a government orphanage (different government but regardless) etc. etc.
So with wealthy liberals it's either #1 they were given a helping hand and know the value of it #2 they know how lucky they got #3 they succeeded because of factors most people dont have available to them and they recognize that.
There is nothing to say that unions would not exist in a truly free market. Some free marketers might say they are in fact necessary to ensure the workers are receiving the market clearing wage. Free marketers only oppose unions lobbying government to compel businesses to raise wages. Negotiation is above compulsion in our book, which is why we respect right to work.
What planet is that on? Certainly not this one. "Free" marketeers are too busy lobbying government for the right to pay their workers less and governments are too busy sucking up to them to listen to the Unions.
A union is a contract between employer, and employees. Unions have more power than you think. I was part of a workers union once (actually, I was required to join the union, or I would no longer be able to work at the business, as was part of the contract); the union worked to increase wages and benefits, and most recently, prevented certain benefits from being taken away. I withdrew my membership about 3 weeks prior to a mandatory strike, actually. Employers listen to unions because they have to. The government probably doesn't have to listen to unions, but does so if there is any unlawful activity. Usually, the government stays out of employer-union relations.
Stay on track please, Innersmiff was saying that free marketeers only object to unions lobbying governments for wage increases. I was criticising that comment.
How do you know how much power I think Unions have?
Stay on track, please. If you do not wish to discuss unions, do not continue the discussion.
To my knowledge, the Occupy movement hasn't caused any changes in the way the United States economy works. Wall Street is still oporating as it always has, as far as I know. Thus, they were a little pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong.
How on earth do you get the idea that I do not wish to discuss Unions? I merely pointed out that your comments had absolutely no bearing on mine!
And yes, you are wrong to say that the Occupy movement hasn't achieved anything - we are talking about it aren't we? And as they all ways tell us, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Yes, "they" always tell us Rome wasn't built in a day.
But Occupy doesn't encourage building, or growth of any kind. They encourage the destruction of the system as it is today. Wall Street has already been built, and has prospered.
It can also take a lot less than a day to destroy a city, too. Occupy did not succeed.
You don't think anything as entrenched as Wall Street would be so easily brought to book did you?
No. Especially, because it doesn't have to.
And aren't you from England or something? Why does it matter to you to bring down the American rich? Or are you just arguing for entertainment's sake?
If Occupy wanted to make a difference, they would do so through means that would actually make a difference. Standing around with signs and camping outside of banks doens't do anything. If there is a real problem here (not convinced there is), then there are more effective ways to fix it. Currently, I would say it is just a loud, not neccesarily large, group of people who are mad at the rich.
I have seen no forward momentum as a result of Occupy. Once again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. So far, you have just provided reasons why it would work; but has anything actually changed? I think not.
It seems to have escaped your notice but Occupy is a global movement, not confined to the US at all.
Which makes no sense to me, seeing as Occupy Wall Street is all about, well, Wall Street. Last time I checked, Wall Street was located in the USA.
But it wasn't just about occupying Wall Street though was it?
It was about occupying Wall Street corporations. If you happened to live somewhere like Portland, OR, you'd sit out in front of some bank with signs, as if they bank employees had anything to do with the higher-ups on Wall Street.
Tsk, somebody should have told all the Occupy supporters in the UK that they shouldn't have been picketing The City of London, it was all about America!
Maybe their protests were inspired by Occupy Wall Street.
Maybe they were, so what?
Then of course the US might have been inspired by Occupy the City!
Occupy began in NYC, in September of 2011. Interestingly, it was started by a couple of anti-consumerist Canadians. Guess they had such a problem with our country that they had to come down here, huh?
My point is; Occupy is an anti-consumerism, anti-establishment movement. It is against free enterprise, and extreme in that it wishes to bring down the very workings of our (USA) society; capitalist economics. Occupy poses no purpose (in the USA) because we would no longer be able to function. Occupy fails to propose an alternative to this moneyism, yet the defecate on, rape on, and insult our economy. They need to quit complaining and propose a better way to "fix" the so-called "problems." Right now, it's just noise in my ear.
