It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Response to the Charges of Class Warfare

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The spectre of class warfare is an intellectually dishonest charge in today's society. Seriously, there is no class warfare as warfare implies there is a war which implies both sides have a fair chance to fight each other. Sorry, the poor do not have the power to fight the rich. I agree the Wall Street protest won't accomplish much. It is, however, accomplishing its main goal of raising awareness about the economic conditions affecting the poor and middle class.

I'm tired of republican talking points, and I was not only a republican, but assisted in GWB's first campaign. I was an active republican, but things have gone too far. If you can't see that, then you have become completely detached from the reality of the world today or simply too attached to ideology. The right has historically attacked the left as being removed and living in an ivory tower, but the tables have turned and the Republican conservatives are living in a false reality in greenback mansion.

Furthermore, I know people who are poor and work 40+ hours a week at or near minimum wage and are trying to raise children. Perhaps you should learn what a LIVING WAGE is and how when people are not able to earn that we end up subsidizing the payrolls of businesses that lowball wages. If you hire people full time and do not provide a living wage to your employees, then I contend your business is a welfare business preying on the government to provide your workers with food and shelter while providing a pittance to their actual survival.

If conservatives weren't so hysterical about paying people, then they would change welfare to directly pay employees and subsidize wages of these employees to a living wage. Of course, the republican party does not want that as then they couldn't complain these people are unproductive members of society as they would all have a job (even if it is simply waiting tables), plus society could see the businesses openly abusing our social safety net.

I contend any company that hires below a living wage should have to pay extra taxes on those positions as those people inevitably end up on our social safety net to cover their employment needs. We do it for companies that constantly abuse the unemployment program to subsidize their employees seasonally. The old laws, this nation was FOUNDED ON, required seasonal employers to pay their employees year round because benefiting from their labor during prime seasons and firing them when it wasn't was recognized as bad public policy and abuse of those employees. The same should be done for employers that abuse our safety net to house and feed their employees so they can lowball wages.

Part of me wants to support the Republican party again and carry out the extremes the party wants just so people can see what really happens when our social safety net is gone. Companies that do not provide a living wage will have to increase pay else their employees will be homeless and end up unemployable as they cannot shower, will be malnourished and be too unhealthy to perform their work as low level healthcare providers (CNAs, Hospital workers that do the grunt work), waitresses, cooks, et al. Of course, I have ethics and I do believe the Christian way of life and I could not do that to people simply to make a point.

I won't even go on to describe how our social safety net helps all of you with your home values by keeping land values artificially high, keep product and service prices artificially low, and other unseen benefits.

There is no class warfare in the U.S. There is only class slaughter being done by the wealthiest in the U.S. I actually fear that this is not intentional by CEOs and the like, but merely a result of our profit maximization worship. Every generation under the current paradigm is going to become worse off, and it will take government and social action to enact change as the problem is systemic.

Of course, no conservatives want to discuss these items. When the aristocracy in the middle ages were smart enough to figure out that government action was necessary to protect the working and poor, and we have smart people in our society denying this, I really worry about where we are going as a nation. I really wish the problem was as simple as TPTB manipulating the system purposefully, or CEOs making concious decisions to do this behavior as that could be easily seen and easily fixed.

Our society suffers from systemic corruption as a result of runaway greed justified as capitalism. The U.S. was never built around anarcho-capitalism. The U.S. was always built around Capitalism which recognizes the need for a state to create reasonable safeguards and protections. The U.S. fetish with Capitalist ideals have run away so much that we are directly heading toward anarcho-capitalism.

Today we do not have US Steel, the railways, etc. as the vehicles of modern robber barons. The rise of the US as a service economy has led to a new gilded age and with that new robber barons. We behoove ourselves as workers to seek new protections to ensure a healthy Capitalistic system and not go down the dangerous path as Anarcho-Capitalists.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The only class warfare is the ultra wealthy 1% taking more and more and everyone else getting less and less for their labors.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Not every business is out to screw you, or receives subsidies. A lot of businesses are struggling to survive or going bankrupt. It is not their fault they can not pay a living wage. When you force regulations on businesses like that they just don't hire people, and you just create more unemployment. Look how many jobs were lost as a result of minimum wage enactment, think of the people that used to pump your gas for you or bag your groceries or ushers walking you to your seat with a flashlight a movies. They were not good job but they were low skilled jobs for people that needed jobs. Watch what happens with this Healthcare stuff if it does end up being enacted on businesses.

We've outsourced almost all of our manufacturing, we are just a shell of an economy right now, mainly just a service sector with the exception of the arms industry and a few other high tech areas. A huge amount of our productions is wasted in wars instead of helping out the people what we make gets exploded. We've a fiat money supply that they keep inflating to devalue what people have saved, some for their entire lives.

It's things like the federal reserve, our politicians and huge multi-national corporations that are continually screwing us not business owners who can't afford to pay higher wages or give more benefits. It's these regulations that are inacted to put the smaller businesses out of business to give the huge ones a monopoly, they make regulations that make it too expensive for the smaller ones to compete. The government just needs to enforce fraud laws, anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly laws, it needs less of these regulations of business owners not more.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Who the hell taught you"war" was "fair"? That's a sure way to end up dieing for your cause. That's not how you "win"and the stakes are pretty high..

And a "living wage." Minimum wage was never meant to be a "career" but a bottom rung. While still living in the "nest" with some sort of support structure( i.e. a family) you were to pickup a minimum wage (minimum responsibility) job to help pay for school or minor expenses and gain work experience. to make yourself more valuable to your employer or others. andinevitably work your way up and out .

In the civilian world I always moved on for better pay and benefits. I havetwo kids graduated state colleges and gone(with no student debt); and a paid off house.
If you settled for minimum wage; I'm(as a taxpayer) not responsible.

I'm not saying things aren't drastically worse offnow; then they were 10 years ago( jobs wereindeed more plentiful); but.the message on "minimum wage" has been lost somewhere along the way.
edit on 5-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
By your definition of warfare, no we are not there yet. But if it were to dissolve into actual warfare, the wealthy, regardless of whether they are good or bad will be brought down...by greed of the poorer peoples making.

Of course the poor will also take tremendous losses as well. And the survivors will really be miserable trying to eck out a living.

They think they have it bad now? Just wait a bit.

Any country that has nationalized business or over regulated has failed. At the current rate, we’re next. Who can honestly keep up with all the laws they keep passing, many of which negate previous good laws, but does not overturn them.

That is why we have legions of lawyers running around these days.

We, as a country need to break away from laws written by lawyers that take reams of paper to explain a simple law. No law should be beyond 5-10 pages long in a font of 12. Once said law is passed, no other bill or passed law can over-write it, unless said law is revoked and replaced by another.

A common sense law would state the reason for the law, incentives to uphold that law and the punishment for breaking it. No ands, ifs, or buts.

But you are absolutely correct in that our country suffers from systemic corruption. Congress and Big Business have a symbio-parasictic relationship that is feeding off the body of the Nation.

Until both are addressed, the problem will continue.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Autodidactic
 


While I respect your position of small business owners, I think you are creating a scape goat type position. Furthermore, if people had livable wages then there would be a vibrant economy as more people would have consumption power. I do not think we even need to go to that argument though. If you actually look at our minimum wage laws you would know that there are exceptions for all sorts of work including small family businesses. There could be these types of exceptions for businesses of a certain size in similiar legislation.

As for the positions you listed, they had nothing to do with the increases in minimum wage. Those positions have become obselete more as a response to consumer desires. People who pumped our gas? I see gas stations that still have a full service gas section, but no one uses it. Why? People would simply rather pump the gas themselves than TIP the gas pumper. Gas pumpers were largely a tip based position, and aside from that this position had real security risks that lead to its destruction. As for theatre employees who lit the way for people to walk; I cannot really speak to it, but I large suspect this is a service people did not care about. Furthermore, theatres are largely becoming obselete as people have in home theatres and the theatre experience isn't much better than their home set up. Finally, both of these positions were not filled by full time gas pumpers or full time flashlight guiders, they were additional duties to other positions within those businesses.

The minimum wage increase does not destroy any real jobs, and there is no real data that supports any massive destruction of jobs as a increase in minimum wage. Furthermore, many of these low wage positions are VERY vulnerable to the spending power of the US consumer class. If that class had more power there would be more tip based positions (which once again is an exception to the minimum wage laws, and I wouldn't object to an exception to a living wage law).

Also, most firms and small businesses I know of higher their employees on above minimum wage or they hire employees based on commission. So I do not see a problem with this. Some small businesses may put off hiring until the money started to flow through the economy, but as most businesses in this economy have already cut costs to the bone, they are already hiring the minimum number of employees they can. I doubt they will start cutting into the bone (as they are already cutting into muscle) to lay off essential workers. Further, there is nothing to say that the legislation wouldn't allow for waivers for the first few years on company need.

