You're viewing a single thread.
Billionaires aren't the ones that starve when the economy implodes.
This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions. Sure we support your goals but the side-effects of that cure are ten times worse than the disease itself.
You’re talking out of your ass.
75% of Americans support the UAW
Just because there is public support does not mean it's right. Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice. It's not just the UAW that's impacted, there's huge ripple effects. Many suppliers were barely hanging on and this will probably be a death knell. And honestly, this is what makes me fucking hate working in Financial Services for one of the big 3.
I run a department that performs forecasting that eventually influences the affordability of leasing globally and I'm responsiblefor a $25B portfolio. I work my ass off and I have a new family with a 1 year old - we were having a decent year finally after 3 bad ones, then this fucker comes along and is going to tank it.
So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance. He makes sound bites, but the sides are so far apart it's ridiculous. They accuse the companies of negotiating in bad faith, yet the UAW has yet to respond to any offer with a counter. They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for, but they've literally thrown that in the trash. My bet is all he will accomplish is more factories moving to non-UAW locations or Mexico.
What exactly is the advantage of being American made when the workers turn out the worst quality for the highest wages and they can shut down production on a whim every few years? It's honestly very frustrating to see this issue not being taken seriously here and there seems to be such little appreciation for the broader impacts.
Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice
You're talking about another recession where they can scoop up assets on the cheap and weather the storm while less fortunate people die. We're talking about dismantling the system that makes that possible.
What does it mean to dismantle the system?
Asking for specifics, unable to grasp obvious concepts or being a sealion?
I dunno about him, but I'm asking for specifics.
It is a lot easier to tear down the hard work of others than to build something up yourself.
The UAW is not some benevolent non-profit out to help the poor people of America. They are an organization that represents less than .05% of Americans in one of the best paid low-skill jobs in America, and they say they are willing to try and tank the economy for the benefit of their members at the cost of everyone else.
They are in no way going to dismantle the system that has made them wealthier than their friends and neighbors. They are just holding out for a bigger package with more benefits, and are willing to play Russian Roulette with the economy to get it.
Even if all three CEOs gave up their salaries and benefits packages to benefit the UAW workers they would each only gain about $1 an hour based on my napkin math.
This Fain guy's rhetoric is nothing more than that and it makes him and the union sound like an asshole to a neutral observer. Not that there are any neutral observers in this post.
How about if the three auto companies gave up 5% of their profits instead?
I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn't asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.
No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they're making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
not what profit margin they're making.
True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.
do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don't know if it makes up the difference or not.
Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren't seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.
there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren't seeing returns.
So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.
I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse
So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.
This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.
Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn't just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn't understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
Edit: phrasing of italicized part.
Ahhh ok, so you really are talking out of your ass.
The workers are not asking for much. Just their fair share
Fuck right off with the 'low-skill' shit.
Am I wrong? I was using it as a comparison to jobs that require a similar amount of education and training.
I tried to check and it seemed to be categorized as "unskilled". Didn't really seem like a completely fair assessment so I used "low-skill" instead.
What would you call jobs in this category?
nothing but a bunch of pro-establishment and anti-union gaslighting nonsense
We're done here, bootlicker.
Thanks for the report CNmsNbc! Much appreciated
You’re talking out of your ass with bs anecdotes. I don’t care.
The corporate executives are tanking the economy not the workers. If you believe otherwise you’re an idiot…… or just talking out of your ass
The Dollar is the world reserve currency. Most billionaires wealth is directly tired to its stability. It's why China/Russia may hate our government but they don't try and fuck with wall street, they have their value tired to the same piggy bank. Destroying the US economy would directly impact the billionaire class and to act like it wouldn't is such a fucking cop out.
So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance.
Considering you seem to not give two shits about the others getting affected by shit outside of their control and now that we are working to get rights for everyone else you feel slighted because your fucked corporate role aided in fucking everyone else, I have no fucking sympathy for you. I hope your affected because then you might just fucking get it because you clearly fucking don't. Go pound sand dumb ass.
They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for
They want CEOs, and the billionaires reading the benefits of their work to be striped of most their wealth and redistributed to the masses where it's needed. They don't want scraps and what should of been given in the first place, they want fucking change. Honestly the fact you think this is enough clearly defines how fucked your mindset is and clearly demonstrates why you need to feel the hurt from this change. Go cry to your ceo I'm sure he will toss you to side just as quickly as everyone else even though you feel so strongly you need to defend those incompetent pieces of shit.