The United States was not formed to be a capitalistic society where rich "Robber Barons" run rough shod over labor while snacking on caviar on their yacht on the French Riviera. It is about free enterprise and a chance for upward mobility for the average citizen.
A lot of folks in Florida lost their homes and retirement accounts while some robber baron in New York pocketed the cash when his backroom derivatives paid off. That's what they want to put a stop to. The robber barons
Those are the few and far between. Occupy scrutinizes Wall Street as a whole, banks, and any other subsidiary. Yet, those people who work at the banks being protested are local people, and the banks offer them local jobs. If you want to bring down key individuals, then focus your efforts towards them, legally. Surely the retirement-funded people had some sort of contract with these "Robber Barons."
Without money, you can't do anything in the States. Plain and simple. Even homeless people need to scrounge cash just to eat. Occupy has lost its focus, if it ever had one to begin with. Their Facebook page, for example, has just become some anti-GOP meme generator.
The sad truth is that the GOP and the Dems unraveled regulations to the point where banks, investment firms, insurance companies, real estate speculators, and all could take your retirement money to Las Vegas and let it roll. They did not ask you for permission.
Are you worried about bank employees being inconvenienced? Me, too. It isn't right. You need $ in the USA? So many people are desperate for it, this "Occupy" stuff will seem like a Sunday school picnic when the disadvantaged, and disenfranchised raise up to occupy gated, waterfront communities, and take what they want from the shelves at the grocery store.
It's not exactly right to raid someone's house, either. Whether or not it is in a gated community (perhaps gated for a reason) really doesn't change how wrong it is to rob people. The people who are getting paid 100k a year are getting paid that because their boss chose to pay them that, and signed that contract with them. It's not really their fault, and I am sure anyone would jump at the chance to make that much money. Why, then, should people steal from this person's waterfront home? Not a solution to the problem.
Hello?! They won't care if it is right or not. Do you realize how close we are to a collapse of law and order? You are talking like we are dealing with sanity.The fact of the matter is . . . we need to take corrective action immediately. The two party government in Washington DC is almost a thing of the past. It is beyond the brink of financial failure due to a profound lack of wisdom and integrity.
Yes, it is wrong to rob houses. Perhaps these people could go to jail, where they don't need money.
I don't know how close we are to a collapse of law and order. The Occupy movement doesn't actually consist of 99% of the population. Many of us are happy in our homes, in our jobs, in this society.
If it does collapse, I am certain there will be some kind of bounty on the heads of those who represent this movement. Specifically, the two Canadians I mentioned above.
Is the goal to collapse society? If so, I dislike Occupy even more with that knowledge.
Occupy Wall Street won't bring a collapse. The Republicans and Democrats have already done the ground work. While you are sitting happy in your houses, the jails are filling up to overflowing. There is a murder everyday in Orlando. It used to be a one dog town. You have to pay the jailer, you know. Who will be doing that? You won't have gas for your SUV to drive down to the store and try to find something on the empty shelves.
Democrats recently blocked an initiative to build a larger jail to accomodate all the inmates in my county.
I can see where you're coming from, but we are long way from that. Perhaps when unemployment reaches 20%, we'll see more social anarchy.
For now, I can just order my food from Amazon
"OWS was initiated by Kalle Lasn and Micah White of Adbusters, a Canadian anti-consumerist publication, who conceived of a September 17 occupation in lower Manhattan"
Seems precicely a couple of people, to me
Yeah, but it looks like so much fun to hang out all day, sleep in the park, and "score" that everyone else wants to do it, too. Globo-trash, who missed out on the chance to be hippies, are doing it all over the world (occupy Guadalajara). It will be just like the old peace and love movement. Twenty years from now, all but a couple of hardcore holdouts will have gone corporate, or mainstream. The other two will be still be sleeping in the park and eating at the Salvation Army Mission.
There is an Occupy (insert city or place here) movement.
Free marketers by definition do not lobby government, because that would make them cronyists.
Let me clarify a little bit. I don't count those who lobby government to relieve restrictions on our lives as crony-ists. They are simply trying to get back what they are entitled to.
We have no free market, but I'm sure you'll find many many entrepreneurs and workers who are strong proponents of free markets - I count these as free marketers, e.g. anybody in the liberty movement. But therein lies the problem: we've inherited a culture of government intervention, and frankly a lot of those who don't lobby government to some degree are going to get left behind, even if they don't want to. However, there still exist successful individuals and businesses who have had little to no government assistance because that's how great the market can be.
So my point stands, true free market capitalists oppose anybody lobbying government to interfere with the market.
And you'll be surprised how much the government listens to the unions. The Labour party, for instance, is still largely influenced by unions. They've interfered with the market a lot when you actually look at it: minimum wage, discrimination laws, anti-trust laws etc. You might not get exactly what you like but you've gotten a lot already. Maybe you're just mad because none of these things have actually achieved lasting change.
Yes, I'd be very surprised how much the government listens to the Unions.
They may have done at one time but no longer and the Labour party has more or less severed its ties with the unions apart from taking financial support off them.
All government "interference" is precisely because there isn't a free market, the market is run in favour of big business and something so exclusive can never be free.
I think we have different definitions of free markets. The free market is when transactions are made voluntary, which makes helps set prices at the correct, i.e. the market clearing level, where the division of labour is most efficient and the resources are distributed most efficiently. In order to succeed in an unfettered market, business must provide a quality service to the consumer. I know, or know of, many entrepreneurs who would prefer this state to what we have now because they could compete on a more equitable level, without their competitors getting an unfair advantage as a result of subsidies, bail-outs etc; they could also grow as they want to and hire more people because restrictions on their ability to do so would be lifted.
Unfairness in the market is a direct result of government interference, whether it be influenced by big business or unions. In an un-hampered market economy, it can not be run in favour of any particular special interest over another, because these special interests do not have the legal power to do so.
Richard Branson, Bill Gates, who?
The only restriction on hiring more labour is imposed by the employers themselves, do you really believe that they would hire two people to do the job that one could do?
What restrictions are actually placed on employers to prevent them hiring more people?
You point in the wrong direction to mis-apply the truth.
"What restrictions are actually placed on employers to prevent them hiring more people?"
You don't need to look very hard to find out:
Minimum wage - Low wage earners, rather than increasing their pay packets, tend to lose their jobs when minimum wage is increased. You can't pay somebody much more than what the task is worth because then the task becomes inefficient and unaffordable. Sometimes businesses make people redundant because they can't afford them; they're not all mean and selfish.
Heavy health and safety regulations: in many sectors, hiring people can be an expensive chore all by itself with all of the arbitrary red-tape to get through.
Heavy taxing: Businesses that wish to invest in growth are inhibited by taxing. Sometimes there is so much taxing that it is not economically viable to start a business in the first place. If you deny this, why is it that the government puts taxes on cigarettes and alcohol intending to de-incentivise the usage of those goods?
Money printing: This affects the smallest businesses as they have the smallest assets - their purchasing power can be reduced to a point where they cannot grow.
If you're only asking me to name one, I'll say my father. If the above restrictions weren't in place, he would be much more likely to grow and hire people.
You asking these questions demonstrates that you don't understand your opposition's views very well. Many are honest businessmen and women that are begging for a little room to breathe in the heavily regulated market so that they can do the things you want: hire people. You arguing that "the only restriction on hiring more labour is imposed by the employers themselves" is the same kind of logic conservatives are accused of having: "the only thing stopping the poor from being successful is themselves". This line of reasoning is not, well, reason at all. We live in a finite world with finite resources - we have to do the best with what is made available to us. There is such a thing as circumstance, and the best we can do is cultivate the best environment for growth. We cannot be attempting to create our desired world by force.
But if you pay even lower wages than the present minimum then government has to intervene and subsidise the employers even more by making up the difference then where is your free market and lack of government intervention?