As for the government and multinationals, my post points directly at them as my contention is that there needs to be reforms to our system to keep at bay corruption and fight the current paradigm shift in the US. The vast majority of the US is employee not business owners, this type of legislation would create liquidity.

Finally, my point was that low wages were welfare to businesses. Sorry, but just like a single mother with 5 children and earns 10K per year is a welfare recipient so is a business that doesn't provide a living wage. Small businesses I admit are at the mercy of large corporations, but so the vast majority of our population is at the mercy of their employer. I am in a Republican in regards to solving problems on the supply side. Cutting business welfare is one means of stimulating the economy. The only way to do this is to find ways to force businesses to stop abusing the system, and sometimes businesses need to be told what to do just like people. I contend telling a business what wage to hire people at is the same as telling a person they can't urinate on the sidewalks -- society does not owe an obligation to finance your lack of discretion. Whether it is cleaning up urine or paying housing and food for your employees.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


First off, I am former military and I never contended that war was fair. I contended that there was reasonable chance of a fight from the other side (hence why we don't call a dictator using full military power to kill a civilian uprising a war). There is a difference between war and slaughter. If you cannot understand the difference between fighting a reasonably armed enemy and fighting someone with a F-22 while they use steak knives, then you are too irrational to respond to. I simply declare that the rich have power similiar to an F-22 while the poor in this nation have the power of steak knives. There is no war. Sure if one side becomes vastly outnumbered there maybe a war, but that has not and likely will not happen. It certaintly is not the condition on the ground or reasonably foreseeable in the future.

As for your reasoning of social mobility good for you. I'm happy you were gifted with talents the market wanted. Not all people are so lucky. There are people in our society meant to be ditch diggers. This is reality. Those people deserve a life as well, and your arrogance and feeling of superiority towards them is foolish. Some people don't get math, and if they all became artists I'm sure you'd be the first with a snark reply about choosing a foolish end. So they become ditch diggers. Now you contend when they chose an industrious position that because they don't understand math or don't excel in mental endeavors they deserve nothing and a life on the street.

Finally, I enjoy how you skipped over the bulk of my argument. I also find the fact you tried to create a straw man argument about my position as dishonest. My point of disagreement was not that the people who earn minimum wage deserve a better lifestyle, but businesses need to support them in a minimum lifestyle. The fact that $15,000 dollars does not pay minimum rent in many areas, and in a vast number of areas of this nation rent + food means we as a nation are paying through welfare programs the extra costs of those businesses paying this wage as those businesses would either have to provide the housing and food for their employees or would be hiring homeless (which I highly doubt they'd find acceptable) for those positions without our welfare programs. Argue the point of the argument or don't, but don't erect a strawman which I have no contended. Corporate America is burning both ends of the candlestick by not providing living wages and wanting to pay no taxes, yet expect society to supplement the wages of their employees. That is reality. That is my point.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


First I want to address your dismay about the law. I do not disagree that the law has many rules that need to be repealed (and they can do so without replacing them), but blaming lawyers in our society is the wrong path. Our lawyers have the power to fight for good and evil, and there are many more on the side of evil than good right now as that is where the money is, but even many of those lawyers do pro bono work for the good of society.

Many lawyers would love some simplification of our statutes. After all they have to spend the time reading them, and then have to try to explain to their clients why they bill so many hours. The problem is that litigation is result of legitimate conflicts in our society. The question you should be asking is why do people have such a hard time doing what is right? Why do companies constantly need to feel they need to operate in the grey of the law? This is what leads to litigation by and large. (Disclaimer: Criminal law is a different situation and is purely political so I won't address this aspect) The legal field is how our society has decided to resolve disputes peacefully in our society, and we create rules. When those rules are broken then there is a problem. The reason our laws are so complicated is because as a society we are more and more immoral. If you operate a fair business and have a positive relationship with your community then you will rarely ever see a lawsuit. If you operate a sleezeball business, constantly flirt with the edges of the law and try to game regulations (not pay taxes, fire people for unethical reasons, etc.) and take advantage of your community, then yes you will always see litigation as people who interact with you will sue as they will want recognition of you abusing their good faith, and as a result your attorney costs will rise through the roof.

I wonder if you know the extent to which you can be fired legally? You can be fired for being the wrong zodiac sign, you can be fired for reporting economic abuses of your corporation (in many states anyway), and yes you can be fired for your police offer husband arresting your employers wife for a DUI (see Bammert v. Don's Super Valu, Inc. in Wisconsin). So you can be quite the sleezeball and still be within your legal bounds. The average person that seeks legal help truly feel wronged, and 9:10 times there has been questionable or outright unethical behavior involved.

