Number of unemployed persons per job opening

[Nim Chimpsky]

We will always have this as long as we have a capitalist economy. Look around the world - our poor have better lives than most people.

Lockdown answered the rest, so I want to focus on this part.

You've said something really important. I don't know how many OWS people share my opinion, but I think we need to move beyond capitalism. It is better than the economic systems that came before. It also has a lot of problems, the greatest of which I think are the suffering it creates at the bottom, and the dignity it steals from every level. It also happens to exploit those "most people" "around the world." It bothers me that my privilege depends in part on the exploitation of people in unimaginable poverty.

As for the argument that our lives are better because of capitalism, the same argument could be made for slavery. At the time, slaveowners were making the argument that since they owned their slaves, while the northerners rented them, they were forced to treat them better.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

Northerners "rented" slaves? huh? The slaves of the north were very much slaves, purchased the same way southern slaves were.

Oh sorry, that was a bit unclear. The comparison is between slaves and hired labor. So the slave owner's argument went: Slaves are property we have an incentive to take care of, whereas a hired worker is only rented, so with no long-term to think about, there is less of an incentive to take care of them.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

Lockdown answered the rest, so I want to focus on this part.

You've said something really important. I don't know how many OWS people share my opinion, but I think we need to move beyond capitalism. It is better than the economic systems that came before. It also has a lot of problems, the greatest of which I think are the suffering it creates at the bottom, and the dignity it steals from every level. It also happens to exploit those "most people" "around the world." It bothers me that my privilege depends in part on the exploitation of people in unimaginable poverty.

As for the argument that our lives are better because of capitalism, the same argument could be made for slavery. At the time, slaveowners were making the argument that since they owned their slaves, while the northerners rented them, they were forced to treat them better.

so what you are saying is that you want everyone in the world to share poverty. imagine paying higher prices on everything.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

I do see the difference. So I suppose you support the majority of them.


I'm not sure why you think all OWS people are the same. It's a way to build consensus among the 99%, who have diverse opinions.

There are legitimate economic complaints. A big part of it is also what I said: the 99% have no political representation.

NO political representation!!! you have got to be kidding me. they have the right to vote! that is one of the most powerful things.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

so what you are saying is that you want everyone in the world to share poverty. imagine paying higher prices on everything.

Well no, I'm not saying that. I haven't even said what the system should look like.

NO political representation!!! you have got to be kidding me. they have the right to vote! that is one of the most powerful things.

I'm not saying they don't participate, but that they are not faithfully represented. They vote, and then the people they elect do not represent them. For instance, they elected Obama and a Democratic Congress, made their wishes known (polls indicated that the majority of the public favored single-payer health care), and then were not represented.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So, if someone makes 51% on average more than the average pay, they too should forfeit their higher wage, and moreso as anyone in this category elevates.
Its only fair
Its only moral
That way, the minority is always supporting the majority
And that is the way it is

 

[mjmjpfaff]

Well no, I'm not saying that. I haven't even said what the system should look like.


I'm not saying they don't participate, but that they are not faithfully represented. They vote, and then the people they elect do not represent them. For instance, they elected Obama and a Democratic Congress, made their wishes known (polls indicated that the majority of the public favored single-payer health care), and then were not represented.

even socialism exploits the "most people" around the world. what do you think will solve this? I do not think it is capitalism rather the countries that the "most people" work in. They are the ones setting the laws for health standards and wages. in some cases our capitalism has helped the "most people", imagine how poor they would be without there jobs that our awful capitalism has given to them. It is not our fault that they are in such bad working conditions, and anyways most are happy that they even have a job.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

So, if someone makes 51% on average more than the average pay, they too should forfeit their higher wage, and moreso as anyone in this category elevates.
Its only fair
Its only moral
That way, the minority is always supporting the majority
And that is the way it is

I'm not really sure where this came from. Are you replying to something I said?

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

even socialism exploits the "most people" around the world. what do you think will solve this? I do not think it is capitalism rather the countries that the "most people" work in. They are the ones setting the laws for health standards and wages. in some cases our capitalism has helped the "most people", imagine how poor they would be without there jobs that our awful capitalism has given to them. It is not our fault that they are in such bad working conditions, and anyways most are happy that they even have a job.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "socialism"; I haven't suggested a system yet. But I'm curious, what country can you point to that is socialist?

I completely agree. That's what I said above: Capitalism "is better than the economic systems that came before" it. What I'm arguing, and I don't think you'll disagree, is that it has a lot of problems. For example, since you think employment makes people happy, what about the unemployed? You can't say it's their fault in every case: the graph I showed at the beginning of the thread proves that.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

most of those jobs cant be filled because there are not any workers with the skills needed to do the job. In california there are lots of people taking Chicano studies. what is that going to do for them? the only thing they can do with that is teach others Chicano Studies.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

most of those jobs cant be filled because there are not any workers with the skills needed to do the job. In california there are lots of people taking Chicano studies. what is that going to do for them? the only thing they can do with that is teach others Chicano Studies.

The statistics say that the number of unemployed persons per job opening is around 4. So if you imagine that everyone was qualified, and then gave them all jobs, there would still be a lot of unemployed people left over.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

Remember, the unemployment number doesn't count those that have quit trying to find a job.

Yes. If anything that strengthens my point.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

Still trying to figure out your "point".

It's only that we are not able to blame laziness or being unqualified for most unemployment.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

NO political representation!!! you have got to be kidding me. they have the right to vote! that is one of the most powerful things.

A vote and a check has far more influence than a vote does. Votes come and go, jump sides and generally are looking for the best solution. A vote and a check is looking for a person who has the most influence vs the cost it takes to have their influence.

This is why Chris Dodd went to work for Big Entertainment (MPAA) after he left Congress; he was always one of the bad guys, bought and sold by Big Media.

This is why Scott Walker consults his Koch Masters before he makes any type of decision, and why he is trying to raise huge sums of money before his recall initiative hits the ballot.


If you honestly believe that your singular vote means anything at all, especially with the unlimited sums of money flying around Washington, then you miss the whole issue altogether. You said in another thread that Unions gave $400 Million in the election of 08; $5.3 Billion was spent on the total election, 1325x that measely $4,000,000 you speak of (Goldman Sachs alone gave $425,000 to Obama, 10% of that $4 Million in 1 donation vs the thousands of union members represented). Where did that money come from? Business. Lobbying. Funneling money through PACs.

I work in an unionized industry and prefer it that way, but Unions still have their functioning purpose.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

i agree money does talk. all i was saying is that the common person does have some representation.

unions do have their place in the world. but it is not in politics

 

[l0ckd0wn]

i agree money does talk. all i was saying is that the common person does have some representation.

unions do have their place in the world. but it is not in politics

Something we agree on! I agree across the board, except in our current climate unions are the one of the only ways to offset the business lobbies.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

wait. so what you are saying is that the lobbying businesses are giving most of their money to the republicans?

 

[l0ckd0wn]

wait. so what you are saying is that the lobbying businesses are giving most of their money to the republicans?

No, they are giving huge sums of money to politicians on both sides. This is why when legislation comes up that would make a substaintial change, you get mouth pieces on both sides defanging the bills. It's not just isolated to Republicans, but businesses love Republicans because of their "business does no wrong" mentality.

Meant to reply to this earlier too:

Where were the American people currently running "giant corporations" educated?

Play the tape all the way through and your eyes will be somewhat more open.

As you ponder, remember the vast majority of Americans are employed by small business.

Actually, using real numbers and not assuming for 2008, the Census burrow finds that the numbers reflect a very different picture. Just taking some basic stats:


Firm - Paid Employees

Firms with 1 to 4 employees (or with no employees as of Mar 12) - 6,086,291
Firms with 5 to 9 employees - 6,878,051
Firms with 10 to 19 employees - 8,497,391
Firms with 20 to 99 employees - 20,684,691
Total employees EMPLOYED by business with under 100 employees: 42,146,424 persons (missed adding firms with 1-4 employees first time)

Firms with 100 to 499 employees - 17,547,567
Firms with 500 employees or more - 61,209,560
Total employees EMPLOYED by business with 100+ employees: 78,757,127 persons

The SBA says that the term "Small Business" is defined very differently depending on the industry you are in, and this is why I choose a static number of 100 employees. I find it hard to justify having over 100 employees as a small business by any stretch, but this is my opinion on the matter.

Regardless 42 million people employed by small businesses is just over half of the 78 million employed by larger businesses, very different than the "majority of Americans are employed by small businesses."

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its one thing to be pro business, its another to be snakes and lie about it, and still take all their money
Whos better off, those telling the truth, or those lieing thru their teeth?
Meanwhile, we all lose, and its one reason why Tea Party members were soo slammed by the media, the rinos and of course, the dems.
They just want to do their jobs, and go home. No buyouts, just fixes, and Obama went out and slammed them, the media backed it up, and hardly any word from the rebubs

 

[riser]

Lockdown answered the rest, so I want to focus on this part.

You've said something really important. I don't know how many OWS people share my opinion, but I think we need to move beyond capitalism. It is better than the economic systems that came before. It also has a lot of problems, the greatest of which I think are the suffering it creates at the bottom, and the dignity it steals from every level. It also happens to exploit those "most people" "around the world." It bothers me that my privilege depends in part on the exploitation of people in unimaginable poverty.

As for the argument that our lives are better because of capitalism, the same argument could be made for slavery. At the time, slaveowners were making the argument that since they owned their slaves, while the northerners rented them, they were forced to treat them better.

What better economic model would you propose? Our lives are better because of the opportunities afforded to us by capitalism.