As for elfin safety, even with the regulations in force today people are still killed by employers who fail to make adequate provision for workers safety.
Relax those regulations and the death toll would only rise.
The best environment for growth is a prosperous and healthy work force. People on starvation wages buy only essentials and them only in limited quantities.
"But if you pay even lower wages than the present minimum then government has to intervene and subsidise the employers even more"
No it doen't, that's the thing. Whatever wages the market decides to pay the workers, the market will adjust accordingly. It simply is not in the market's interest to have nobody being able to afford to buy their products.
"As for elfin safety, even with the regulations in force today people are still killed by employers who fail to make adequate provision for workers safety. "
Yes I know, which is positive proof that they don't work! What we need is a freer market with more job competition so that only the safest businesses will hire the best people. I wager that even if regulations all went away tomorrow, people wouldn't start dying all over the place. We've inherited a culture of ridiculous elf + safety, but a lot of it is for good - businesses with better health and safety ratings love to show it off nowadays.
A prosperous and healthy workforce is great, but only plays a part in the economy: the economy is most efficient when market forces are voluntary. Skewing the economy toward either the workers, big business or both makes for an inefficient market.
Then why did we have people working for slave wages before the minimum wage was introduced? If what you say is correct then there would never have been any need to introduce a minimum wage. As it was we had people who weren't paid even enough to afford rent!
No, proof that they do work is that far fewer people are killed or maimed at work than once were. The cases where people are killed or maimed are where the employers have ignored health and safety.
A freer market won't produce more job competition, or if it does it will serve to drive down wages.
If, as you say a freer market with more job competition will ensure that only the safest businesses will hire the best people, why then did so many businesses had such an appalling safety record before legislation?
No, a prosperous and healthy workforce is a prosperous and healthy economy. Look around you, we have an impoverished and unhealthy workforce and the economy sucks big time.
This can only be the comment of someone with no or hardly any experience in the workplace, who hasn't worked in places where people are injured more than once a week, I was a coal miner for decades, regulation was the only thing that improved our safety, the rate of black lung for example dropped massively after the legislation to reduce it became mandatory. You don't understand how you can have a horrible, unsafe workplace and people will take it because it's that or starve, why? Because you have never experienced it and until you do you won't get it.
Eh up Josak.
When I started work it was common for there to be at least one man with a missing leg or two as a result of an industrial accident. Arms seemed to be slightly less frequent and we never saw the ones who had died.
The neighbourhood that I lived in had a fair selection of damaged workers too, all thanks to the free market that put a low price on a man's life.
Even today that price is still too low,kill a man at work and you're unlucky if you get a £50,000 fine!
Incidental personal experience in the workplace from you and Josak can not offer much when we are trying to judge it on a big scale. Let's look at the facts instead of making it personal.
Does massive health and safety regulation make workplaces safer? It may seem so, depending on how you read the statistics. For example, the introduction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1970, has been strongly cited as the reason for the dramatic drop in workplace fatalities in the US. Yes, since its inception, workplace fatalities have gone down. However, if you expand the graph, you'll find that workplace fatalities have been dropping steadily since 1933, without excessive regulation. It seems that, with time, the unhampered market addresses workplace safety by itself, and perhaps better: the trend line before and after OSHA is exactly the same. "To credit OSHA with all of the post-1970 drop in fatalities is similar to a physician’s taking credit for the health of a patient whom the doctor did not start treating until two weeks after the patient began recovering."
Does a freer market produce more job competition? I think I've demonstrated how it does theoretically. Do the facts corroborate? Lot's of factors affect employment, and it isn't the be-all and end-all: building the pyramids most likely reduced unemployment, but produced very little for the general populace. We also have to consider that the economy is not in a great shape, and nations are doing individual things to improve it that may effect unemployment temporarily. In any case, if you cross-examine the Economic Freedom Index and the Unemployment index of the world's countries, save oddities such as Vietnam, the trend is that the countries with the highest economic freedom, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, have the lowest unemployment.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unemplo … by-country
It's not a definitive trend, but it is a trend. To be continued when I have more adequate data . . .
