Good question. I think the Rep. should not cave in.We elected them to do our bidding.Republicans are in charge and they should act like it. But I think they are too cowardly to do the right things.Rhadamanthus said:
Does anyone really believe that the Democrats in power truly wish to find a political balance with the Administration?Rhadamanthus said:
You have just made my case for me. You note above, with perfect clarity and accuracy, that one's economic circumstances are directly related to the choices one freely makes.
You probably don't remember Lili Tomlin's telephone operator character, Geraldine I think her name was. At a time when AT&T had a complete monopoly on telephone service, she would snottily inform dissatisfied customers that they could always use the competition. Ha ha. Of course, in the present era of universally rotten service, she could still say the same.Fantasea said:
Little known to you conservative types is that some people out there have an interest in shop classes, they have an interest in becoming a blue collar worker. And yet blue collar workers are making 475 times less than their CEOs. Also little known to you is that some blue collar workers are extremely talented and skilled. But in your world, they still deserve 475 times less than those heroic CEOs. Aren't you the same person, though, who blames labor unions (ahh organized labor, giving workers a collective voice! I'll admit that, to some, giving these kind of rights to workers who deserve them is plain scary) for the disastrous effects of globalization? Got news for you: globalization is a product of the free-market you so love. A free-market demnds an ever expanding marketplace, meaning transnational companies which xport their labor are needed to sustain the capitalist system and sustain the kind of life you and I enjoy. Of course, this kind of capitalism hurts the vast majority of the earth's population, but that doesn't matter right? In this wonderful free-market under which we live, we all have a choice. I am wondering, Fant, are you an opponent of raising minimum wage? Are you an opponent of the welfare system? Are you an opponent of the WSF (world social forum)?Fantasea said:
You are, of course, referring to Ernestine. One is left to fill in the other side of the conversation in her delightfully acerbic, one-sided skits, which exemplified the attitude of monopolistic impertinence. A sample is:Kenneth T. Cornelius said:You probably don't remember Lili Tomlin's telephone operator character, Geraldine I think her name was. At a time when AT&T had a complete monopoly on telephone service, she would snottily inform dissatisfied customers that they could always use the competition. Ha ha. Of course, in the present era of universally rotten service, she could still say the same.
One of the circulation service managers for the Washington Post, much given to holding uncompensated sales meetings at 7 and 10 PM, had a little saying to instruct those delivery boys with the temerity to express unhappiness. It went like this: "This ain't the army, you can always quit." (which I very shortly did)
Ask the next ten six year old kids you see what they would like to be when they grow up. None will pick a blue collar job. Ask the next ten high school freshmen you see the career path to which they aspire. None will pick a blue collar job.anomaly said:
When one chooses a 'profession', regardless of what it may be, one chooses all of its attributes, both good and bad.
Every job has a specific value to a business. The greater the value, the greater compensation. I believe in the merit system. Those who contribute more value to the job deserve to be compensated accordingly.
I don't recall discussing labor unions and globalization. However, since globalization, in many parts of the world, is the sole means of releasing people from the horror of grinding poverty, I'm all for more of it. Just think of it. There are families in India who, for the first time in generations, have full stomachs because a son or daughter was able to get a job answering the phone at an outsourced customer service bureau. There are families in many third world countries who, by local standards, were lifted out of poverty because jobs which never existed before are now available. While you may complain about the local pay rates; the workers are thrilled. They know that, over time, things will get better and better.
A mandated minimum wage is an abomination. An insult to any intelligent person. It is simply a governmental excuse for the failure of the public education system that turns out so many kids who cannot support themselves. It is nothing more than passing a 'welfare' benefit along to employers who agree to hire people who don't have the knowledge or skills that are worth more than $5.15 an hour. What can one do with the wages from a minimum wage job? Support a family? Support ones self? Of course not. It would be a rare minimum wage earner who has family obligations who does not receive government assistance. Raising the minimum wage is nothing more than transferring welfare payments from the government to the consumers through the medium of the employer who must raise prices in order to pay the increased minimum wage.
No one should be without food, clothing, or shelter. However, there's something wrong with the 'entitlement' system devised by the Democrats which produced a generational welfare system in which many families cannot remember the last time that one of its members earned a nickel.
