Occupy Wall Street Movement

[thir]

Preaching to the choir, thir. I've been out of work for two years now, though for the past year I haven't been actively looking, for health reasons. But I'm almost at retirement age anyway, and because my wife and I have saved all our lives we're not suffering.

Than I am not sure I understand your position, which sounded to me like if you just up and work everything will be fine.

But I'm not sitting out there complaining that people who ARE working are making too much money, either.

But not complaining that there isn't work either? We are depending on work - we can't all just go out and shoot a dear. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

[Thorne]

Than I am not sure I understand your position, which sounded to me like if you just up and work everything will be fine.

Sometimes the best way to get a job is to have a job. Even if you have to temporarily take something at minimum wage. (I know, it's not always that simple.) My point is, actively looking for work is a far better option than complaining that you're being cheated by big business just because they make more money than you think is right. The way to correct the system is to get INTO the system, then make changes. The problem is, once people DO get in, and start making big money, they no longer see the need for change. We are, at our most basic, a greedy species.

[thir]

Sometimes the best way to get a job is to have a job. Even if you have to temporarily take something at minimum wage. (I know, it's not always that simple.) My point is, actively looking for work is a far better option than complaining that you're being cheated by big business just because they make more money than you think is right. The way to correct the system is to get INTO the system, then make changes. The problem is, once people DO get in, and start making big money, they no longer see the need for change. We are, at our most basic, a greedy species.

From what I know of what is happening around me, people who complain right now are complaining because they cannot get a job. I know in DK we have 3-100 applicants to each job, depending of what kind of job. When I was working we had another top in unemployment, and in my field we had more applicants for each job than we could possibly even answer. I do not see where you can conclude that people who complain do so out of lazyness. Where do you have your facts from?

A while back we had a demonstration in London with a million people, all from differen areas of society, and all ages. Are they all lazy?

A Danish politician - very new and inexperienced - happened to say in a debate that high unemployment was good, because you could keep salaires down. The others hushed her at once and started talking about something else.

I can tell you, from experience with people close around me, that the when the burden of hopeless unemployment is merged with the scorn of 'why don't you try harder', people go into depression and a suicide rate about 5 times the rest of the population. Because not only are you not wanted and cannot take care of yourself, but your human dignity is taken away.

[Thorne]

A while back we had a demonstration in London with a million people, all from differen areas of society, and all ages. Are they all lazy?

That's not what I'm saying at all! I simply said that they would be better served by working within the system. Yes, some are lazy. Like any group of people. Some are working, but barely getting by. Some have good jobs. The problem is that they seem to want successful businesses to give money back to their customers. They castigate those who make a profit. They don't seem to understand that, if you remove the lure of profit from industry, you won't have industry. There will be no incentive for businesses to keep on doing business.

Do these people honestly believe we would be better off if everyone in the world got just what they needed to live (housing, food, medicines) and nothing more? That anyone who makes more money than they need for these things should have that money taken from them to pay for those 'less fortunate'? Where is the reason to even work, then? Why bother to strive for improvement? It all makes no sense to me.

[thir]

That's not what I'm saying at all!

Got you wrong again, then. Sorry.

I simply said that they would be better served by working within the system.

Thorne - the jobs aren't there!

Yes, some are lazy. Like any group of people. Some are working, but barely getting by. Some have good jobs. The problem is that they seem to want successful businesses to give money back to their customers. They castigate those who make a profit. They don't seem to understand that, if you remove the lure of profit from industry, you won't have industry. There will be no incentive for businesses to keep on doing business.

People just want a job, so they can live. They can't go out and shoot a deer.
The business of business is to get them as cheaply as possible, and make as much profit as possible.
Thus the clash of interests.

Problem now is not just the crisis, but the fact that many busnesses automate their production, so less jobs.

The businesses get help when they don't do well. Why?? Acccording to other parts of the system you mention, this should not happen, businesses should weed themselves out. First check.

If businesses could not score a profit, do you think the world would stand still? No progress? No one wanting to do [I]anything[I]? A statement heard often, but never proven! Personally I don't think human beings are lotus eaters by nature.

Do these people honestly believe we would be better off if everyone in the world got just what they needed to live (housing, food, medicines) and nothing more?