Does more job competition mean lower wages? More job opportunities means higher demand for labour, and higher demand means higher wages (sheesh, and everyone on here says it's me who needs to go on an economics course!).
"No, a prosperous and healthy workforce is a prosperous and healthy economy. Look around you, we have an impoverished and unhealthy workforce and the economy sucks big time."
This is reminding me slightly of the 'Argument Clinic' sketch from Monty Python, but anywho . . .
I think you're mixing up cause and effect. I could equally point out the fact that I don't own a motor vehicle and say we need to invest in automobiles for film-makers to get the economy moving. Yes, we have a somewhat impoverished workforce, but why?
I really don't have any experience of working in America, so I won't comment on it. Shall we discuss working safety in China? After all it is just as irrelevant to us as the USA is.
I do however have a lot of work experience in the UK.
I notice you qualify your comments on the US situation with "without excessive regulation". Are you implying by that that regulation in the UK is excessive? If so I'd like to know what you base that assumption on. There may well be many employers who would agree with you on that but I doubt you'd find many workers who did and 'd bet that most of those would be old school macho types who think it manly to take risks. For instance, I worked as roofer when younger and it was almost a badge of honour to have fallen off a roof and survived, now because of "excessive" health and safety it is almost impossible to fall off a roof if you are working in the prescribed manner.
Sometimes anecdotal evidence is more reliable than statistics that have been slewed to meet the makers desired outcome.
But is the lowest unemployment the correct goal if it means that the majority are living on subsistence wages, unable to afford even all the necessarities of life? And I repeat, job competition does not increase pay, it lowers it. Why do you think whenever we get a conservative government unemployment sky rockets? It's because unemployment drives wages down, not up!
Considering that estimated labour requirements for the pyramids was the whole of the population to say that it did little for the general population is a little unsound.
"Does more job competition mean lower wages? More job opportunities means higher demand for labour, and higher demand means higher wages (sheesh, and everyone on here says it's me who needs to go on an economics course!)."
Er, you are confusing job competition with job opportunities, agreed, more job opportunities means a higher demand for labour and potentially higher wages. Job competition means more people competing for jobs and consequently lower wages.
I think you're mixing up cause and effect. I could equally point out the fact that I don't own a motor vehicle and say we need to invest in automobiles for film-makers to get the economy moving. Yes, we have a somewhat impoverished workforce, but why?
I don't think I'm mixing up cause and effect at all!
I'm not sure where film makers come into this discussion but let's look at them anyway. We cold have the best film making industry in the world but if nobody could afford to go and see the films it would be nothing but a white elephant. Have a rich population and many could and would go to the cinema, spend money on tickets and provide employment for ushers, ice cream sellers, projectionists, food and drink outlets, public and privete transport and so on.
Ouch! The truth hurts. We need free marketeers that want to make sacrifices so that their workers can make a decent wage.
But what do we get?
Remember Henry Ford, anti Union but thought his workers ought to be paid enough to be able to afford the goods they made!
He could have paid more and still been a rich man.
My wife recently started her own business, an online auction company. When you figure in the amount of time she is putting in the business, she makes less that $5/hr. Were it not for the money I make from my job (and my writing on the side), we could not make it. However, it is our hope that as the business grows, profits will grow and the business will pay off for her.
My point is this. I have seen both the employee and employer side of employment, and I can say this with 100% certainty...being an employee is a cakewalk. I know there are a lot of people who are employees that work hard at their job (I am one), but most have no clue how hard the people who start businesses work. While I think the pay of some CEO's is exessive, that is for the company to decide, not an employee.
Any of those employees of Ford...or any employee of any company for that matter...is completely free to go out and start their own company. Once they start their own company they can pay their employees whatever they want. They can then decide what is "fair".
I think you severly misunderstand their positions, if you think they are anti-free market. And what exactly is a free market? Does it exist in the US now? No, it doesn't. There are regulations that limit the freedom of the market. If you sell food, you have to adhere to certain health standards. You have to pay your workers, and provide them with a reasonably safe working environment. You have to have a vendor's license and pay taxes. All of those are limits to a truly "free" market.
Regarding the people you mentioned, I don't think that they wouldn't have acquired their wealth had their criticisms of our system been made into law. Warren Buffet, for example, has said that taxes should be raised on the upper-income levels. Would he not be rich if that was the case? He's been in business - and wealthy - a very long time, since before taxes on the rich have come down so sharply. Yeah, if they lived in Soviet Russa they wouldn't be rich, but they're not suggesting that we become like Soviet Russia (despite what Fox News reports).
By your logic, no one should criticize anything the US does, because we have benefitted from its freedoms..
While agree with most of what you have to say, I disagree with your characterization of the "free market system". Free Market doesn't mean anarchy, it doesn't even mean that there can't be regulations (working environment, pay rates, etc.); what it means is that the Government sets the rules and then stays out of the way.
It means that, for example, if a business get's itself into a position where it's going to go under, you let it. No business is "too big to fail".
On the contrary, I understand their positions very well; however, it seems you do not understand my position.
I am in total agreement that we do not have a truely free market in this country. In fact, it is far less free than it once was. That is my major criticism of local, state, and federal governments...they need to get out of the way and let the free market work. If you are objective and look at every major recession this country has had, you will for that the cause has been the government getting involved in the markets (or in some cases, government "help" has turned a mild recession into a major one).
I see government's role in the market as a very minor one. Making sure that contracts are upheld (by both parties) is an example of something the government should be doing in the marketplace. The government should not be setting prices, setting wages, trying to redistribute income, or decideing which products or services are favored or not favored by the government. A friend of my said it best when he told me all he wants out of the federal government is for it to defend our borders and run the judicial system. Other than that, leave me the **** alone. I think he hit the nail on its head.
I find it interesting that when a stimulus package comes out the government acts like they created jobs when the only thing they did was to take money from one group and give it to another. Keynesian economics simply creates a false economy. It dupes small business owners into opening little shops that sell things that people wouldn't normally buy if the government didn't cut everyone a check. The store eventually goes bankrupt and closes it's doors unless another stimulus package gets handed out.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Stimulus does not rely on more stimulus to continue it creates it's own demand and growth becomes self sustaining.
Money goes to poor person therefore
poor person can spend more money therefore
their local shop has more business therefore
they can employ more people and open new shops therefore
demand for certain goods increases therefore
the mines, farms and factories that produce those goods raise production therefore
more businesses open to compete for that demand therefore
wealth is created and prices fall therefore
the poor person who now has a job spends more money therefore
the growth continues and becomes self sustaining ad infinitum.
It really is indisputable logic, that is the only thing that can happen given sufficient stimulus.
So why didn't the first stimulus cause all that?
Basically it did but not to a massive extent because basically the stimulus was too small and in my opinion not given to the right people.
The UN and IMF have both placed Australia as the most successful country in dealing with the recession, they in fact prevented a recession completely and continued to grow by providing large stimulus directly to the people who would spent it fastest and thus incentivise the economy most, the poor, this culminated with the government giving any employed Australian one thousand dollars up front and it was a complete success unfortunately we Americans have a habit of not looking outwards and not taking the advice of international expert bodies.
.Unemployment is real close to 20% in Florida. The way they figure the stats is goofy. They only count people receiving unemployment. You have heard that they don't count those who quit looking. Not many people quit looking. There are thousands who have no job or unemployment.
A long way? Remember, they were partying in Babylon the night they saw the writing on the wall. It doesn't take long to collapse.
Amazon? That's good for now. The trucks are still running.
Sorry man, they don't believe the Babylon thing anyway.
@JS Charms, re your comment about infiltration. We have teams of police in the UK which are know as Forward Intelligence Teams, FIT for short (the acronym may possibly give some indication of their true purpose) Their role is to infiltrate political groups, befriend activists, incite violence and public order offences which they have carefully choreographed. Then blame the activists.
If you don't believe me that's fine. I'm off to find a link of a well reported case where a Fit's member was undercover for a longtime, developed romantic relationships with female activists, and also encouraged them to commit offences. I'll get the link now. It's disgusting and it should never happen, I agree with you there, but not everyone thinks the way that we do. Just because we *wouldn't* does not mean that it *doesn't* happen.
This is just one example, if you need more I can get them for you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/2 … -activists
Oh it's ok Hollie. I am not aware of such units here in the states.
They may or may not exist here.
Perhaps part of my beliefs on these things go back to my youth in the sixties where there were definitely no such thing and the demonstrators were the ones perpetrating the violence.
Many of those same folks are big cheerleaders if not participators in the whole Occupy thing. It's what they do.
Actually I find it rather amusing that a group of people is still doing all this crap when they are basically....no the ARE ....in power. They are demonstrating themselves.
Ah yes, because EVERYONE listens to college kids....
The Berkely protests in the 60s were very well heard, Cody.
Hey that one professor you had with the silver ponytail. You listened to him a lot didn't you?
Never trust "Those People" with a ponytail. Still doesn't get it. What a shame.
I am sure you do but your inuendo in the answers and explanations to the forum are loaded with judgement and demeaning riffs. I hear an intelligence in your writing but I wish you would attack the ideas rather than the source.
Ok, judgmental and demeaning?
What I am seeing with the Occupy is an attempt to bring back the good old demonstrations of the Sixties.
Now...here's the Democrat Party Who ARE IN POWER!
When this happened before Nixon was in power. I understood more when they weren't pulling the strings but any problems they are having now? They need to go look n the mirror. They have had Barack and the majority of the Senate and House for four years and even got the Chief Justice to go along with them.
I can promise you that wasn't happening forty odd years ago.
So oh un-judgemental and non-demeaning one......why do they think they have to do these things and why do the American people have to be subjugated to it? What is it they think they want? That they can't get if they will it?
I am also the voter of the opinion that Both were the wastage of time. No fruitful result were gained from these two movements as well.
I think it was worth it. It made a statement of what a lot of people were thinking. That is one of things that makes America great people taking a stand to make it right.
Occupy was really destructive. Cost the city of Oakland a couple of million it didn't have.
Free market needs to be defined here. Free means free. It doesn't mean businesses burdened by the Environmental Protection Agency and all sorts of rules and regulations.
Heard a story Monday where a lady decided to sell her home, her loan was upside down. She asked her bank for a short sale. The bank was B of A. They had sold her loan to Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac, so they asked them for permission . Franny and Freddy had given B of A permission to act as their agents . The sale was approved by B of A acting as agents for F&F the house sold, all the money got to everyone that needed to be paid, the deed was recorded, the new owners moved into their new home, then Freddy and Franny denied the short sale and they lost the house.
This is an instance of rules and regulations having gone wrong. There is a big law suit ensuing that will be interesting to watch. The point is we don't have free market in this country. So there can't be free marketers lobbying.
by yellowstone87505 years ago
Opinion on the Occupy Movement.
by Josh Wolfson5 years ago
There must be some way to get the change-desire movements together on things. What can we do? I need debate, issues, and civil discourse. Let's start!
by PrettyPanther5 years ago
http://youtu.be/NkjbJOSwq3A"President Obama once said he wants everyone in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test...
by Courtney4235 years ago
Why does college tuition have to be so expensive? Why is it so difficult to receive financial help?From recent experience, I've had to ask myself these questions. A college education is hard to come by these days, and...
by Steven Escareno3 years ago
The young turks have recently reported that a young college girl at duke has been doing pornography on the side to help pay for her college expenses. Needless to say, some of her classmates found out, and...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
that is totally false. It is the A students who are the MOST SUCCESSFUL in life. They have more opportunities to further their education and to succeed than either B or C students. A students are more...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.