Sure some regulatory laws are cumbersome and need to be removed. I will never deny that. Just remember when you hear "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" was said by King Henry VI to a conspirator in contemplation of creating an uprising, NOT to create a better society in Shakespeare. Anyone who tells you lawyers are the problem simply want less barriers to behave unethically. Thankfully for lawyers in the US there are more than enough um...jerks who give them work. I contend the lack of ethics in America is why we have so many lawyers. (Just remember Europe has far more laws and regulation than the US and far less lawyers)

As for the poor, it will be slaughter of them that will cause change. It will not be the fight. Once the legislators and rich cannot stomach anymore death will they change. Ghandi showed that very well. Do not wish for a fight if it gets to that the rich will not truly suffer, but merely forced to watch a real life horror much until sick.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
The only class warfare is the ultra wealthy 1% taking more and more and everyone else getting less and less for their labors.


Exactly. But the shills and media scum try to spin this as "war against the rich" when in reality the rich, via their tools in Congress and in the White House have been waging war against the middle class and poor for the last 30 years and now we're at the end game.

Let me state: I am not with this Robin Hood stuff. Taxing the rich into oblivion will not solve the problems of jobs being shipped overseas due to corrupt trade agreements put in place by the traitors in Washington, or the problems of poverty and inequality. I want to see jobs return to American shores, I want to see Americans working and prospering, I want to see young Americans who work their asses off to get degrees get jobs here in America instead of giving jobs to #ing Indian and Asian immigrants(sorry if I offended anyone) for pennies on the dollar. When you have 17% out of work and the big corporations and banks raking in record profits, you know damn well that something has gone wrong.

Screaming "take their money" is not only a waste of time, but it's irrelevant. You can take their money and we're all still going to be #ed in the street when SHTF.

The problem is, with Congress so far gone to the point of treason against US, what do we do to change this situation? They aren't going to do anything to bring the jobs back because that lobbyist money is filling their coffers to the brim.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Great post, I agree totally. The systemic corruption must be stopped, but aside from dragging every member of the government in all three branches out by their necks and giving them the business, I don't see how this can be fixed.

Voting for lapdog A or B will not help. And I am under the belief that the entire electoral process is rigged so that the corrupt candidates will always win out, and if someone isn't corrupt, they will be crushed not only by the media but by their own party.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anon404
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


As for the poor, it will be slaughter of them that will cause change. It will not be the fight. Once the legislators and rich cannot stomach anymore death will they change. Ghandi showed that very well. Do not wish for a fight if it gets to that the rich will not truly suffer, but merely forced to watch a real life horror much until sick.



Americans are armed to the teeth. We'll see who gets sick first.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Hey I'm rooting for the poor, but the wealthy control the police. I do not say this lightly and I already explained the change is possible. It will just cost far more to achieve the desired change than will cost the wealthy. Of course, the future is worth a lot, and while blood is a high price to pay, sometimes a brighter future is worth the cost of blood. Our predecessors thought so and paid the price during the industrial revolution fighting the past Robber Barons.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Anon404
 


If blood is the cost, so be it. But the police and the elite will have another thing coming if they think that they can butcher the American people and walk away with their lives.

I imagine that our men and women in the military would also have a thing or two to say about that issue.

edit on 5-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


convenient the Afghanistan war is going on ten years now and all withdrawal plans now are suddenly on hiatus huh?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anon404
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


convenient the Afghanistan war is going on ten years now and all withdrawal plans now are suddenly on hiatus huh?


indeed. Very convenient.

The police would be wise to side with the ones that pay their goddamn salaries.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


This notion that because Americans have guns they are somehow immune to the ills of an out of control government and fascist oligarchy is tiresome, they have already decimated much of what America was without a shot being fired, and the gradual indoctrination of youth will make it so that the people themselves will call for guns to be illegal except for under very specific conditions, again without a shot being fired. As for the military, soldiers are soldiers...American soldiers are not somehow special or immune to falling for the propaganda that has caused other countries military to carry out government orders against citizens, some dissent is natural but history shows that a large chunk will fall in to line if the propaganda is subtle in nature and intelligently delivered.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


I understand your point, but the ones who will dare to aim guns at the populace will be the pig police and probably mercenaries from blackwater. The Military will not turn aim their guns at the American people. Ask any service member if they'd follow along with orders to kill Americans in the streets of this country.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anon404
reply to post by 46ACE
 


First off, I am former military and I never contended that war was fair.


"Seriously, there is no class warfare as warfare implies there is a war which implies both sides have a fair chance to fight each other".

