Occupy ____________
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=189261
Printed Date: 19 November 2025 at 2:47pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Occupy ____________
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Subject: Occupy ____________
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 9:25am
|
Surprised a thread on this hasn't been posted, unless it's to avoid another political thread where certain forumers post irrelevant links to biased sites. I've caught bits and peices, but seems like there is little if any cohesiveness in goals. Appears for the most part to be a bunch of young people who are still being supported by their capitalist parents complaining about capitalism. I hate to be contrite, but is it a true example of a generation complaining about having to actually work to acheive something? I can't seem to wrap my head around the logic of the protests. Are they actually wanting corporations to dismantle so that we have even fewer jobs? Are they truly demanding communism? Or is this the next hippy movement?
A blurb from the news said the protests had been going on for the past month? I know there were some other protests closer to home in Toledo, and I think Dayton this past weekend.
I don't get it. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Replies:
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 10:48am
|
inb4 Obama, abortion, democrat mind control, liberal media conspiracy, etc. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:24am
Some may certainly can be, but it doesn't appear to be the mainline of the movement. I've not read a lot from their perspective though, so I'm going to avoid speaking for them. However, quite a bit of what I've seen and read leans more on the idea of business having less influence on government policy, and business having more social responsibility. When you have a left-leaning crowd you'll no doubt have some folks who disagree with the very existence of corporations, but I don't believe they speak for the majority any more than folks with "Tree of Liberty" signs and assault rifles speak for the majority of the Tea Party.
|
oldpbnoob wrote:Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:44am
|
There's a list of demands floating around out there that range from "fair living wages for the unemployed" to "all debts forgiven regardless of standing" to abolishing the credit system. Of course these are not supposed to represent the interests of the "movement" (I use that term loosely) which supposedly focuses on corporate greed, lobbying, so on and so forth.
The more I read about it, the more I suspect half these people have no idea what they're demonstrating for. I've used the term "dirty hippies" more than once in conversation here  The interviews I've seen are especially bad.------------- 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:45am
|
I can understand the business not have influence on government policy, but what type of social responsibility? All I kept seeing were signs about corporate greed. Of course the snippets that are broadcast by the conservative pundits don't help clarify the matter either. Seems poorly organized and I wonder where these people doing the sit ins are getting the money to pay their rent while they are out sleeping in the park and fighting the man? It always makes me chuckle when kids with $120k college educations paid for by their capitalist parents complain about how life is unfair. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:46am
|
I found us some numbers to discuss on the subject: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/ - One hundred protesters were polled (So we're dealing with a small sample size, but still worth discussing: 46% stated that capitalism "Isn't fundamentally evil, just needs to be regulated." 37% state that capitalism "Cannot be saved and is inherently evil." So it appears that a good portion of the folks in New York feel the way you originally proposed, but not quite a plurality. I'd be interested to see how these results have changed since the poll was taken on Oct. 2. It appears to have grown a bit in size since then. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:50am
Quite a bit of what I've read has to do with complaints of stagnating wages.
They can be accused of a lot of things, but being well structured certainly isn't one of them.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:54am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:56am
|
Pardon the multi-posts.
I have little sympathy for the folks complaining about their student debt. They knew the implications of their loans when they took them out. Now - I can understand the frustration of banks selling and shipping student loans off to less-regulated companies, but the fact the student loan existed? Nobody made you take the loan. Frustrated that nobody is hiring while companies are sitting on cash reserves? Fine. But you did the loan thing yourself, kid. It's reminiscent, to me, of the people in the Tea Party crowd decrying the government's involvement in Medicare. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:59am
That doesn't have much to do with it - wages have stagnated despite inflation, while profits have increased. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:59am
|
Apparently they're planning on marching to the houses of the wealthy now?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_protest/index.htm
Guess the rest had to work... -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:05pm
Occupy the break room?
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:09pm
I dunno, large groups in the break room bother me. Makes it hard to relax. Occupy the janitor's closet works for me. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:12pm
WE DEMAND MORE MEANGREEN SPRAY. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:15pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:25pm
I don't think you're considering the time period we're discussing. Wages have been stagnant since the mid-1960s, while average worker production has increased steadily since the early 1960s. This stagnation has occurred throughout multiple times of recession and surplus. The points of contention come on both aspects of your equation. The idea is that "too many workers" should not be an acceptable qualifier in the developed world, for one. Also, the concern is that there are "too many workers" because companies are sitting on profits without using that money to hire anyone - when they otherwise could. On the other side of the plus sign, the argument is that there indeed are "enough jobs," but again, companies are sitting on them, after mass layoffs in the past few years have shown they can get by enough with one person doing the job of three. Not saying I agree fully with the concerns. Just saying that is what the concerns seem to be.
Thus the social responsibility thing. It's better for society to not have a glut of unemployed workers. It's better for the economy for there not to be a glut of unemployed workers.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:30pm
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:38pm
|
It is nice to see the teachers unions getting involved...