What other option could you come up with that doesn't currently exist? Everyone has the ability to go out and make due on their own. I think capitalism works great. I look around and see so many people doing well. I see people who are making a good living... but then they're drowning in debt because they've over bought. I've seen people lose their job because they were so finally strapped that they became a liability to the company.

Is that capitalism's fault? Or is it a lack of personal responsibility? I've spent time helping homeless people, in soup kitchens, and all that stuf. I always ask to find out how they ended up homeless. Very few come to realize that it is their own fault in our capitalist economy. Some say they made mistakes, others say they had it good and wasted away on drugs and alcohol. Others had gambling issues. Some just never did anything.. and they ended up getting no where.

I find it extremely interesting that a lot of the people who do not like capitalism, or now have nothing.. most often came from having a good life and lost it on their own. I can understand the bitterness of having something and then losing it all because of your own decisions. That has to hurt.

There is no better system out there that lets you become a success. I would even argue the system is near perfect. The problem is we are flawed. We are lazy; may not be blessed with the intelligence, we have social issues, we put wants before needs, etc. Sure, capitalism in turn has created that.

The question: Do we blame the monster, or do we blame Frankenstein?

Either way we end up blaming everyone but ourselves. That is where capitalism does not succeed, yet the underlying mechanism is still in place to fix it when the blame game gets old.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

What better economic model would you propose? Our lives are better because of the opportunities afforded to us by capitalism.

Slaveowners presented a similar argument, which I detailed above. Would you care to take a look at it?

What other option could you come up with that doesn't currently exist? Everyone has the ability to go out and make due on their own. I think capitalism works great. I look around and see so many people doing well. I see people who are making a good living... but then they're drowning in debt because they've over bought. I've seen people lose their job because they were so finally strapped that they became a liability to the company.

Is that capitalism's fault? Or is it a lack of personal responsibility? I've spent time helping homeless people, in soup kitchens, and all that stuf. I always ask to find out how they ended up homeless. Very few come to realize that it is their own fault in our capitalist economy. Some say they made mistakes, others say they had it good and wasted away on drugs and alcohol. Others had gambling issues. Some just never did anything.. and they ended up getting no where.

Sometimes it is their fault, but often, as the graph that started this thread shows, there just aren't enough jobs to go around.

I find it extremely interesting that a lot of the people who do not like capitalism, or now have nothing.. most often came from having a good life and lost it on their own. I can understand the bitterness of having something and then losing it all because of your own decisions. That has to hurt.

Sure, it makes sense that people who are suffering because of our capitalist system will dislike it, as much as it makes sense that people who are prospering will like it. Is there an argument in here?

There is no better system out there that lets you become a success. I would even argue the system is near perfect. The problem is we are flawed. We are lazy; may not be blessed with the intelligence, we have social issues, we put wants before needs, etc. Sure, capitalism in turn has created that.

The question: Do we blame the monster, or do we blame Frankenstein?

Either way we end up blaming everyone but ourselves. That is where capitalism does not succeed, yet the underlying mechanism is still in place to fix it when the blame game gets old.

If you'd like an example of a better system, look to the anarchist communities during Spain's Revolution. It had its flaws to be sure, and I'm not presenting it as an example we should follow, but it presents a clear alternative to the capitalist system; surely we can think of something better.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

Why do you always return to equating slavery to capitalism? Is it just the shock value of the word "slavery"? It's not helping your argument.

I am not equating them. Maybe you missed the last time I clarified it for you.

"The comparison is between slaves and hired labor. So the slave owner's argument went: Slaves are property we have an incentive to take care of, whereas a hired worker is only rented, so with no long-term to think about, there is less of an incentive to take care of them."

For additional clarification, I am pointing out that for any system, there are arguments that go "people are better off." Slave societies had increasing standards of living, so did the USSR, and so does our society. It's not enough to say "people are better off" and refuse to look at alternatives; in those examples, the Soviet might point to the higher standards of living under Stalin and ignore the even better life in our capitalist society.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

The USSR had increasing standards of living? Have you talked to many Russians? I'm guessing not.

:lol:
Have you? I'm also guessing not.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

The USSR had increasing standards of living? Have you talked to many Russians? I'm guessing not.

The USSR was very successful in raising the standards of living in Russia, which was basically a peasant society.

Even now, 60% of Russians deeply regret the USSR's demise.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

The USSR was very successful in raising the standards of living in Russia, which was basically a peasant society.

Even now, 60% of Russians deeply regret the USSR's demise.

I think part of this might be directly related to the fact that Russia has become somewhat of a criminal state, similar to China's Triad situation. After the fall of the USSR, most of those who had money were either already political criminals in one form or another or were directly tied to organized crime. I don't have a reference for Russia, but I do have a 45minute presentation on China from a professor at USC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa4oVHz32i4