That's exactly what you said.:
"There is no"warfare" because that would imply a "war" which implies BOTH sides have a fair chance to fight each other."

I agree completely with your first part;" there is no"class warfare" . There IS an acquired imbalance of financial and political power( golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules").. but it is not a "fighting war".

A trader doesn't get up and think "hmmm how many people can I starve today?(got that misery quota to meetand all )"; he thinks "How can I make my client a fast buck or two and get a fat commission in the process....

Originally posted by Anon404
then you are too irrational to respond to


Though insulting ;That's entirely possible; as I am not looking to waste time "quibbling" on the inter webs.


Originally posted by Anon404
I simply declare that the rich have power similiar to an F-22 while the poor in this nation have the power of steak knives. There is no war.

you said that already...

Originally posted by Anon404

Sure if one side becomes vastly outnumbered

As for your reasoning of social mobility good for you. I'm happy you were gifted with talents the market wanted. Not all people are so lucky.


I have been"lucky";
(lucky to have been born here; tohave chosen paths that worked out) but I've also made deliberate; carefully chosen conservative(safe) choices and worked at upgrading my technical skills in school.

The country needs "ditch diggers"...but not "buggy whip makers". What was left of our industrial base has been off -shored. We have too many already born unskilled folks for the high-tech economy we are transitioning too to absorb.
We are experiencing a tremendous deflation of our economy.

I even go so far.as siding with Mike Rupert and James Howard Kuntsler: I.E." we are seeing the end of human industrial civilization." Certainly nothing will be the"same" in 10 years as it was in 2000.


Until the population quits reproducing in tough times and people stop all this "baby momma" crap.I believe today; Two committed people can work to support each other and a child. (or you don't have kid(s).

Originally posted by Anon404
There are people in our society meant to be ditch diggers. This is reality. Those people deserve a life as well, and your arrogance and feeling of superiority towards them is foolish. Some people don't et math, and if they all became artists I'm sure you'd be the first with a snark reply about choosing a foolish end.
insert certain snarky comment of your choice.I see people whining about massive student loans they signed up for. Yes society pulled the rug out from under new college grads and degree candidates. The rules of the game changed almost overnight.

I AGREE That's not "fair"! I would change it if I could I fear for all our kids futures;.Mine;yours; even the emo Zombie kids haunting wall st.



Originally posted by Anon404So they become ditch diggers. Now you contend when they chose an industrious position that because they don't understand math or don't excel in mental endeavors they deserve nothing and a life on the street.

Finally, I enjoy how you skipped over the bulk of my argument.
I've only got so many characters If i knew you were gonna take it personally I would've deled it before posting.

Originally posted by Anon404
to I also find the fact you tried to create a straw man argument about my position as dishonest. My point of disagreement was not that the people who earn minimum wage deserve a better lifestyle, but businesses need to support them in a minimum lifestyle.


And my point was its not businesses' responsibility to provide anything (more than an opportunity to contribute to the success of the business.)


Originally posted by Anon404
The fact that $15,000 dollars does not pay minimum rent in many areas, and in a vast number of areas of this nation rent + food means we as a nation are paying through welfare programs the extra costs of those businesses paying this wage as those businesses would either have to provide the housing and food for their employees or would be hiring homeless (which I highly doubt they'd find acceptable) for those positions without our welfare programs. Argue the point of the argument or don't, but don't erect a strawman which I have no contended. Corporate America is burning both ends of the candlestick by not providing living wages and wanting to pay no taxes, yet expect society to supplement the wages of their employee
edit on 5-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


First my apology as I did go over board, and especially as I did put fair in there, and it is my fault for that misunderstanding.

Second, I think you are still tip toeing around the crux of my argument. My argument was that companies should be responsible for the care of their workers and not burden our social safety net by providing low wages. As you refuse to comment on that argument, there really is nothing further to discuss.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anon404
reply to post by 46ACE
 


First my apology as I did go over board, and especially as I did put fair in there, and it is my fault for that misunderstanding.

Second, I think you are still tip toeing around the crux of my argument. My argument was that companies should be responsible for the care of their workers and not burden our social safety net by providing low wages. As you refuse to comment on that argument, there really is nothing further to discuss.

no tiptoeing here : I disagree:
"Jims body shop/jerri curl and nail salon " is NOT responsible for my family or yours. infact you've made me question though; and I started a thread you are cordially invited to as I ran out of room here and it seems to have disappeared from the front page.(if you get the time I'd welcome your input):

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
5

log in

join