"As CBS 2’s Kris Habermehl reports, the http://www.takebackchicago.org/ - Take Back Chicago protest was organized by the Chicago Teachers Union, labor groups and other organizations." http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/10/protesters-to-flood-loop-to-take-back-chicago/#photo-1 - http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/10/protesters-to-flood-loop-to-take-back-chicago/#photo-1
I wonder what those teachers tell their students about capitalism... ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 12:40pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: CHiKUN_PiMP
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:31pm
|
I know some people who're into this occupy wallstreet malarkey. Every one of them that I know used to be spoiled rich kids with there parents holding their hand through their lives and had every luxury imaginable provided to them for little to no work being put in on their part. All of them are also chronic drug users and've just been waiting for this type of crap to happen for years. They really just seem to not know what they want or to be on the verge of saying they want socialism... God I hate Austin, Texas. ------------- Ignorance is bliss, why aint you smilin? |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:40pm
What do you expect? Their motto is keep Austin weird ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:48pm
|
The troubling issue for me is that, as oldpb was saying, I think that alot of peopl are just genuinely ignorant of how a free market system works.
Our people have a fantastic way of life here, even the poorest among us lives better than most of the world. It's just not possible for everyone to enjoy everything all the time, and that's a lesson my generation struggled with. My sociology teacher said that my generation and the one after is going to deal with the the difficult lesson that we likely won't enjoy the prosperity of our parents. Industry is shifting, and most of us enjoyed a great free ride via our parents, and we don't understand the idea of barely surviving. I know from my own experience that if you'd have told me when I was in high school I'd be 24, living with my sister, and struggling to pay my bills just to get my bachelor's down in distant hope of achieving graduate school I'd have probably shot myself. But part of life is adapting, and my generation has a metric ton of adapting to do. Alot of these people would rather adapt the system to meet their own hardships. Rather than excercising some ingenuity and problem solving, let's whine and moan about entitlement and fair share. Let's picket and protest the people that DID make it big, be it by luck or skill, because we lacked one or both. It just bugs me. It also worries me, because I believe eventually enough people are going to want the easy way out that they'll change the direction of our country to something that frankly scares me. -------------
|
Posted By: CHiKUN_PiMP
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:49pm
|
"Keep Austin Weird" I feel shame everytime I hear that. It's a slogan for tourism and to capitalize on quirky people(the likes of which, actually used to inhabit this town and make it a fun place... until people took it as their cue to act like jackasses). "Force Austin Scenesterism." is more appropriate, because everyone knows metrosexual trust fund babies buy lots of stupid things. ------------- Ignorance is bliss, why aint you smilin? |
Posted By: CHiKUN_PiMP
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:53pm
"Hey guys, have you heard of socialism? I heard through some guy that it can't become corrupt or greedy! Let's nationalize socialism!" ------------- Ignorance is bliss, why aint you smilin? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:54pm
Dude I love Austin. There are some pretentious scenesters and hippies there for sure, but 6th street is the probably the most fun, easy going bar run in the state. Everybody's chill, and for the most part it's just college kids and musicians. I found the people there to be incredibly likeable. If you want to meet some douchers, head my way. I'll take you and Linus downtown DFW and we can watch the middle aged guys in Affliction shirts try to pick up high school girls while the bartender ignores you because they force her to wear skimpy outfits to keep the aforementioned douchebag happy because every other girl in the bar turned him down or gave him herpies
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 1:57pm
Potentially. But it's not guaranteed, by any equation or economic means. The general argument is that the companies could bend more - some argue way more - without having any of that actually happen, largely because of the profits that have been, and are being, sat upon by companies. And it comes down to the company's role within society. What people are pushing for is a more-regulated form of capitalism within society. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 2:03pm
Some are. Some, however, know how raw capitalism works and don't care much for it.
This gets thrown around quite a bit in discussion. While indeed true I don't think it's anywhere near enough of a reason to stop trying to improve things.
Indeed. And going back to the previous point, I think a lot of people see deregulated capitalism as the reason for this. Thus their desire for some kind of change, misguided or not.
Careful now. That can be inserted into a lot of criticism of protests throughout history, even ones where the ones doing the protesting are now widely seen as correct. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 2:17pm
Agreed, but I think that the definition of improvement is what's at stake here. I certainly don't support a purely deregulated form of capitalism, but I do question how much regulation really affects or benefits the average joe. I'm all for working against corporate greed, and I for sure would love to see restructuring and enforcement of the tax code. But my problem is in the vision of my generation. I think that there are many that are, at the risk of going full FE, simply pushing for redistribution of wealth. When they say they want to regulate big business, I think many just want big business to support them. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 2:21pm
I'll use a real world example here of how what you said doesn't happen automatically. Look up Costco. They're doing rather well financially. http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:COST - Check out their stock growth from 2003 until now. They've gone through impressive growth, and I believe they hold the record for the fastest company to hit $3 billion in sales from their conception. They had $71 billion in revenue in 2009. And they're notorious for how well they treat their employees compared to other comparable companies, namely Target and WalMart (Really more of WalMart, as they have Sam's Club). http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?ei=5090&en=8b3103305fea6d68&ex=1279252800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1121705296-Q4tqPzmKJ9sYl9Q2a0xDYA - As of the last available stats, 85% of their employee force has company health care, compared to less than half with Walmart and Target. Costco's average hourly pay is $17 per hour, 42% higher than Sam's Club. Costco has remarkably low employee turnover compared to other retail stores. Very few of their employees are unionized, even though the company is fine negotiating with unions, because they just don't feel the need to. So Costco treats their employees head-and-shoulders better than other retail competitors, and has set all kinds of financial records, and has a stable, growing stock. Could they be making more money and sit on more profit if they didn't do that? Potentially. But what are they losing in the process?
