"Worthless"

a reply to: doobydoll

There's a line from a Bob Dyllan song that goes, "When you've got nothin', you've got nothin' to loose"...

Well, it's clear to me that a very, very few people have something, and a growing percentage of people have nothing.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I prefer Kris Kristofferson's lyric from 'Me and Bobby McGee':

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin' don't mean nothin' honey, if it ain't free.

There's a hard truth here. Materialism isn't just a cancer of the wealthy, it's also a cancer of the have nots.

a reply to: amicktd

My point isn't that a strike or revolt isn't the only viable solution to hit corporations where it hurts them. My point is that for the very same reason you were unable to take that job because of your kids, it is the very same reason people won't risk their jobs for a strike.

A strike or revolt will never work unless there is enough cooperation and solidarity amongst the people to ensure that there are no available workers to take the place of the striking employees.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: doobydoll

There's a line from a Bob Dyllan song that goes, "When you've got nothin', you've got nothin' to loose"...

Well, it's clear to me that a very, very few people have something, and a growing percentage of people have nothing.

I'm sure that person who has a job, that is barely making ends meet for their family, would risk losing their job to strike for someone else who's making less or who has no job at all.

Curious how I'm off base in my logic.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I'm sure that person who has a job, that is barely making ends meet for their family, would risk losing their job to strike for someone else who's making less or who has no job at all.

Curious how I'm off base in my logic.

You're not. It's one of the reasons I feel unions are a sham. Those actually making ends meet while actively performing the work are rarely the ones who call for strikes. It is usually the union bosses (most of whom hold either power, extra money, or both) who work the ones not making ends meet into a lather and then pressure the whole of the workforce into striking in the name of "collective bargaining." It strikes me as being quite the racket, actually. That said, I'm not surprised that so many have bought into it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I can agree with that.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Your right, things will have to get even worse for them. If the current trend continues, they'll have it even worse and then that old line might be more applicable.

The fact of the matter is, before anything gets better it's going to have to get a lot, LOT worse in this country. The people feeling the hurt right now are the least able to effect any changes. The most capable people, the most intelligent and educated folks are still eating 3 squares and watching Atlantis sink into the ocean. Eventually the water line will reach them too.

If Politics actually works at the local level; eventually the pendulum will swing to the radical left as people work but still cant make ends meet. People vote with their pocket book and this could also determine plenty of national elections. Obama comes to mind....His support came from the young, poor and gray hairs, and he was able to mobilize them very easiely.

The GOP and it's complete support for the Corporatacracy could very well be their undoing. Rush has the right wing convinced they are on the right path....Rush is wrong!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Just kind of seemed like I was missing something here for a moment. That's all. I've brought up quite a few times in topics similar to this about how it's going to take a collective effort by all and a shift in thought processes before anything meaningful can change. We haven't left "me and my own" mentality yet because so far it's just not safe to do so.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: doobydoll

When you can get every low paid, working class, citizen in a country to strike, you'll have gotten my attention. When an entire workforce at a Mcdonalds, Walmart, or wherever there is not a union protecting them strikes, you'll have my support. There are not enough people willing to risk what little they do have to make a difference. And there will always be another potential worker willing to work for peanuts to replace them.

Why do I believe that? Because there is no solidarity. It's all about what can be done to get ahead regardless of everyone else.

Just out of curiosity, if I were an employer and offered you a 1/3 or 1/2 over what you make now, would you abandon your cause?

Unions? Ha! Unions have done less than nothing for workers of late. They're virtually obsolete.

Low paid workers don't need your attention or your support, so far you and everyone else's attitude that tells them they're worthless and don't deserve an acceptable standard of living in return for their VALUABLE contribution to the economy, has worn thin.

Did you see the attention and disruption the strikers caused in London recently? That's the kind of effect that low paid workers will have on the entire country when the camel's back breaks, except it will be more devastating and it will be immediate.

Low paid workers are the meat and potatoes of any nations infrastructure and economy, without them everything grinds to a standstill, unlike pen-pushing jobs. We saw it in London, massive disruption. Gov thinks if it brings about changes to union strike rules it will be the end of it - WRONG. It will be the beginning.

a reply to: doobydoll

You seem to be missing the point that I'm trying to make. But first, allow me to clarify a few things:

Unions? Ha! Unions have done less than nothing for workers of late. They're virtually obsolete.

Employees under a union are protected from firing while striking. However, even that protection isn't absolute. I'm not defending a union. I'm stating that it might mean a little more if a worker who isn't under a union strikes. They aren't protected in the same way.

Low paid workers don't need your attention or your support, so far you and everyone else's attitude that tells them they're worthless and don't deserve an acceptable standard of living in return for their VALUABLE contribution to the economy, has worn thin.

No, my opinion isn't that low paid workers are wortheless. I never said that. I also never gave any room for inferring that I did. I beleive that everyone should be paid fair value for their time, but it just doesn't happen.

Did you see the attention and disruption the strikers caused in London recently? That's the kind of effect that low paid workers will have on the entire country when the camel's back breaks, except it will be more devastating and it will be immediate.

