Wreck the economy because it only works for the billionaire class.
3 years ago by eee to c/workreform
What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.
It's not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We're practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we're threatening social fabric.
Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.
In the last 20 years, we've seen the most rapid rise in productivity since the industrial revolution, and just like in the wake of the industrial revolution, there was massive worker exploitation that led to reforms and eventually unionization that ushered in a golden age of labor in America where workers were fairly compensated for the work they provided, so much so that it was easy for a salaryman to support a nuclear family on his single paycheck.
Since then, the business owner class has been working hard to dismantle unions while refusing to pay their fair share of the massive profit windfalls to the bottom rung workers. We are long overdue for sweeping multi-industry unionization effort. Only then will we start seeing something more than just table scraps.
Fighting for dignity actually is literally communism. It's capitalist propaganda that has you convinced otherwise.
Communism provides a theoretical framework to advocate for those things, but it is not the same as doing those things. I think the distinction is important because it allows you to have a plurality or support
That's like saying physics only provides a framework for experiment.
I mean, I can see a utopian vision of Communism where dignity is forefront, but I've also seen where it's dystopian. Correct me if I'm wrong but the basis is to each according to their need and from each based on their abilities. Dignity isn't mentioned, but the happiness and contentment of all is the goal so I suppose it's inferred but not specified.
Either way, it doesn't have to be viewed with any kind of social opposition. If we keep following the slippery slope of late game capitalism, who's to say companies don't just purchase legislation that re-establishes full on slavery? We have a fucked up oligarch system, and moments like this where workers unite is a good thing in any system. Free market my ass, and this is a moment where arguing for semantics is a side-discussion, for now it's us against the oligarchs.
I think a better way to describe the essence of communism is an end to dominance hierarchies. Authoritarians often use leftist rhetoric to gain power, which is why so many of them have called themselves socialist or communist, while being the exact opposite of the ideals they claim to support.
You are 100% correct, it is us against the oligarchs. That's also the entire basis of communist theory, btw. Regardless of terms used though, we are on the same side of this fight, and I am glad that we are.
You don't seem to understand that your distinction between the theory of communism, and communism as practiced, are both equally valid and accepted uses of the word. One is a theory, one created reeducation camps and killed millions of their own people. It is not capitalism that convinced me of this.
Your comment is fair, but please allow me to deflect for a moment with a few questions:
The nazis called themselves national socialists, do you believe they were socialists?
The north korean government has called their country a democratic republic, do you believe that?
I'm guessing you answered no to both. If that's the case, why do you believe the ussr and the ccp when they say they were/are practicing communism?
Additionally, who benefits more than capital if you believe socialism and communism equal authoritarianism?
If you guys understood marketing, youβd stop insisting on your version of the word being the one people should embrace. Socialism sells way better than communism even though it still gets people as riled up as Sen Kennedy reading βnot all boys are blueβ while pretending that itβs legally mandated to be given to white Christian boys at birth. 9/10 you guys rail against European social democracy, regardless of the fact that it would be a far easier reach for the US and would dramatically improve the lives of workers.
If the only way to defend communism is by claiming that no country has ever done communism correctly, then that's a problem. You can't point to a single successful communist country because there aren't any.
China became far more successful since it abandoned communism for its own flavor of capitalism. Private ownership in China has led to a massive improvement in quality of life for most Chinese residents, and more opportunities for success than ever before.
Meanwhile, most complaints about capitalism have almost nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with laws and regulations or human greed (which is the worst part of any system).
Reminder that some unions have merch you can buy to help support their workers during strikes. This one doesn't, unfortunately. But always check. I have some damn cool looking tshirts for other labor movements (Rail, Starbucks, Truck haulers, etc).
You can sign their petition here:
I work at the corporate headquarters of a company that provides contract services to industrial plants. Not related to the car industry, but I literally just had a meeting today with some folks from HR to add a way to our central system to track what plants our employees have unionized at. The general tone was "oh crap we have union workers now, how do we not accidentally break the law because we're quickly seeing more and more of our workforce unionize"
Fuck yea, love to see militant labor fighting for what they need
Even China knows this. Give the hard working people a better job than mom and dad had and they won't rebel.
The people who are rolling in their next billion have forgotten what happens when you take that away.
China is about to find out as well, they have something like a 30% new-grad unemployment rate, and Pooh Bear is on a bootstraps kick saying that social protections encourage laziness.
They're on even thinner ice than the US.