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 2:29pm
|
Being management/owner for over 20 years, if you get tired of the ankle biters for demanding too much you just take your ball and go home. It's just the position that management is in. Piss-poor attitudes from employees can drive the optional feeling of social obligation right out of you. |
Posted By: CHiKUN_PiMP
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 2:46pm
|
Strato- I don't hate Austin really, I'm just tired of the drug fueled scenesters wanting the world to change while doing nothing to change themselves and the hipsters who dress like they're characters at disneyland. Austin is a nice place to visit, but it eventually gets frustrating to live in such a hipstertastic town. ------------- Ignorance is bliss, why aint you smilin? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 2:50pm
I dare say the potential for increased profit margins is much more of the provocative bait.
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:04pm
| Or just retiring, stuffing your suit cases full of money, selling your primary residence and moving to the cabin up north=professional fly fisherman. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:09pm
|
I'm really not familiar with Costco. I also am not a huge fan of Walmart/Sams. I do shop at Sams, but rarely at Walmart. I would actually consider Walmart a part of our countries problems and feel they are one of the biggest reasons for the failure of the mom and pop specialty shops. I also find it sincerely hilarious how all the people here are so pro union and demonize Wally World while spending a huge amount of their hard earned dollars there. I don't consder this to be a very big area and I have 4 Super Walmarts within 20 minutes of where I'm at. I'm certain one of the main reasons they are able to offer such low prices is due to the low wages they offer their employees. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:17pm
|
Watch "The High Cost of Low Prices" on Netflix, Wal-Mart has murdered the local economy of many cities. I detest Wally world and refuse to shop there.
Though to be fair, Wal-Mart driving out mom and pop shops is probably better if you look at it on the whole. Capitalism will eventually either dissolve or merge smaller operations in favor of larger, it's just how competition works. Mom and pop operations are traditionally defined by little to no outward growth, and stagnation is death to the market. Competition is the name of the game, and in that sense Wal-Mart is as Anerican as they come. -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:27pm
It sounds like you live on the drag or in some hippie commune. I agree that the people who spend inordinate amounts of money just to achieve the look of not having money are annoying, and that the drag rats are the epitome of suck, but I feel like you are paying too much attention to them. Besides, the dumb ones are always the loudest. Regarding the discussion at hand, I've failed to see any unifying theme (or at least something other than general discontent), so I haven't paid much attention to it. The Occupy Wall St. thing was at least an intelligible movement on some level, but I see so many things being posted on the facebook feed about some sort of occupation/movement that are (at least on the surface) unrelated in any meaningful way. Other than that, I'll take my stock position of simply agreeing with Whale unless stated otherwise. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:28pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:38pm
|
People that say "just be be more creative, work harder, have some ingenuity" are vastly oversimplifying how things work. Sure, some people will get a golden idea and make their own way with it, but you know damn well most people don't work that way. Some people are destined to be service workers for a variety of reasons, and telling them they aren't working hard enough is total crap, especially when you're referring to someone working 3 jobs to barely support a family.
The issues aren't just with unemployability, but with the huge disparity between positions. The ratio of pay between American CEO's to the average worker is 475:1 while in Japan it is 11:1. People are unhappy because this large of a gap is just uneccesary. Yes they are a CEO, yes they (likely) worked very hard for their successes, but the gap between them and the next rung is insane here, and doesn't need to be that large. That's sort of a big slap in the face to a lot of the working class. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:42pm
I understand the point you are driving at, but you are sounding a lot like the discontented occupiers. Besides, you're basically describing the capitalist progression. Don't like it? Support your local socialist movement (: -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:43pm
|
Honestly, who cares? Sure, I'd like more money, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the very idea of this country for my own selfish wants. It's terrifying that a lot of people are.
The only way to get rid of the "1%" is to transform the country into a communistic type country. I'm not for that. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:46pm
As has been demonstrated, this is not the goal of the majority, nor the plurality. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:53pm
|
So, tell me, how is **edited**ing about 1% owning 99%, and wanting the wealth spread (via 'livable wages', erase of consumer debt, etc etc), NOT trying to get rid of the 1%?
-------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:56pm
Word. Even the people ("the people" here indicating a sizable group of some political significance) agitating against capitalism are not advocating a systematic overhaul of the U.S. economic institutions. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 3:57pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:00pm
So, the problem isn't that there is a class of people with more wealth than others; it's the disparity between the classes and the means by which that wealth is accumulated. An inordinate amount of wealth in the hands of a few is not conducive to democracy as we would like to practice it in this country because a concentration of wealth is almost always followed by a concentration of power. When the concentration of power is followed by the exercise of power that increases the concentration of wealth, and a cycle is born, there is a fundamental problem within that democratic state.
Not necessarily, but it is certainly an acceptable result in a purely free-market capitalist economy, don't you think? -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:00pm
|
Sounds like college kids doing what college kids do. And I miss Austin ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:01pm
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:04pm
|
While they don't like the idea of the 1%, they're trying to lessen the gap between the 1% and the 99%. Seriously, why is the automatic idiot reaction to be "OMG COMMUNIZM@I#@H!!!!"