Most Americans would like a cost-of living increase ourselves. It is easy to support the UAW when they are going for a goal we agree with; especially when it costs us nothing.
If the UAW intentionally makes that cost another economic recession/depression, we will see how strong that support is.
You mean when the corporate executives hurt the economy. Get your head out of your ass
how dare the workers try to use their labor to survive, why won't anyone think of the poor rich people who may lose some stock value
No I mean when the guy in the picture says, "we're going to wreck their economy."
If you don't like his phrasing then it sounds like we agree.
"moderates"
Yes, "moderates".
Those of us who realize the building we all live in is old, has holes in the windows and floors, and never had an elevator installed, but would still prefer to renovate it than burn it down. Yes, we know some people are getting wet, or fell through the floor, and a few can't even get to their rooms, but the majority of us are warm, well-fed, and mildly entertained. We definitely need to get the holes patched and we should work on some sort of lift, but burning the place down is not going to help those who are missing out now and will harm everyone else in the process.
You know that they tear down dilapidated buildings with good reason, right? The foundation is crumbling, the floor won't support weight and the roof is more leak than barrier.
Trying to apply repairs to a crumbling and unsafe building is actually a great analogy for how your "moderate" bullshit is keeping most of society in a death spiral. Nice self-own.
Even if we are approaching a point where a tear down would be more cost effective, we are not at a point where we can unite enough to rebuild anything from the rubble.
Maybe pushing it any farther is risking a collapse, but I rather like being one united nation sitting at the top of lists for economic and military power, rather than 3 or 4 smaller nations barely in the top 10.
We are way past the point where a tear down is necessary to save millions of lives, never mind "cost effective".
sitting at the top of lists for economic and military power
You KNOW that all that economic power belongs to the rich and the rest are poorer than most western countries, right?
Also, celebrating military power as a virtue is some North Korea type shit, not something a modern democracy should be doing.
Military power is neither inherently virtue nor vice it is a tool that can be used for good or ill. However, without it the voice of a nation becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes non-existent without the support of others.
Military power is neither inherently virtue nor vice
False. It's an evil. Some would say a necessary evil, but that's debatable.
without it the voice of a nation becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes non-existent
Bullshit. Organised murder isn't free speech, nor does it protect free speech. It's very often used to SUPPRESS free speech and democracy, though.
but that’s debatable.
Do you think Zelensky thinks military power is a useful tool? Do you think he and NATO are doing evil by defending Ukraine?
Putting my cards on the table; I am not the biggest fan of the US getting involved in another overseas war, even if it is only providing weapons. I am curious though how a defensive war fits into your "military power is evil" mindset.
Organised murder isn’t free speech
Having a military does not mean you have to participate in offensive wars.
Do you think Zelensky thinks military power is a useful tool?
I think the people of Ukraine would have found it useful for Putin to not use that "tool" against them.
But yeah, while I'm of course on his side with regards to the war itself, I also think that Zelinski is finding emergency war powers a very useful tool to suppress political opposition and otherwise further his own political power.
Do you think he and NATO are doing evil by defending Ukraine?
Of course not, but there'd be no invasion to defend against in the first place if not for the military power of genocidal war criminals like Putin
I am curious though how a defensive war fits into your "military power is evil" mindset.
As I pointed out above, it fits fine since there would be no necessity to defend yourself against military power if not attacked with military power.
there’d be no invasion to defend against in the first place if not for the military power of genocidal war criminals like Putin
I completely agree though with a caveat. I can't imagine a just way we would completely eliminate people like Putin.
The only way I could imagine is becoming the most oppressive and dominating force and pointing our weapons at anyone that glances at other territories. Incidentally, I think this pretty much what we did for 40 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, which explains the era of relative peace we are coming out of. Not that there was ever true peace, but mostly the world powers only played their proxy war games in much smaller nations.
I also think that Zelinski is finding emergency war powers a very useful tool to suppress political opposition and otherwise further his own political power.
I have been noticing the same.
Bruh, in your analogy where are you getting the money and materials to patch up the building? It’s being hoarded by the guy that owns a giant state of the art mansion up the street that needs 0 repairs.
And that mansion has TWO elevators.
Fair question.
In my hastily put together analogy, the rich guy would live up on the top floor which he converted to a pent house, probably with a helicopter pad. That guy like in real life is going to try to squeeze the money out of the guys a few floors down from himself. If it actually comes to a building collapse or something catastrophic, he probably tries to escape to another building.
Really though, this analogy is probably stretched to its limit.
Why wouldn't he escape before the building got that bad? Why wouldn't he escape the first time someone fell through the floor?
Presumably their part of the building is holding up fine. We certainly aren't seeing a lot of rich people flee the US so far.
Incidentally, not that it really matters, the holes in the floor were not meant to indicate the building itself was rotting away, just that the layers had worn through and need to be replaced. Basically everything after the first post has just been shoe-horned into the analogy on the fly.
We certainly aren’t seeing a lot of rich people flee the US so far.
Interesting. New Zealand seems like an odd choice for a prepper bunker. I'm sure it is wonderful to live there now, but that seems irrelevant if civilization collapsed. I have been working under the assumption that there were billionaire bunkers littering the Rockies and Appalachians.
Personally, if I was a billionaire, I would go full Fallout and build several sustainable vaults of various kinds that could each hold enough people to rebuild the human race from. That and dump every spare dollar possible into an off-world colony.
Or you could build a new and better building instead of patching up poor construction.
Sure, if you can get most of the residents to agree on what kind of building they want the new one to be, you might even make it happen fairly smoothly.
As is, we have at least a half a dozen groups who each want different designs and the two largest groups aren't even sure they want to live in the same building anymore. Those two groups have already started drawing lines down the middle of the current building and are demanding everyone pick a side. To make matters worse the other groups don't agree with each other enough to even band together for their own defense. In the end, we will be lucky if we get a couple small condos where once a sky-rise stood.
There is no reforming capitalism, and by pretending there is (or that "the alternative" which you are clearly not even able to articulate, is worse) you are helping to maintain the status quo, at best.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://libcom.org/article/capitalist-democracy-illusion-choice
Of course they don't starve, they're often the cause, or accessory to said implosions, and governments are all too happy to bail them out of their bullshit while telling people to suck it up and go back to work.
This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions
No. That would be the constant drone of pro-establishment and thus pro-billionaire propaganda from the billionaire-owned corporations that dominate the media landscape.
Also, here's a song about moderates for you.
Thank you for the link from a billionaire-owned corporation. I would consider listening to it, but I don't use google products anymore than necessary. Also, youtube transcript doesn't seem to work on it.
Here's an alternative link to the same video: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
And here's a separate link for the lyrics in case you hate good folk music
Phil Ochs was too good for this world.
Damn right he was. We just have to try our best to honor his memory by improving the world.
I like good folk music but I'm not allowed to wear headphones at work, so I appreciate the lyrics link! Looking forward to listening to the song later, seems like a good one.
Happy to help! Speaking of helpfulness, or rather unhelpfulness though, this is one of the most incongruous "see also" boxes I've ever seen 😂
Billionaires? Starve?
Ohh look a centrist! what a disgusting piece of shit
Very constructive. I am sure you convince a lot of people of the rightness of your opinions with your eloquent speeches.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything dipshit, I know your type, you will vote for whoever will keep your privileges, "don't rock the boat" "keep the status quo", that's is what you really think, so why the facade? hypocrite
At least fuckin fascist will tell me that they want to make me a slave or put me in gas Chambers, communists are honest about wanting to meat grind the rich, even Anarcho-capitalists accept they want to fuck kids.
But you, you are the silent supporter of the exploitation of the people, keeping silent because you are too coward to admit you are a piece of shit.
And you know why I know that? Ask a person who works 2 or more jobs to survive, believe me they will no tell you they are "centrist" or "moderate".
Since you clearly missed it that was sarcasm. You are obviously doing nothing but spewing self-righteous textual diarrhea.
I am truly sorry for you that you don't realize many self-proclaimed moderates and centrist could be your natural allies. Not me of course, I would never intentionally associate myself with a zealot that thinks anyone who doesn't share his exact opinion is his true and natural enemy. It is a shame that you are probably an atheist, you would fit right into a fundamentalist sect.
Oh now it's sarcasm? Are you gonna cry and say it's a joke now? Stupid.
I am truly sorry for you that you don't realize many self-proclaimed moderates and centrist could be your natural allies.
You are not, you vote for shit people just like you, because you are afraid of change, silent supporters of bloody regimes, happy in their gated communities, with zero empathy for their fellow men.
They are the good ol' I support what ever doesn't inconvenience me. Fuck em, they want to side with fascists because it's easy, they can be treated the same as its 'easier' to not distinguish them. Let em reap what they sow.
War* is never worth it for the ones who die fighting it. That is why we honor them for their sacrifices.
*so long as the war is for a good cause.
As long as they chose to join the fight sure, but when you start dropping bombs in civilian areas it becomes harder and harder to justify that war.
Thanks to people who want to retain the status quo that economic crisis are handled by fucking the poor and bailing out the rich. That is not a law of nature btw. It is a choice made by both large american parties every time.
The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies... That would bring the economy back on track and also help everyone to prosper.
What you describe is the result of deliberate disaster capitalism, where crisis are embraced as an opportunity to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
both large american parties
Whoa whoa whoa let's not "both sides" this shit. There is one party doing this, and another party sometimes having to make concessions to them.
The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies…
Guess which party is working on all of this right now (minus the higher taxes part)?
Hint: the answer is not "neither"
the US democrats are far right conservatives by most countries standards. You saw how they fiercly opposed the idea of a somewhat lefty candidacy and instead brought on Clinton, who is a neoliberal economist and war hawk and Biden who is also a neoliberal economist and has a strongly racist history.
Who gives a fuck, they're not regressive fascists. "Both sides" is bullshit propaganda.
I am not saying that "both sides" are equal and it doesnt matter what to vote. I am saying that the problems will not resolve as long as the democrats are not moving towards being an actual center/progressive party. So it needs the activism on the streets and in the companies, because there is no political solution available in the current US party system.
Why does it seem like you guys have never heard of primaries? Or democratic party elections?
I stood in line to vote for my local reps who go to the national Dem party who decide what the party platform is and what to spend money on and who to support. Did you even know that was a thing?
How does that relate to the US democrats mostly having conservative/right wing positions? Also how do the primaries help you, when the US elections are significantly influenced by who can muster the most money in return for representing the interests of their money givers? Your constitutional court even argued, that bribing politicans is a form of protected speech.
Ah I see, you're not American so you literally don't know.
General elections for us are binary. We vote for Democrats or Republicans or we throw away our vote. There's no 3rd party.
Primary elections are where we determine the candidates that will be put forward for each party. This goes for President but also every other executive branch office, at the federal and state levels.
Internal party elections are where we decide the party reps who decide funding, advertisement, official party endorsements, etc.
Bernie lost the primary election because his core supporters have no idea any of these other races exist. They show up, barely, every 4 years to vote for president.
More centrist progressives like me show up every single election. We are constantly pushing our agenda up the chain.
Flighty Leftist voters don't stand a chance until they consistently show up to push their agenda.
i know what the primaries are. The system to remove political options from the general elections and push them into party internal factually excludes people from political participation and making their voice heard. You know, the working class people that cannot get leave from work to participate on these elections.
Also the difference between a two party system and a one party regime is one party. So US democracy is rather fragile by design. That is why people need to take the struggle to the factories and streets. The system and also the democratic party in itself is structurally rigged against them.
seize assets from rich people
I agree with everything you said except this bit. The 4th Amendment is supposed (glares at imminent domain) to protect us from a tyrannical government seizing our assets just because they want them.
People like you ARE the disease
Thank you for your well-thought-out and oh so eloquent opinion.
You're the one welcoming your own oppression.
No problem. A scalpel is not always the correct tool
The problem is that the billionaires never starve. They just end up with slightly less fathomless oceans of cash while we can afford rent or a mortgage.
If this doesn’t work, it’s time for some guillotines, then nobody has to starve at all.
then nobody has to starve at all.
Ah yes, more cannibalism! How long exactly do you think 999 people can survive off of eating one?
I don't know. Let's find out 😈
Lol a ton of people literally starved during the Reign of Terror
You keyboard warriors are so annoying
There was a lot of the same thing back in the Roman Empire. The reason many more emperors weren't gutted like a fish was due to their Praetorian Guard. If we had a solid way to get past the tear gas and national guard en masse, there'd be much less rhetoric and a lot more action. Hopefully we co-opt them, much like what happened back then. The Praetorians killed quite a few shitty emperors, hopefully we get after the oligarchs in the same manner.
Jesus you fucking kids
"Is there a crime here that goes beyond denunciation? No. It's the grapes of wrath who are wrong."
Poor aren't either, since they got some nice rich to cook on a spit roast.
Yes, haha very funny, let's all become cannibals of the rich. I'm sure that everyone will get a mouthful of that yummy long pig. What are the poor going to eat after that?
Yeah, it's not like food grows on trees!
Is it fair to assume you have those trees growing outside your house?
Personally, I have a flock of chickens running around the yard, but only one sad little plum tree that has a couple years yet before I will have enough extras for neighbors or canning. Thinking about putting some potatoes in the ground in the spring though.
Is it fair to assume you have those trees growing outside your house?
Yes?
Why is that so hard to believe?
It isn't. That is why I mentioned my own plum tree and chickens. Was just curious if you were trying to blow smoke up my ass.
Even if I don't have those trees, those that have excess can share with those who do not.
Growing enough food to feed even one family takes time, effort, and resources. I am sure they would be glad to share, if you are willing to trade one of those things. Pretty quickly we end up working for or bartering with those guys though.
You just have the workers go to the same plants produce the same food and give it away instead of allowing profits to go to the billionaires. The system is in place we just need to ignore the dumb fucks siphoning everything away. We already produce excess, and we can continue to do so....
We produce excess of something things, but usually that is in trade for not producing enough of others. Scarcity is not a creation of the uber rich, it just exacerbated by them.
Someone would have to decide whether the avocado farm, almond farm, or the winery got more water in California. Right now it is mostly decided by economic power and a byzantine set of rules and laws dictating who owns the water. Unless we want farmers killing each other over it, we would need to put a new system in place.
Will they though?
What are the poor going to eat after that?
The same food they are forced to slave away to produce. Are you fucking stupid? Poor people are literally the foundation of your society not some executive flying around to talk to clients. Literally fuck off. IT has access to security controls in an org. Accountants can access funds if they need as they have the rights. Billionaires add nothing of value to this society nor to its functioning. The driver who delivers your produce, the farmer who produces it, the factory worker who packages it, the restaurant employees who cook and serve you, the gas station clerk who turns your pump on and off, the grocery store workers, the municipality workers managing waste water and electrical infrastructure, all the jobs foundational to a society are not done from billionaires and seeing the rich gone tomorrow would not change that instead it would release a burden and allow progress. Honestly it takes just a miniscule of common sense to understand this, which shows how disconnected and stupid the billionaire class and those who defend it are.
Please stop arguing against your own fantasies of what I might think and actually comment on what I said. Doing the former makes for nice campaign speeches, but we aren't politicians.
Billionaires aren’t the ones that starve when the economy implodes.
Nowhere here did I say billionaires are a good necessary parts of society and we should support them. Crashing the economy will cause mass starvation, but not by those who have the resources and foresight to prepare for turbulent times.
Poor people are literally the foundation of your society
Agreed, but those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.
The guy making the tools can't do anything with 100,000 heads of lettuce, he needs something he can pay metallurgists with, who in-turn need something to pay the miners with. That lettuce is going to rot before it changes hands enough times to get into someone's belly.
those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.
You are too ingrained with a monetary system you cant even imagine a system in which one doesn't exist. The miner doesn't need a currency when his food and tools are provided for. The metallurgist doesn't need to sell tools when they can give away the excess. The farmer doesn't need to sell his food when he can give away the excess. We don't need constant accumulation to distribute resources in an efficient manner. Especially when the only reason these excess products weren't given away in the first place is profit motive. Not to mention most of the labor intensive work could be outsourced to robotics where we not hoarding the physical resources for profit and war time motives, making them overtly expensive.
We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity however we have allowed those at the top too use that efficiency to hoard profits and resources as power management tools instead of utilizing these resources for growth and equity across our species.
You are too ingrained with a monetary system you cant even imagine a system in which one doesn’t exist.
I can imagine it, but only in a post-scarcity society. It just doesn't seem plausible to me until we are at least a Type 1 Civilization, more likely Type 2.
When two people want or need the same limited resource how do you decide who gets it? Money solves that issue. While it is a poor solution, I have yet to see something that wouldn't have just as many problems, though admittedly different ones
Even if we had post-scarcity potential, I am not at all sure human nature would allow it. Some people have a fundamental need to stand above other people, others have a fundamental need to collect things, and then there are takers. Takers being those who would gladly take from others but would never give away their own stuff without being forced, even if it was pure excess.
We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity
I agree that we are definitely approaching an era where robotics/automation could replace the need for most human labor. Though I don't really think we are there yet. One of my favorite sayings a few years back was, "humans should be in the business of thinking and creating, not laboring." Sure I can buy a "perfect" machine made wooden chair but there is a certain character and richness to having one an artisan made.
I was a fan of taxing the labor of robots that replaced humans and using those funds to cover a UBI long before I ever heard the name Andrew Yang, though even that doesn't get rid of the monetary system.