Apparently these billionaires vote & elect the folks who want to arm all of these workers you speak of. Sound logic if you ask me
Well nothing has happened, what is being asked of them is less than what they've taken. Worse case scenario is they give back some of the stolen goods.
But this is the same as a fine for breaking the law, they made more than they lost as a result so this is all factored in.
The UAW has always been pushing for Americans as a whole. Hats off to them.
Yeah, but Fain is the first democratically elected UAW leader (prior leadership was chosen by delegations and was fraught with racketeering and embezzlement) and it shows.
Wasn't it that same episode where Rom basically says word for word that he doesn't support unions because one day he might own Quark's bar and then he'll be able to oppress people too? What a great show, some people dislike the ferengi episodes but they're some of my favorites in the series.
Ikr? Some people hate 'em. They're really goofy and cartoonish so I guess I get it. Profit and Lace is pretty tough to watch. The Magnificent Ferengi is my personal favorite (Iggy Pop guest stars too, what a treat!) And I quote the Rules of Acquisition in real life somewhat regularly, heh
The first couple episodes Rom is a real dick pushing the shit downhill onto Nog but once he goes from basic greedy goblin to engineer savant the dynamic is great
Stop! BRUNT FCA!
They're the best.
I'd watch Wallace Shawn read a newspaper.
π
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.
Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.
Not to mention the natural resources used for one person's benefit.
There's nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,...) being built. Don't let the flow of money confuse you.
the problem is actually how the rich keep buying the houses and making the prices increase for inorganic reason making people who really needs house cant afford it while at the same time the rich keep the house they bought empty
To be clear my comment was intended purely as satire. I definitely don't view the construction of yachts as positive in any way.
Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person.
And then they take the money they earn and they buy shit, directly helping other people
Nah, directly helping other ppl would be the person who bought the yacht instead spends their money on things that enrich their community/society/their workers.
This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.
Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.
However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.
Money goes from the billionaires to the millionaires that owns the yacht companies π
The argument is sloppy.
The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.
If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.
The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.
My comment was satire. Stop arguing with the wind.
Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.
Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.
βWe were very wealthy,β says Errol Musk. βWe had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe.β
With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.
βAnd then there'd still be all these notes sticking out and we'd sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.β
You are willfully ignorant.
You're an idiot if you thinks fucking safe holds any real amount of money, or that one South African semi-rich person counts as any sort of evidence.
Cash depreciates over time. No rich person keeps a ton of cash, because it means they get less rich every day.
Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, 1 disaster away from bankruptcy and absolute poverty. What the actual fuck are you taking about??
Yes, and a big part of that is that rather than get bank accounts, savings accounts, and any sort of money discipline, they fly blind and end up turning to terrible shit like payday loans.
See, one of us has actually worked to help change the spending habits of low-income people and the other person gets their information from memes.
It boils down to poor people are poor because they don't invest, and rich people are rich because they invest π nothing else matters!
You can't be this dumb π
Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.
Damn, maybe poor people should just hire a full-time broker and give them the $20 they can spare this month and let that smart person invest it so they're not poor anymore π€
Being poor in the US is a literal trap. It is intentional. It is exploitation. The lack of financial education isn't the fault of poor people who grew up going to schools that could barely afford to run, and/or went to school hungry.
And once you're poor, it can be extremely difficult to escape, bc the system is designed to punish poor ppl. Poor ppl sit on cash bc if it's in a bank the money they need for food might get taken away bc of some bullshit overdraft fee or similar. I know bc I've been poor and know poor ppl.
Poor people aren't poor because they don't invest wisely enough. They're poor bc the system is designed in so many ways to keep it that way.
Also rICh pEoPle dOnT Sit ON tHeiR MoNey ThEY iNvEsT it
Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it "investing π€" or whatever. It's still hoarding, it's still immoral and detestable.
You sound like you're 17 and just started listening to Fox Business for financial advice.
Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it βinvesting π€β or whatever. Itβs still hoarding, itβs still immoral and detestable.
This has no factual basis.
You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.
You're kidding right?
The yachts are probably insured
Just because they don't literally have millions sitting in a checking account doesn't mean they can't liquidate some of their investments and get it in short order.
actually putting money into the economy
This person veliev s rich people have millions sitting in checking. This belief is widespread, and is not just misleading, it changes the entire discussion from wealth to money.
Do a new Boston Tea Party except this time we launch barrels of tea at yachts.
I need a couple of their yachts to drag over some sturdy icebergs. Re-enact a much more expensive Titanic.
Thanks to them you'll be hard pressed to find any sturdy icebergs anymore.
That's red hot commie stuff right there. I like it :)
Exactly. Unions exist in Liberal and Social Democracies, too. They want to keep us on this Neoliberal path, because it's so very exploitable. Unions are just a drop of democracy, but for your workplace, or sometimes renting and transit systems.
There is nothing communist about that. He's not advocating abolishing private ownership. Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.
The free market doesn't exist in a communist economy. Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers. This eliminates workers' leverage over employers.
There is nothing communist about that.
Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.
Heβs not advocating abolishing private ownership.
Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.
Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.
No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.
The free market doesnβt exist in a communist economy.
You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.
Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.
Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.
This eliminates workersβ leverage over employers.
Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.
Image Transcription:
X/Twitter post by user Teddy Ostrow @TeddyOstrow reading '"In their economy, workers live paycheck to paycheck while the billionaires buy another yacht... So we're gonna wreck their economy cuz it only works for the billionaire class," says @UAW prez Shawn Fain in Detroit.'
Attached is an image of UAW president Shawn Fain speaking passionately at a targeted strike rally against the Detroit Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis).
[I am a human, if Iβve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. π]
Thank you! Hopefully I will one day have most people doing it themselves so I have less to do.
Thank you!
I like this Shawn. I really do. He's saying the words and doing the actions. Go Shawn! Go!
Why not? Megacorps and billionaires wreck the economy all the time, and exploit it for their favor.
Why not let the poor and worker class wreck it for once.
Set the whole goddamn thing on fire, and throw the rich into it.
Half the Republicans lost their shit over COVID stimulus checks, so I doubt that will ever happen sadly.
Fucking legend. Hats off to him and the UAW
A small amount is good. Deflation makes it so not spending money is more beneficial. The longer you wait to spend the more the money is worth. This causes fewer products and services to be purchased, which pays for wages. Inflation makes the opposite true. The longer you wait to spend your money the less it's worth. It encourages spending, not saving. Inflation that outstrips increases to pay is obviously very bad though.
Note that a critical part of that equation is that wages are included in the inflationary trend.
But other than that explicit detail, that's spot on. Ultimately money is a "trick" we use to influence our productive behavior. So a slightly creeping number works best to make the "money" move instead of sit still, and the whole point of the mathematical model is that the things need to move around.
With all of the credit balances being carried, I question the whole "people will just wait instead of spending because it will be more financially advantageous". I'm also not so sure we really need an economic system that encourages and depends on increased consumption. It would be nice if we had a system that could handle inflation, stagnation, and deflation without imploding on itself.
To me, the biggest factor is that it means debt burdens get lighter over time, assuming you are at least covering interest (if not then interest will outpace inflation, though even the growing debt will be cheaper over time vs what it would be without inflation). Oh, also assuming wages match inflation, which is the other big factor. Your employer can save money over time just by being stingy with raises.
This is just plain wrong. The majority of people don't get to "decide" to spend/save, they live paycheck to paycheck. The people that can make that decision are actually incentivized to NOT spend but to "invest" (aka loan) because interest rates are higher, and thus get better returns.
Inflation is really a wealth transfer from the poorest to the wealthy since wages don't keep up with inflation.
Now you can figure out why deflation is considered a bad thing by mainstream media.
Most of the time most wages do keep up with inflation. Minimum wage should in a reasonable country as well. Also, most people can totally defer spending some money. Not for food and rent and other necessities, but for other things, like getting your car fixed or things like that that can be pushed off for later.
Ignore rent inflation and sure, wages are keeping up π
Just luxury spending and underperforming investments. Essential spending can't be deferred, and worthwhile investments will outpace any natural rate of deflation. Forced inflation drives conspicuous consumption and malinvestment, but in doing so it increases monetary velocity, which helps bankers and tax collectors extract higher rent from the economy.
This is something you can think about from a micro economic level! think of your next big dollar purchase. Maybe its a car, or a TV or a computer or a kayak. Whatever it is, you probably have to save up to buy it, you probably spend a lot of time researching and thinking about which one to buy, and you wait for a good time to buy. If you know that simply waiting another few months means you can get it for cheaper, would you? If the answer is yes, then that's how deflation would effect every luxury and other non-necessity purchase
Currency isn't worth a shit cause it ain't money. Money should be out of all stable saving of value. Gold is money, precious metals are money, diamonds are money. Currencies are worthless shit created to infinity by banks and hold together by enforcement of governments which are deep in debt to those bank so cannot do a fucking shit about that. All of our tax money goes straight to banks.
Having worked at a bank for a year I can certainly say, banks need the federal government just as much as the federal government needs the banks. The federal government (as well as state governments) frequently use banks as a low cost, low risk way to increase access to capital for those that need it, as well as of course controlling interest rates to then control the speed that the economy grows or shrinks
A well-regulated private banking industry allows the competing interests of a government and a private company to compliment eachother in ways that really only become apparent from directly working in the industry. The government provides grants and subsidies to allow small banks to provide access to capital that might not otherwise exist, competition with other banks forces banks to provide better services to customers and government regulations prevent banks from taking too much risk or doing too much harm, plus a strong government safetynet protecting bank customers from failure all come together to provide a surprisingly good system. I'm not saying private banks are perfect nor that its the best system one could dream up, but in a society that relies on capitalism as a method to limit access to resources, a well regulated private banking industry with strong competition (which we actually largely have!) is really good for consumers
A well-regulated private banking industry
Remember that shareholder primacy assures the banks will pressure the government to deregulate, eventually capturing regulatory departments, as has happened in the US (if not the whole developed world).
Marx explains this in Das Kapital even when there was a notion of social responsibility. But after Dodge v. Ford Motor Company in 1919, it was established by judicial ruling that publicly owned companies have interests in direct opposition to the public, and should not be allowed to influence government, which is meant to serve the interests of the public (and only the public).
Even in 1919, plutocrats had already been dismantling US democracy towards oligarchy. It had failed just as the Soviet Union was trying its hand at ur-communism (and being sabotaged by Wilson).
Gold is not money. Gold is something that some people value but has no value in itself. It's useful in small quantities for electronics, but other than that it just looks pretty. It has almost no utility. If an apocalypse happens and society fails, gold won't be worth anything. If people need food, water, shelter to survive, they won't accept your gold for payment. They can't eat that. Booze may be a good item that will retain value well, but gold will not.
Precious metals are commodities, money is used to exchange commodities. Using a commodity as money is obsolete. I get that youre mad at the feds but that's a systemic problem, not moneys fault. Its like getting mad at biotech for the practices of Bayer.
These commodities are not inherently valuable, the labour required to extract them is what gives them valuable.
Currency is a very useful tool to gauge the worth of dissimilar items used for trading. It's a trait known as fungibility. Without it, we're in full barter mode. The barter system is... deeply flawed for one reason. If you don't have anything the seller wants, you're SOL. You wanna buy food, but don't have gold, silver, or a skill that the food vendor needs? Well, you're going to be hungry. Abstracting value to a useless piece of paper that denotes a value, and is enforced by the power of the land (a government) means that paper can buy food, shelter, comforts, whatever you need. It's an objectively better system.
What's the payoff in sending billions to the state known as Ukraine aka the former world's largest illicit arms trafficker since the fall of the ussr?
Learn your history dumb fuck. You don't have to believe me. You still haven't answered what's to gain by pissing tax payers money away to a failed eastern bloc state that formerly peddled weapons to our enemies.
The price of food is increasing at around double the rate that everything else is. This indicates food prices are the driver of inflation.
What could be the cause of this? Is there any disruptions in the food supply somewhere in the world? Like for example a staple food like grain? What's causing this disruption?
California is the breadbasket of the world and certainly the US and produces far more grain, nuts & corn. Learn your shit.
Yea, because its good for them π
Inflation reduces the value of money at the bank: the money saved as well as the money borrowed.
In an ideal world, wages are indexed on inflation (way of calculating inflation in this context can be discussed), and inflation is kept above present targets levels (central banks try to keep it at 2% these days).
That makes your debts easier to reimburse, and limits returns on savings. Have you ever noticed that people who keep talking about the "value of work" actually push for low wages and no or low taxes on capital gains, so actually wants the capital to make more money than work?
A low inflation allows big money to hoard more and more. Higher inflation means money that's not actively contributing to the economy will lose its value over time, and that's exactly what you, at the bottom of the ladder, want (and considering top of the ladder is hundreds of billions of $, ever 6 figures employees are bottom of the ladder).
Too high inflation leads to an uncontrolled spiral. Deflation is also very bad (no investment will ever happen if your money just appreciate by doing nothing). But the 2% target is not to protect you. It's made for money to make more money.
But about the link between wages and inflation: what we have today is a situation where we let cost of life dramatically outpace wage growth. So where did the inflation come from? Profits! That needs to be rebalanced.
From 1945 to the early 80's (before the β¬), France and some other countries minmum wages were indexed on inflation. If doing so would instantly crash an economy, we would have noticed...
Inflation makes debt worth less. Generally the working class buys homes and cars by borrowing money.
Of course banks will charge more interest to compensate for this so a high amount of inflation isn't good. Deflation is bad because the banks are going to continue charging interest even while the value of the debt principle is increasing.
So ideally you want a small amount of inflation so there's some wiggle room before dipping into deflation territory.
There's too much inflation so central banks have to raise interest rates which makes people less likely to borrow money which shrinks the money supply. This is how inflation is controlled, but also not a good situation as it can lead to a recession. So it's a delicate balancing act.
Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. Nothing is intrinsically "good" there's a cost to everything. And no socialism isn't some cheat code that allows people to escape the dismal realities of economics. Best you can ever do is balance things well enough that everyone can have a decent life.
hell yeah fuck the oligarchy
At this point I am all for a plan that will fuck me over but takes them down with me. Let's do this shit.
Ill roll those dice.
Only problem with this is that this doesnβt even hurt the ultra rich - every catastrophe is just a new investment opportunity for them. E.g. after Brexit they just moved their money and businesses out of the UK, leaving the poor schlebs who live there to deal with it.
Okay, let's do nothing then... /s
What are the odds this fella doesn't get CIA'd soon?
Burn everything down if that happens.
What's that? Given a fat pay check quietly and the next day he calls everybody back to work and increases Union dues
No, that's called a Biden, except for the last part.
Care to explain that one?
I've got no particular love for Biden beyond him being better than the alternative (although he's made some pretty strong pro-union moves lately). I just haven't heard of this stuff.
Biden has been collecting checks from and acting on behalf of corporations and executive side industry lobbies his entire career and strongarmed Congress into violating the rights of and defanging railway workers by passing a bill ending their strike.
although he's made some pretty strong pro-union moves lately
No he hasn't. People more pro union than him that he hired at the advice of other people more pro union than him (and the people that work for them)have.
Don't be like the establishment media by giving him the credit that Lauren McFerran and the rest of the NLRB have earned.
If conditions are unlivable for too many people, that's bad and it calls for a re-negotiation of everything. It also bears reminding today's leisure class/ultra-wealthy that part of the basis for their existence as such was always a trade-off between them paying their workers enough to live with dignity and the metaphorical torches and pitchforks and guillotines staying in mothballs
"For the fired auto workers Who were twisted, tricked and robbed To the peasant in Guatemala In a sweatshop got your job And she can't feed her family On the pennies that she makes Meanwhile the crime rate's rising Up and down the Great Lake states
Like vegetables left in the field The signatures smell rotten On the contracts and the deeds That push the race down to the bottom As they load the rubber bullets As they fire another round I'm heading into the tear gas Dig in man, hold your ground
For Joe Hill and Cesar Chavez Who fought in their own time For our brothers and our sisters Up and down that picket line For the unnamed and unnumbered Who struggle brave and long For the union men and women Standing up and standing strong"
Tom Morello/The Nightwatchman - Union Song
On my commute home yesterday I encountered a "wide load" convoy that was hauling a millionaire's yacht down the highway. Not a mega-yacht, just a yacht. I don't care that it was just a millionaire's yacht, I felt compelled to roll down the window and give it the bird.
I used to work for a guy who inherited the family company. He used every single loop hole and dirty trick to pay his employees as little as possible, no benefits or insurance... Nothing.
He found out I was turning 40. His advice to me was "a man's age should never be a higher number than the footage of his boat".
He didn't understand that I don't own a boat, didn't own a house, didn't even own my car.
Hell, even if you can afford it, a boat is a bit of a PITA.
Any boat is a PITA, but the longer the boat, the worse it gets. But it doesn't get more 'fun', perhaps even getting less fun. A 20 foot boat with a decent engine can move nice and quick and manuever. Big boat is basically just a less convenient hangout that happens to be on the water.
The only boat fantasy I have is going in a speed boat from Miami to Havana on a whim, mainly because itβs illegal for me to do. And sailing.
Based
I think a perspective shift is necessary.
"Destroy the economy" is about sabotage.
"Work for each other and against wealthy investors" would result in a smaller economy, but the focus is on the positive thing built, instead of just sabotage.