It's just stupid, and you look stupid when you claim that is what people want. I'd like to think you're smarter than that Linus. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:05pm
Some, not all. The numbers have been posted in this thread. It's the same as stating that the goal of the Tea Party was to "get rid of Obama." Change =! rid.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:06pm
It's the end-goal. Hardly achievable, but an end-goal none-the-less. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:08pm
I just edited my previous post to make things more clear about what I perceive the problem to be, so I'll refer you to that. But diminishing the income and wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 80% does not necessarily involve stopping the top 1% of all of their wealth in order to distribute amongst everyone else. Going from having 80% of the wealth to having, say, 40% of the wealth (which is an example, not an actual goal, just so we're clear) is not seizing and distributing all of their wealth so that there is no more top 1%. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:08pm
You're going to have to explain your point in English please.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:09pm
|
The protestors seem largely inarticulate and/or ignorant. I do agree that corporations are able to throw their capital around and achieve disporportionate influence in Gov't. The problem is that you really can't label the protestors political and economic objectives because they haven't even figured it out yet. I have a problem with the removal or a fee/tax for stock trades which was and should be a few cents for ever share but would net a lot of revenue because of the sheer trading volume, and might even slow down the occasional rampant and senseless fluctuations of the market due to everyone using the same or similar programs to buy and sell stocks, since they have a tendency to snowball. The big issues continue to be our national debt, the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, which were designed to be temporary but have proven politically impossible to get rid of, war and other spending, and the credit crisis and bubble economy that has stagnated hiring and growth. I also have a problem with the Gov't continuing to extend unemployment benefits since the job market is so abysmal, and not give people more time to start repayment on student loans when recent grads are likely underemployed or unemployed. It's politicians caring for their current voter base (boomers and the soon-to-retire) at the expense of the future (the millenial generation who's going to have to pick up the tab). I'd like to be able to get a decent job that will enable me to repay my modest student loans rather than working jobs that I could do with a GED that pay crap. Our generation was brought up being told that a college education was essential due to deindustrialization, at the same time college costs were skyrocketing and the job market was getting crappier. On an unrelated note, I can't afford groceries until Friday and spent the better part of the morning attempting to kill a pheasant that entered my yard while I was waiting for a call for work. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:13pm
Also poorly dressed, if I may add another honest critique.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:29pm
But there will always be a top 1%. If, say, they go from 80% to 40%, the argument would than be "1% of the country owns 40% of the wealth!!!" Granted, I'm one of the first to say that just because something will always exist doesn't mean we should just quite, but still. Let's be honest here. The median income in the US is what, $45,000? You can still live rather comfortable off of that type of income. I don't care if Warren Buffet has billions of dollars, as it has no bearing on my day to day life if he made another 10% that month or not. The only way it would have any influence on me is if goes directly in to or from, my pocket.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:42pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:44pm
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:48pm
|
I think the whole thing is misdirected. Wall St? really? Why not take it to where it all began, with the government's handing out of a butt-ton of money without any strings that dictate that it goes back into the System rather than into the coffers of the banks. If they want to make noise, I think they're pointed in the wrong direction. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:48pm
Statistics based on research show otherwise:  Statistics show there is a threshold people would be satisfied with. To say there will be perpetual dissatisfaction is something you'll need to back up.
Show your work, please.
Words are important.
Incorrect. Change =! rid. In this situation, people want a deviation, or more regulation, from current operations. According to the numbers provided, they don't want to get rid of capitalism. Some do, most don't.
The clothes are still there, however. Just not on you. And you still have on clothes.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:50pm
This is an extraordinarily good point.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:51pm
Exactly...
I know a banker who was FORCED to take TARP money, and then the government got into his business and started telling him WHO he should loan too... BECAUSE he took the TARP money that they FORCED him to take!
He asked to pay back the TARP funds, but they didn't want it, but it didn't matter then, as now they look at every loan he makes to make sure it fits their criteria for "proper" loans... Not his banks criteria mind you, but the governments criteria.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Unreal. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:52pm
You know what, I never said I disagreed with a everything they were wanting: But I can point out a few forumers here who are essentially on their side, but attacked me several months ago when I let my views of detest be known of the greediness of professional sports players stating that that's how capitalism works? Where's the line? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:53pm
This is a very solid point. A good portion of the crowd, according to the numbers, are dissatisfied with Obama's handling of the bailout. However, the banks and companies sitting on the cash are doing it themselves. One can fault the government for not forcing them to circulate their assistance money, but it comes along with fault directed to the companies themselves.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:54pm
In this thread, FE advocates for increased government regulation.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:55pm
|
Let's be honest here and point the blame at the people who really deserve it, the ones who caused this mess we're in:
The banks who loaned money to people they knew were a risk. And the idiots who took the loans for stuff they could not afford. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 4:59pm
At what point does the deregulation of the banking industry, particularly the loan sector, also play a part in this?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 5:00pm
|
That's true- there's no denying that the banks are acting in a less than positive manner by hoarding the cash, but it almost seems like it was given to them in 'good faith' that they'd cycle it back into the economy with business loans, etc. How difficult would it have been to throw a provision in that said something like: "By {This date} {This much} needs to be accounted for in business loans and investments to the American People- or it becomes a high interest loan instead of a bailout." With the banking system being as broken as it was at the time, they couldn't have afforded interest on a loan that size, they'd have been forced to take the money and pour it where it belonged. The way it WAS....really doesn't make any sense that it happened that way. Again, the banks are pretty much showing signs of textbook corruption and greed- but they weren't directed from day 1 with what to do with their money...which, given how they managed to screw themselves in the first place, should have been stipulated, bolded, and highlighted on the agreement before any hands were shook. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 5:00pm
You essentially edited your post so that it states you agree with Reb, then posted complaints exactly the opposite of Reb's post.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 5:01pm
At what point does personal responsibility set it? -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 7:06pm
Nice dodge, but I'm rather interested in your take on the economic impacts of deregulating the banking industry. So at what point does the deregulation of the banking industry, particularly the loan sector, also play a part in this? ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 7:33pm
 I was waiting for someone to start this thread. If I started it, no one would reply.   I'll read through this thread when I get a chance. Take care until then. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 10:24pm
The important part of my post was the "by luck or skill" and that "some have neither". I don't in any way associate vast wealth with personal achievement. I don't know the percentages from business and sociology, but I know that at least a significant percentage of wealth is inherited or in some way appointed rather than achieved.
Like I said, I am 100% aware of the difficulty that lies in changing social status. It's an uphill battle the whole way, and more often than not it's just as much luck as anything else.
However....
But who do you hold responsible? Money is an asset, and assets are afforded ownership. How does the government, or anyone else for that matter, fix this problem?
I'm not denying that it sucks when a CEO pulls in over a million when the manager below him pulls under $100K, but what do you do to change that?
This is where my argument against these movements come in. Saying that being poor sucks is like saying having cancer is an inconvience. We all realize that. But you can't just snap the government fingers and make everyone that's poor be not poor. The government can't fix every problem.
Sure, you can regulate business deeper, you can force accountability in numbers, so on and so forth, but as I stated before, very little of that will affect the average man's social status. Forcing Wal-Mart to be accountable for its actions may eliminate some executives and lawyers, but it isn't going to make the local cashier hit the 60K mark.
Maybe there's something I'm missing here. Maybe there's a solution that I just can't see, but in my opinion redistribution of wealth is what alot of these guys are shooting for, and it's really just overglorified theft. It's corporate and federal robin hood.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 10:30pm
| So.......the better alternative is doing nothing? We do plenty of that already, if not too much. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 10:48pm
I see this response as entirely circular though. It just shoots us back to square one.
The problem is that we have yet to establish a solution, and there can't be an alternative to nothing. I'm all up for a solution, I'm simply saying the one being offered is a terrible one.
I don't know anyone that wouldn't love to help pull in the income gap. I would just be giddy to actually be able to find a real job, be able to date and live like a normal person. But the fact is I'm faced with the ultimate American dilemma-go get a job or two that barely pays, or live like a hobo for a few years and get an education in an inflated, overhyped education system that won't even prepare me for my future job at the cost of tuition and books that will exceed my first two years' income.
Life in America is a scam, no doubt. But nobody is offering a solution. All I hear from these groups is that the evil CEO's are sapping all the money, but I don't hear a counter argument. The things that they're fighting for have a barely causal relationship with the problems that they're fighting.
Again, do nothing sucks, but just like the cancer patient, sometimes there's not an immediate cure. The fact is that there is an income gap no matter where you live, whether it's 11:1 or 1,000:1, there are the rich and there are the poor, and it's an incredibly daunting task to cross the gap between the two.
To be honest, if a CEO is making 500K a year or 500 million a year, both are a statistical lightning strike for me to achieve.
We have to fight poverty at the early stages. We have to fight for education, we have to fight for education reform (the admissions cost and standards in this country are ridiculous), and we need to further eliminate discrimination in the workplace. We need to provide more tax breaks for people that are trying to get ahead and encourage growth in technical fields. We need more manual laborers in high demand sectors of the economy.
But those are the solutions people want to hear. Those won't affect those of us who have already invested enough money in an education that's left us stagnant to buy a couple of houses or a Ferarri. You'll spend at least 40K getting a bachelor's, and with living / travel expenses likely closer to the 100K mark, and that bachelor's won't net you jack crap. People get out of college, realize this, and suddenly come to the ideology that it's easier to demand the government take from the rich and give to you than to find a solution to the issue at hand.
I'm not saying everyone in the movement is like this, but it would be foolish to deny that this is a common attitude in grads. I think last time I heard on the news the rate of returning home after receiving an undergrad is like 80%, and nearly 60% of people in my age group are unemployed. You go from the drama and life changing process of high school, to the excitement and maturing of college, then get out and realize you played a part in a system that scammed you for your money and left you without the skills needed to find a proper job. I know how this is. I have friends who invested six digits in a degree and traded out to go to nursing school for job stability. These are the hard lessons a generation learns the hard way, and guys in my generation are just now being forced to this conlusion.
So I'm also not saying that the attitude is without foundation. There are other solutions besides redistribution, but let's face it, education and tax code reform won't pull these people off their couch to picket. It's more fun to paint millionaires and executives as the antichrist and demand that they share with the rest of us. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:46pm
This is unrelated, I havent had a chance to read your reply yet but I figured I might as well post this here:
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 11 October 2011 at 11:52pm
|
Walmart has room to grow when it comes to treatment of employees, but don't jump on the I hate Walmart bandwagon yet. Walmart started small too, but it managed to thrive into the monster it is today by out performing its competitors. People gripe that it kills small mom and pop stores and ruins local economies. How much money have people saved by shopping at Walmart? How many employees would a mom and pop grocery store hire compared to a Walmart? I worked at Sams for four years and noticed that lots of small businesses bought their supplies there and passed that savings onto their customers. When I was hired, I started above the minimum wage, and with a little effort I received a few raises based on my performance. They were also willing to work around my college schedule. Looking back, Walmart did some crappy things as well. Close to the end of the fiscal year the GM would start cutting hours on the part time employees in an attempt to meet his scheduling goals (and get a bonus for hithat's steps thmself), but ey take to make profits. When its all said and done Walmart is still a business and does what it takes to stay ahead of its competitors. If a Costco opened in my town and they paid all their employees 16 an hour, I'm sure I would have left Sams in a heartbeat and lots of my coworkers at that time would have went with me. This leads to my next topic. If Walmart is soo horrible to its employees they are free to leave. There is nothing compelling them to stay so they can leave if another company pays better. Walmart does hire tons of people that have nothing going for them. What else would the people do if Walmart wasn't hiring? McDonald's? I'm starting to ramble so I will cut this off. In closing I will say this. 1 Walmart does beat up on small grocery stores, but isn't that the joy of capitalism(let the best man win)? 2 If the employees of Walmart are so mistreated they can work somewhere else and Walmart will eventually fail. 3 Who else will hire people with no educations or poor work history? ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 12:17am
-------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 12:36am
Wal-Mart outperforms its competitors using legal bullying and scare tactics. I'll refer you back to that movie I was talking about.
No argument here. When you obtain your products via unregulated Chinese labor and local Chinese monopolies that hurt both American and Chinese competition, it's not as hard as you might think.
On the flip side, what about the families that own the businesses Wal-Mart puts out of business? Some of those are lifelines for several generations that just disappear, forcing them from future business owners to minimum wage cashiers.
I agree that sometimes that's the cost for expansion of business in an economy, but it's unfair to minimize the cost. People have lost their life's work to Wal-Marts. Better for the overall economy (which is arguable, and I'll get to that later), but tragic to those people.
Without hesitation, yes. That's the point of capitalism. Again, it's still unfortunate.
No to the first, and no to the second.
See, this is a half empty half full scenario. You have two ways of looking at it-
1:) Wal-Mart gives jobs to people who can't find anything else
2:) People who can't find anything else are forced to work at Wal-Mart
I worked for a Wal-Mart distribution center and loved the work itself, but absolutely detested the management to the point I had to leave before I was fired for completely bogus, made up reasons. Wal-Mart's management structure is completely ridiculous.
But my experience was just one. There are people who have made successful careers in Wal-Mart, and there are those who were almost destroyed over it. Wal-Mart is guilty of sexual and racial discrimination, and the reason they haven't been on the receiving end of a massive lawsuit is because they have some amazing lawyers that are on call to fly in on the spot and stop uprisings. They notoriously drag out court cases until the (usually dirt poor) victims are forced to drop their case.
They have literally hundreds, probably thousands of unpaid overtime claims, and their promotion practices are questionable to say the least. But when it's the job around, who's going to complain? In an era of amazing civil rights advances and legal efforts to make the work place an equal oppurtunity enviroment, Wal-Mart is practically a stone age relic of discrimination.
Wal-Mart is an example of a growing monopoly. They've slowly moved in on the territories of even large grocery chains, and have caused quite a few successful names to stumble or even go under. I realize this is capitalism at its finest, but sometimes this works against itself by lowering the quality of both employment and consumer competition. I really do believe that's what Wal-Mart has done.
You mean like Steve Jobs?
Some of the brightest most successful minds in this country were uneducated and didn't do well in the workplace.
I realize that your point is, for the most part, correct. For all intents and purposes, most Wal-Mart employees are there becaue they can't find anything else. But the dead end mentality is defeatism in my opinion. Don't give up on a better way until you're six feet under. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 12:55am
|
I didn't mean to steer this to a discussion of Walmart. I was only using it as a point of discussion of corporate responsibility, and how well Costco operates within their social obligations compared to Walmart - as Costco employees are paid better, offered health insurance at a majority level, are free and open to unionize, and are given high levels of benefits for an unskilled labor position. But, on the topic of Walmart, as I've argued with a superhero on here before, Walmart has largely taken the place of the factory, or mill, or mine. It's underpaid and overworked employment. It doesn't require training or education beforehand. It limits employees both financially and geographically. It comes with few, if any, benefits. It shares a ton of detrimental socio-economic capacities with the mining work of old - just without the risk of black lung.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 12:58am
| Also, stratoaxe, I know we don't agree at times on a number of topics, but I do believe you have an incredible quantity of intellect. Not only that, but also the ability to properly express that intellect. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 1:40am
|
Whale, much appreciated. I hope that holds true in college
At the risk of making this awkward, you're basically one of very few forumers I quote IRL. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 7:40am
|
The entire problem in our country STARTS with our education system...
We have a system currently set up and run by liberals. Who have the best intentions but they aren't based on capitalistic principles. We teach students for years to be good at taking tests... Yet, many aren't, and sadly jobs aren't offered based on your test taking abilities.
We instead of teaching the consequences of actions, we tell kids that all they have to do is work hard, and they will succeed...
We forget to look at the cause of problems and instead of researching WHY things happen, we just let liberals tell us what happened. The Occupy movement is a perfect example, and clearly based on the writings in this thread many of you are also mislead into what caused the housing crisis, and the results of the credit crisis CAUSED by the housing crisis.
This is because of your poor education based on liberal ideology.
If you want to know what caused the housing bubble, read this article, as it explains it clearly for you to see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html?mod=googlenews_wsj - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
When you read that article, and see the words "government institutions, and banks HAD TO" do things... clearly that isn't "capitalism" but government regulations run amok.
Our country literally let HALF of our loans be "subprime" this was BECAUSE of liberals like Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, and Bill Clinton. This was MANDATED by the government as they purchased over 70% of those loans. As the demand grew because of this new group of buyers... The upside seemed endless, when someone got into trouble, they refinanced or sold the house at a profit.
I was in real estate from the mid 90's until around 2003. I watched as this was happening and I sold out, took my massive profits and built my dream house before it collapsed.
I KNEW that would happen.
Why? Because I am a capitalist. Something NOT taught in schools today.
You have to ask yourself, are you a taker, or a maker?
Do you take a check from someone, or do you make your own way? Our education system teaches people to take checks, from government, from employers, from our parents. But, it DOESN'T teach how to MAKE your own way. Why is that? Personally, I think it is because most teachers have never been makers themselves. As most of the producers in the country PRODUCE, they don't stop producing to go teach others how to produce. That is a problem. More producers should let others know what they did to succeed, as that helps them grow out of the taker mentality and become makers, aka profit machines.
Think about this for a minute, what are your skills?
Not just something you like, but something that you are GOOD at, good enough that others would PAY you for what you can do...
Make a list of things you do well enough that they are marketable.
Here is a short list of things I have made money doing. (not getting a check from an employer mind you, but people have PAYED me directly for these skills).
1. lawn service (cut grass, trim tree's, rake leaves, snow removal)
2. bike building
3. graphics painting
4. clothing designer
5. cosmetics distributer
6. candy sales
7. window washing
8. carpet cleaning
9. entertainment shows
10. artist
11. video producer
12. invented parts for bmx industry
That list is a list of things that I made money from BEFORE I graduated high school... Not JOBS I had, but those are all things that I did on my own, and was paid by people because my "product" was good enough that they wanted to buy it from ME.
What is your list?
If you don't have a list, why not?
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 8:21am
|
That had to be among the most self-centered things I've ever read. Apparently, because I get a check FROM somebody, I'm not as good as you, and its because of my liberal-based education. Kudos, crazy man. You've done it again. ------------- ? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 8:51am
|
Actually it wasn't meant as a self serving statement, I was just making a point that our education system has failed the majority... Because it teaches people to become TAKERS instead of Makers.
I'm no different than you, I just made different choices in life, choices that we all get to make daily and yet, if we don't question WHY we make said choices than how can we grow and learn?
My comments weren't to insult anyone, just to make people think.
If that makes me "crazy" then so be it, but at least think about what I wrote.
And what about that article from wsj about the cause of the crisis... Why no comment on that?
And where is your list? I really am curious... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 8:54am
|
Funny, I just get to work on classified technology for the US Navy, my liberal education must have led me pretty far astray. I should tell my parents all those checks they wrote were worthless. Also, there are many things that still require earning but which are not reimbursed in cash. Ask most of the athletes we send to the Olympics, because many of them pay their own way or at least a significant part of it. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:01am
|
Yeah, mee too cauze I haz a collige degrie 2.
I'm not saying college educations are bad... Or High school is bad... There are great teachers out there. but, there are a lot of bad teachers too, and some horrible curriculum.
You can pick on my words all you want, but the point is, small business is what makes this country the success it is, and we don't teach our youth how to start, think about, or run small businesses. We don't talk about the governments policies and their impact on small business.
Why is that?
I'm sending my kids to college... But, you can bet I teach them about free enterprise ideology often, as they never hear about it in school. The issues we have today are a symptom of that problem. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:26am
|
If we don't teach people how to run small businesses why are such a huge portion of American workers (IIRC 40%+) working in small businesses? The issue isn't that we're not teaching people enough, its that no one can specialize in everything. Because of that, specialists in certain areas -- specifically the financial industry -- can take advantage of the capitalist system to make money while everyone else is losing it. The whole point of regulation is to prevent events like that; the issue was that there wasn't enough. There are absolute basics that people need to get through life. Running your own business is just not one of those things. Most people are not interested in doing it anyway. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:37am
Key statement "working IN"... Not making their own.
Actually, yes, you can learn to specialize in tons of stuff, clearly not everything, but WAY more than anyone ever in the history of the world. Information is literally AT OUR FINGERTIPS, on ANY topic. Information that if you digest it all YOU TOO can become an expert.
Clearly you didn't read the article I posted.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html?mod=googlenews_wsj - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
REGULATIONS CAUSED THIS MESS... Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd FORCED banks to make subprime loans. to the tune of 50% of ALL loans becoming subprime.
Meaning they HAD TO BY LAW lower standards for lending.
Read the article...
As far as your statement of " Running your own business is just not one of those things. Most people are not interested in doing it anyway."
I completely disagree. WE ALL run our own business... It is called OUR LIFE. We have goals for that business, we have dreams, we have a product (our skills) we have dividends (our kids) we have skills that we market, and we make decisions that either help our business or hurt our business.
Ever wondered why convicted felons have a hard time getting a job? Because they damaged their "businesses" reputation by doing crime. Just like if you decide to drink and drive, you may lose your license and hurt your skill set...