It would never just be 'nothing more'. People are so much more than that!

That anyone who makes more money than they need for these things should have that money taken from them to pay for those 'less fortunate'?

There goes the American dream again: there are always jobs, always education, if you want it. In the teeth of all evidence!

Where is the reason to even work, then? Why bother to strive for improvement? It all makes no sense to me.

Human beings will always want to work, one way or the other. We are not designed to sit on our buts all day long, staring vaguely ahead...? Moving about and doing stuff is built into us.

Maybe not in the Lutheranian way (again taken from Christianity, even atheists carry the Christian values in them: In the sweat of your face you shall earn your bread) - not work for work's sake, but doing stuff.

[Thorne]

Thorne - the jobs aren't there!

There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up.

Problem now is not just the crisis, but the fact that many busnesses automate their production, so less jobs.

But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs. Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them? Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?

The businesses get help when they don't do well. Why?? Acccording to other parts of the system you mention, this should not happen, businesses should weed themselves out. First check.

I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.

If businesses could not score a profit, do you think the world would stand still? No progress? No one wanting to do [I]anything[I]? A statement heard often, but never proven! Personally I don't think human beings are lotus eaters by nature.

No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.

It would never just be 'nothing more'. People are so much more than that!

I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.

There goes the American dream again: there are always jobs, always education, if you want it. In the teeth of all evidence!

But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it. And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.

Maybe not in the Lutheranian way (again taken from Christianity, even atheists carry the Christian values in them: In the sweat of your face you shall earn your bread) - not work for work's sake, but doing stuff.

Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.

[thir]

There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up.

Well, all I can tell you is that in other countries this is NOT the case. That is what unemployment means, that is what they count in %. As I said, I have personally experienced that enormous amount of applications to every job, which incidently, while interesting, wasn't paid all that much. And I have a first call view of life as unemployed, even in relatively humane countries as UK and DK, which is a night-mare than most people try desperately to scramble out of.

But, and this is said without rancour though with some confusion in your case, I understand that myth is stronger than mere facts.

But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs. Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them? Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?

The point about automation was only to list one of the reasons for unemployment.I guess it wasn't clear, but it was meant as an objective observation, not a hint that firms have to employ people. Although they may run out of customes somewhere along the line if they don't. It all has to hang together somewhere.

I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.

Apparently, some disagree. They are too big to fail. Big car industries and banks do get help - billions of $ of help. I fail to see how this mixture of public funds and private firms is supposed to work. Either let them fall, or nationalize them.

No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.

What? But if people are self-employed, they do not need any other job - believe me! Sound like a very good solution to me, privately as well as nationally.

I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.

I got a bit lost here again. What is wrong with being satisfied with what you have?

But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it.

I understand this is hard to take in, but NO, there aren't always jobs. Not even crap jobs! In DK and UK people are lining up for shitty jobs! The system says you have to take any job offered, but they do not have any to offer. The system has been privatized to firms who get paid for every person they find a job for, and they cannot find any. (That is in DK.)

I think it is time for the politicians to face the facts: that there has to be a congruence between number of workable people, and jobs. Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.

It is time for new thinking.

And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.

I do not even know where to begin with education... just two facts, one is that some are poor enough that children are needed to help make money. The other is that statistics show that poor people get little education, while children of rich people get lots of education. Do you really seriously believe that they are all - well, you did not like the expression lazy, so what do I call it? Stupid? Uninterested in their future? BTW, I saw a program which showed that many children in ghettoes are in fact uninterested in their future, beacsause they do not expect to reach 20 yrs of age.

Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.

There is a difference between 'labour' and entertainment - for many people, anyway. Work can mean doing really useful things, as opposed to making gadgets nobody really needs, or pushing paper around.

Inventors of all kinds, researchers of all kinds, helpers of various kinds (animals, old people, sick people etc.) making your own radio station, writing books, clearing up beaches and streets, (yes, people do this voluntarily!) planting more trees (yes, they do it without being paid) gardening your own vedgetables, looking after your children and old people, making your own clothes (some are really deft at this) art, making bdsm gadgets ;-) and so on and so forth.

Are we here to work, and buy? Or to live, in our own right?
working with racist problems, haressment against disabled people,