I'm under the impression you're referencing the tube strikes? While I commend them for standing up for their fired coworker, let me ask you this: How many people are willing to take their places for a job? I don't know how unemployment is in the UK, so you and others from there will have to educate me. But seeing as how the world economy is crap, it can't be much better than in the states. A woman in the department that I work in, placed her notice yesterday. They posted the position on several "job seeking" portals. Over 20 resumes were received within two hours of the posting. If the tube strikes from London happened in the states, and they weren't under a union, the whole lot would likely be terminated and replaced without much effort in finding people to take their jobs.

Low paid workers are the meat and potatoes of any nations infrastructure and economy, without them everything grinds to a standstill, unlike pen-pushing jobs. We saw it in London, massive disruption. Gov thinks if it brings about changes to union strike rules it will be the end of it - WRONG. It will be the beginning.

Once again, I've never denied the importance of the employees that keep society functioning. What I am denying is the mass solidarity that's needed to make what you're suggesting possible. The massive disruption you're talking about in London was because of public transportation. This is a guess, but I'm thinking it might have pitted the public against them.


All that said, I'm not denying the problems you've mentioned. I'm just stating that there's hardly enough solidarity between the people to make a difference.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

Hurr durr! Asking for fair is like asking for the moon!

"Fair" is paying what you owe and not spending above your means.


"Not fair" is taking loans to get free stuff then reneging on the debt.


"Fair" to leftists is "gimme what I want with zero accountability" it seems.

originally posted by: olaru12
If Politics actually works at the local level; eventually the pendulum will swing to the radical left as people work but still cant make ends meet. People vote with their pocket book and this could also determine plenty of national elections. Obama comes to mind....His support came from the young, poor and gray hairs, and he was able to mobilize them very easiely.

The GOP and it's complete support for the Corporatacracy could very well be their undoing. Rush has the right wing convinced they are on the right path....Rush is wrong!

You haven't listened to Rush have you? He's about convinced that the GOP are sellouts too.

But he still believes that a person has a right to what they earn unlike socialists.

A strike or revolt wont work...because people for the large part dont create their own food...remember Kissingers statement about controlling food...control the people.

This is why I homestead
This also why they want everyone in cities

a reply to: EternalSolace

a reply to: ketsuko

Let's play devil's advocate for fun...

You exist in a system that allows you to make money, so if that system didn't exist, you wouldn't make money.

So, if that system you exist in wants some of your money, you are obligated to give that system the money to enable to continue functioning. Failure to do this means a collapse of the system you exist in that enables you to make money in the first place.

There is always this folks...

If you lived through all this, and disliked capitalism, it was traumatic. But in the process technology has created a new route out, which the remnants of the old left – and all other forces influenced by it – have either to embrace or die. Capitalism, it turns out, will not be abolished by forced-march techniques. It will be abolished by creating something more dynamic that exists, at first, almost unseen within the old system, but which will break through, reshaping the economy around new values and behaviours. I call this postcapitalism.

Link to Gaurdian article

It is a very long article, but well worth a read, to summerise it talks about how capitalism doesn't have much of a future, due to the latest advancement being the information age, which is notoriously difficult to atribute a value to (or at least that's how I understood it).

A divorce between work and wages....I could get behind that as a concept.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
A strike or revolt wont work...because people for the large part dont create their own food...remember Kissingers statement about controlling food...control the people.

This is why I homestead
This also why they want everyone in cities

a reply to: EternalSolace

This is the nub of everything, using Greece as an example, they actually had a good peasant economy . Fresh food at the markets causing employment, and no real shortages. Then they took the loans to modernise, the Supermarkets, drove in the produce , and the Greeks were left with no peasant economy and a load of debt to pay off the Supermarkets. Which is basically what is happening to everywhere, the skills of producing your own food, and trading it in the local currency, has been removed . The only alternative is starve, or pay the piper. Or of course rebuild the peasant economy.

a reply to: doobydoll
Exactly. People love to talk smack about the jobs that "take no skills" that should be paid slave wages, let them keep talking that when there is no one cooking their food, cleaning their bathrooms, digging holes, and all the other millions of jobs that "take no skills". Countries would grind to a halt, the people with jobs that "take skills" will be crying to their mommy's. And that is coming from someone that has learned trades, and does jobs that "takes mad skills".

the only way can reverse this current trend is to stop buying into it......we have to stop buying their products on mass,we need to all steer away from big business and put the money back into the local economy,we need to feed the mom and pop stores...

Of course that is difficult as the reason we shop at the bigger chains is they are cheaper,but only for the short term as people are beginning to realize,we the people have the power to put an end to this greed train sadly what we lack is the capacity to do it....

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Failure to do this means a collapse of the system you exist in that enables you to make money in the first place.

Your point being? I can't speak for Ketsuko, but I've personally stated many times that I find that exact tract of logic to be a high level form of blackmail. That leaves 3 choices:
1. Keep paying more and more for less and less of a "return" on this system
2. Drop out of the paying side and become a leech, allowing others to pay my way.
3. Let the mother burn and see what comes out of the collapsed ruins.

Not trying to brag or blow hot air here, but I like my chances if the entirety of the system crashes down. That isn't exactly a personally disadvantageous outcome from where I stand and from how I'm prepared at the present time.