Not being familiar with the WSF, but having a cynical view and memories of the habit of 'red leaning' organizations to link the words 'world' and 'social', I looked it up in Wikipedia. This is what I found:
Yep, monopolistic impertinence, my point exactly.Fantasea said:
Most? Certainly not me. I remember installing some bootleg extensions in my house, and very carefully hiding the wiring from possible (and likely) phone company investigators.
At some point it may occur to you that people are not all born with the ability or desire to become accountants, actuaries, lawyers, stockbrokers, office workers or workadaddies (apologies to Kurt Vonnegut). If it were so, your little world would grind to a halt the first time you discovered six inches of sewage in your basement; your car broke down; the power lines broke or any of your appliances needed repair. Believe it or not, there are people who understand and glory in the knowledge and practice of things you find contemptible, even though they are things you vitally need.
Again, a largely humorous attempt at a response, but you have effectively blinded those who vote Republican. Well done. Let me comment on only a few things. First, you completely ingnorant account of the 'wondrous' effects of globalisation. You say Indians are better off because of it. Well, I don't know, but perhaps you should read the works of an Indian to understand what's going on in India. If you would read Arundhati Roy, you'd know that things in India have not been so good the past few years. Continued privatisation of water and gas industries leave thousands without those resources. Poverty is high as is unemployment (gee, thanks globalisation!). And then you go on to claim that globalisation has been largely good for the average foreign worker! Well, that is unbelievably different from the accounts of sociologists abroad, but you can continue to believe it, if you wish. Thanks to globalisation, millions of people are sucked into a low paying job, and cannot quit. Well, of couse they can quit that job, but that would mean their family starving. Is their any chance of conditions improving? Not really, not much money can be spent on improving conditions, after all, the terrible conditions are the reason the jobs are there in the first place. Is there any social mobility whatsoever? No. And yet you continue with the mindless assertion that globalisation is good for foreign workers. And if the foreign citizens are 'troublesome' and don't accept the change? Well, they're stripped of their land, of course. And you continue to suggest that a factory worker making, at best, 50 cents an hour is an improvement over their former job. I have tried to make clear that their former job was, in most cases, subsistence farming. So again, this claim is simply mad (noticing a trend here?). Now on to your idiotic account of the WSF. Obviously, that comment you found was made by a pro-capitalist. The WSF is not like 'old Communism' at all, as it is not run by a dictator (unlike many of those lovable corporations). The WSF finds it right to protect workers internationally from the brutal conditions capitalism places upon them. Is there something evil about that? Well, maybe in your twisted little mind. For further reason why you are wrong in so many ways, I suggest you take a look at Kenneth's last paragraphs in his latest post (^^^^^).Fantasea said:
It is refreshing to note that you agree with me that the element of choice figures prominently in the determining of one’s future. If one chooses a particular type of work, one accepts all of the attributes attached thereto.
I do not see the connection.
If I concentrate when I read this, I can hear the strains of 'The Internationale" in the background.anomaly said:
Once again, you surprise me. I was certain that you would recognize the words to "The Internationale", the anthem of the socialists of the world for about a hundred years. It was sung at every rally and meeting. I can even provide translations into other languages, if you are interested.anomaly said:
I realize what it is, I just found it an odd response. Am I not as deeply indoctrinated as you believed? I wonder how deeply indoctrinated you are in capitalism. How many times have you read Atlas Shrugged? I assume none, as you come to this forum armed with the odd belief that capitalism doesn't, in fact, cause inequality. I was not, however, familiar with the poem, I only knew of it. If this makes me ignorant in your eyes, so be it, you are in mine. I do, however, like the words.Fantasea said:
Actually, it was both the Socialist and Communist anthem. (Omigawd! Someone said Communist. Gather up your skirts and flee!Fantasea said:
) Granted the noble words didn't match the reality, but have you even read them? What specifically do you disagree with? Fantasea said:
The point was that certain abilities are held in contempt by the stupid. :duel
I was merely trying to refute the idea that anyone can be anything if only they would apply themselves.Fantasea said: