So filing paper work is a big issue? Maybe we could do away with some of the paperwork implemented under Reagan. I vote we get ride of the I-9 form.
What countries stop their corporations from hiring abroad, and just how rich are their average citizens?
I think part of it is that so many of us were hoping that an Obama victory and a 60 seat majority in the senate would lead to progressive legislation. While the legislation coming out of the 111th congress has accomplished a good deal in just 2 years, it isn’t what people are looking for.
So I think there are millions of desperate people looking for a constructive outlet, but who don’t have an outlet. Right now all that energy is lost in fugue as people try to determine what effective methods exist to try to change things (since electing democrats to national office didn’t seem to work as well as planned. We have reforms and new laws, but all the reforms embolden and cement our plutocracy rather than combat it). All the frustration gets bottled up or self-directed via self blame (ie why cant I find a good job, what am I doing wrong, etc).
It does say a lot about our culture that in a time of crisis there is a mass political movement devoted to eliminating social security, medicare and unemployment insurance. A lot. What says a lot also is how many of the people in that movement are retired, near retirement or unemployed. It is ‘whats the matter with Kansas’ all over again.
But I do have hope that over time people will find useful outlets for all the anger and frustration at our descent into plutocracy.
This is all part of the plan. This is where conservatives reap the harvest of sowing “Personal Responsibility.” The system is blameless and perfect; the only wrong is in seeking to reform and humanize it.
The decline in employment helps incise that lesson, as does the cultivated outrage against social help. Meanwhile, industry benefits from greater consolidation and efficiency, helped along by the new truth.
I have faith that we will. However, it is going to take more time and more suffering to learn the lesson this time, because we are so splintered socially and so forced to tend to our own selves first.
This is, perhaps, the greatest benefit the system stands to reap. “Personally Responsible” people don’t have time and energy to help each other or care for each other, so the threat of collective action is not nearly as real.
What sort of movement do you imagine? Forcing companies to hire or keep people they don’t need? Redistributing wealth from the productive to the non-productive?
Well I think he’s criticizing others for posting from a position of ignorance.
The concept of countries “having a responsibility to their country” (presumably by which I believe you mean their country of incorporation or perhaps where their corporate world headquarters is located) is hopelessly niave and quaint. Companies do business all over the world. Why shouldn’t they draw from the best talent for their needs from all over the world?
I mean what’s so special about Americans anyway that you think they should have first pick of jobs?
You’re a businessman, smitty. Go take care of business. Leave the people be who want to care for other people. They don’t want to eat your fucking lunch.
Incentivizing behaviors that serve the material and psychological benefits of people. People and organizations follow incentives, and if the incentives are to destroy the environment, engage in mass layoffs and destroy consumer demand that is what companies will do.
The costs of destructive behavior not born directly by companies are born indirectly by society. So people want to organize so the negative costs are not passed onto them, aka privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. Allowing companies to experience profits from a mass layoff or environmental abuse and letting society deal with the costs of higher health care costs, psychological problems and spending to clean up messes.
What is wrong with individuals collectively bargaining for a better life? If millions of unemployed try to use their clout to change how societies work, good for them. One technique is to move money from large banks into local credit unions. If enough people do it maybe it can create incentives for banks to treat people better. Although I doubt it, but it is still better than nothing.
[quote=“Wesley_Clark, post:47, topic:552789”]
Absolutely nothing is wrong with collective bargaining. The workers are free to join together and ask for more, in unison. The company is free to say No and go hire someone else. That is how the market determines the balance between the supply and demand of labor. If the bargaining unit’s demands make the company uncompetitive, it will fail. It is up to the owners or shareholders to accept that responsibility.
Unless the government steps in and distorts that equation.
The problem arises when government comes in and distorts the equation in favor of one side or another. Then it becomes an aribitrary decision to seize resources from the taxpayer and give them to a special interest that is lobbying the government.
Ref: Auto Workers, United.
Of course, if they’d tried doing that in 1932, we’d probably have been living under home-grown corporatist fascism by 1933.
I imagine things are more relaxed today only because the productive sector of society is reasonably sure the unproductive sector can’t really get it together to effect change. The whole idea has become laughable and quaint.
I wasn’t criticizing them for posting on the Board. In fact, I wasn’t criticizing them at all.
I like your posts, but I have to admit I have no idea what most of them actually mean.
Don’t sweat it. Understanding me is a good sign that you’re hopelessly out of touch with the real world.
Clearly.
Yes and yes.
Now you’re getting there.
The electric company, gas company, phone company, office supplies company, copier repair, HVAC maintenance, printing company, lawyer, accountant, insurance companies, payroll company, HR, recruitment company, hotel companies, taxi company, airlines, trash, PC supplier, pest control, security, car rental, marketing, PR, courier, USPS, caterer, restaurants, Christmas Party provider, Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
No matter how much that paperwork is?
Hey bub, all corporations are people with equal rights under the law. If Bob’s Lawnmower & Small Engine Repair can’t hack the same paperwork load as General Electric, it’s Bob’s fault for not being as big as General Electric. How else are we to have any incentive for growth? Huh???
Here is a decent cite. But you guys neglected to give the real reason for this new rule:
So the rule will help pay for health care by making it harder for businesses to rip off you and me. Sure it is more paperwork - how much more isn’t known at the time, but I submit that a business who does not have this information readily available needs to put its books in order. Hell, my wife does that, to make sure she gets all her business expenses down.
My outrage is at a rather low level.
Or we’d have lots of people not paying taxes, and our infrastructure would work about as well as Italy’s. No thanks, I’d rather have government employees paid well enough that you don’t have to bribe them to get anything done.
Lawmakers (almost always Democrat lawmakers) and the government never care about how much of a physical or financial burden the paperwork they mandate creates.
In return for the extra burden of filing these 1099s, how 'bout we cut them a little slack on checking all the paperwork to determine that their employees are U.S. citizens?
Would everybody be okay with that?
That brings up an interesting dichotomy: why is it okay, in the liberal mind, for businesses to check the citizenship of “brown” people, but when Arizona cops do it, it’s “racist”?
It seems to me that, once again, the premise is to start with business=evil, and that lawbreakers=hey, they got their reasons.
Of course we all know that if people weren’t knowingly breaking the law and coming here illegally, there would be no problem from either the business standpoint or the individual. But since liberals have long been inclined to sympathize with lawbreakers (after all, crime is society’s fault) and been antagonistic toward businesses, which they regard as evil profiteers, we now have a situation where the desire on the part of American liberals is that one of society’s entities should be required to check the paperwork of people based upon their color (or other nationality-identifiers), while roundly and indignantly excoriating another of society’s entities as racist for doing the very same thing.
I think businesses are supposed to check the citizenship of all their employees, not just the brown ones.
What do you think, Starv, is that too much of a burden for them?
No, not even close…unless they become expected to engage in subsequent investigations in an effort to thwart false papers. (Which is yet another illegallity on the part of the illegal immigrant.) Otherwise it’s no more of a burden than getting Social Security and tax withholding information at the time of employment.
But tell me, if these requirements aren’t aimed primarily at “brown” people, what is their purpose? We have two huge oceans and lots of customs offices to prevent people coming in illegally from Europe and the Far East, and insofar as I’m aware, there hasn’t been much of an influx of illegal Canadians sneaking across our nothern border. And then again, it’s Hispanics who liberals feel are being so unfairly taken advantage of by business.
So again, what is the purpose of these requirements if not to keep business owners from hiring illegal immigrants from south of the border?
And would you be fine with Arizona cops checking Hispanic people’s papers as long as they checked those of everyone else as well? Would you suggest that everyone in the country should have to start carrying papers just so we won’t be singling out the ones who most obviously might be here illegally?