It is all part of how we look at things in our society. If you view your life as your business, instead of just letting things happen to you, and thinking you have no impact on those things, then you live in a world where you need someone to GIVE you something to get ahead. (based on your hard work of course, unless you are just lazy like a percentage of the population).
But, to say our lives aren't a "business" is just a further point that it depends on how you look at life.
I see my life as my business, and I have goals and plans for my life. As all of us do, the question is, are we making just one product, or working on lots of products all at the same time? And if we get complacent and only work on one product, does that harm our ability to work if that product goes away?
I have watched as technology has eliminated jobs... And those workers who did that job had NOTHING else to fall back on, as they had never viewed their life as a business... And figured their job would always be there... That paycheck would always be handed to them. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:53am
| party lines are so funny |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:54am
Let's play "spot the error." Anyone want to take a stab?
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:03am
| I can tell you that corrupt loans were happening as far back as 1990. Is this what you're alluding to Whale? A time line error by blaming those that inherited a flawed and corrupt system. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:12am
|
Carter was one of the first to push "home ownership for all"...
Clinton was unabashed with his promotion of lowering lending standards...
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html - http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html
Why did the federal government agencies own 70% of all the subprime loans if they weren't pushing these loans?...
Oh and clearly Bush didn't stop this mess when he could have... Another reason he is gone. Course Frank and Dodd are still in office... weird huh...
Better protest some more wall street firms, while ignoring the governments impact in the disaster.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:15am
This is a true statement. Now, the diatribe about 'cause the liberals,' is misguided at best, as the systems in place that have caused a downward turn in education were largely the result of bipartisan efforts. No Child Left Behind, for example, was pushed for heavily by Bush and largely written by Ted Kennedy. Which leads to:
This is the core of the problem, and is the result of the NCLB legislation. So, again, misguided to think it is the result of some kind of liberal conspiracy. President Bush was one of the largest supporters of the act, and the one who signed it. But let's look at this through non-partisan eyes for a second: I agree with you. Test-taking, and the pressures of exit exams as the method of testing one's knowledge and ability, does not produce the mental skills needed to think and learn. While the research conflicts on that topic, I'm firmly behind the idea that critical thinking, logic, and rhetoric are missing when you only teach in digestible fact nuggets that are to be regurgitated onto a Scantron test. Do I agree with some kind of exit exam? Sure. But I don't agree with how it is operated now, where the entire year ends up being dedicated to the exam. The exam should be the passive actor to the knowledge's active actor, not the other way around.
I'm curious, do you have specific curricular examples of this?
What does this have to do with the education system?
Opinion column.
Citation needed.
This, again, isn't indicative of some kind of liberal plot. We're a society that grew out of the economic constructs of capitalism. And one of the economic constructs of capitalism, at least proposed by Smith, is that the growth of business requires automation and reconfiguration of the manufacturing process. Smith used pins as the example, but the same is seen now with microchips. Capitalism comes with the understanding that most people are going to be working for someone else. The pin maker is going to hire people to operate each section of the pin-making process, from flattening out the head, to spooling the wire, cutting the wire, etc. If everyone is a rugged individualist, as you propose, capitalism collapses. I'd highly suggest you read Smith's Wealth of Nations.
I'll add this to your awesome quotes about teachers. Heck, that's good enough for my signature.
So in your world, what does an adjunct do?
Teaching.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:21am
|
Rothschild.
October 24th, 2011. Watch the market. It will make 2008 look like child's play. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:24am
|
Actually, I REALLY like adjunct professors... Some of my best teachers in college were from the business world and did adjunct teaching on the side when their schedules allowed.
Great real world learning, but why did I have to get to college before I was presented with information like that? ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:25am
Are you asking why high schools don't use adjuncts?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:36am
|
yeah, but only because I don't know if they do or not... They didn't when I was in school, my teachers were all union long term teachers with their NEA system in place, a system that didn't really care if you learned anything other than their tested "results"... Which did nothing for me to prepare for the "real world". ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:42am
|
Couple of fairly interesting links from Yahoo: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/top-5-facts-america-richest-1-183022655.html - http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/top-5-facts-america-richest-1-183022655.html
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908 - http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908
Have to admit, looking at these numbers I really have to rethink my feelings on raising the tax rates on the wealthy. If this is what the occupiers are demonstrating against, they may have a point. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 10:52am
Rarely. High school is not designed to be conducive to that system. It requires eight months of minimum commitment, as opposed to the four or three needed at the college level. It requires a different level of psychological preparation and knowledge, as you are teaching two different developmental age groups, and you're teaching students who have to be there vs. have elected to be there. You also don't need a background in education to teach college-level stuff. You need, in most states, at least some kind of teaching certification on top of your other degree to teach high school. It's because of those previously stated psychological issues. Time of day is another issue. High school is in the middle of the day, every day. An adjunct in college can teach afternoons or nights, and can teach on their day off if they are assigned a three-block course.
Were you aware that teacher's unions in the U.S. tend to oppose No Child Left Behind, oppose mandatory exit testing, and oppose curricula that are based upon an exit exam? Teachers, and teachers unions, don't like arbitrary standardized testing anymore than you and I.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 11:05am
|
Tax the rich.... tax the rich..... tax the rich. How about our taxes aren't used to pay off interest to the Federal Reserve. That would be a start. |