"Smaller" if you're a billionaire. When they say "the economy" just insert "rich people's wealth". It wouldn't be a smaller economy in reality, because what drives a healthy economy is people spending money. Rich people don't spend money, regular people do. Regular people getting paid more and having a larger piece of the pie, counterintuitively means there's more pie.
Thank you.
The problem is wealth concentrating in too few hands. And those hands are greedily reaching for more and more wealth.
We simply need systems to redirect the wealth from the 0.1%.
would result in a smaller economy
Only to the extent that withheld labor during a strike affects it. Once the strike(s) are over, an economy that puts more spending money in more pockets will be a bigger one
It turns out that the size of the economy is related to how well-distributed the wealth in it is. If most of the money goes into wealthy pockets and everybody else lives in a sort of poverty-imposed austerity, that depresses a lot of that economy's potential.
What the UAW are after is not a smaller economy, but a more-robust (likely larger) one that includes more people in it.
We're destroying the world through overproduction and over consumption.
I see a future where people can work less, instead of an attempt to keep people working full time.
That would be smaller, with less waste at the top.
I like where you're going with that!
I think the problems (of high inequality, of unsustainable resource use) are distinct, but related and can probably be gone after by targeting the same things: price gouging and suppressing wages.
If capital can't do those things, labor will have the choice to work less if it doesn't need the money to survive. We've long-since passed the point Keynes predicted (at which, productivity would be high enough to support people at a high standard of living without them working full time) in terms of production, the obstacle to that happening is that capital gets to allocate those surpluses and it keeps most of them
I've spent my career in the tech industry, specifically around open source software.
Corporate powers helped fund the work of individuals for their own purposes, but I can ways we can use them to rebuild local economies instead.
We just need to change how we're using the tools. This can be done by existing skilled workers who are willing to make new choices around who to work for, or by motivated new engineers who have access to the free tools and free training material.
At your local union hall!
The Federal Reserve is a scam
Most billionaires aren't billionaires in cash. If the market crashes, so do they. Now they might be reduced to "only" a hundred million or so but that can be catastrophic when your personal finances depend on billions in stock backing up a series of long term rotating loans.
They wanted to use the market to exploit the people. But that makes them vulnerable in a way rich people didn't used to be vulnerable.
Yeah if we keep basing everything on money! We need to go back to bartering
Controversial: how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
Rent would be cheaper if renters would unionize and wouldn't spend above an agreed on limit.
It's so hard to coordinate that only some workers can ask billionaires for better deals. Why? Why is not everybody ashamed that they cannot coordinate with their neighbors?
Roman's walked out of town once a year to remind the elite of their value. The west models itself after the Roman Republic but tries to skip on the hard parts.
how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
They live six to a room.
They live six to a room.
And they're not sending that much back home.
Can confirm. I once had an apartment in NC. I was the only white guy in the complex. Everyone else was Latino. I had a one bedroom apartment. I was the ONLY single occupant in my building. The apartment below me was occupied by a guy, his wife, his infant child, his mother and at least one cousin. They were still the most gracious people I'd ever lived amongst. When his daughter was born they had a bigass cookout and invited everyone in our complex. That was the day that I learned I was the only white guy, and it was an amazing experience. I ended up letting some of the guys crash in my apartment while I was on the road, and I always came back to a clean house and a fridge full of leftovers.
Unfortunately I had to move back to OH after a year, but I'd go back to NC in a heartbeat if the situation allowed.
Given the shit-sandwich choice between OH and NC, I'd choose NC as well. It's almost civilized, if you can ignore the lock on the state legislature that the GOP has, fire ants, Aedes Egypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitos that don't give a fuck the sun is up, Lone Star ticks that make you allergic to consuming mammal, and an oppressively hot summer. Though I'd rather live in the mid-Atlantic or West Coast where the GOP hasn't gained as much traction.
how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
They live six to a room.
...and the rest of their family spends those dollars on a 3rd world cost of living.
The west models itself after the Roman Republic but tries to skip on the hard parts.
I don't know about "the West" -- literally most any western developed country besides the US understands what the "Bread" part of Bread & Circuses means. Labor laws, universal healthcare, paid vacation, paid parental leave, election laws designed to encourage voting and discourage election manipulation -- all of these things are, in some form or another, part of nearly every western developed country besides the USA.
how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?
Migrants are not sending money to strangers in their home countries. They are supporting families, just the same as those who are not migrants and live with their families.
In many cases someone will settle for a very low standard of living, and set aside a small amount to support family living in a country with a much lower cost of living.
Now, what is a low standard of living? We know that the world doesn't have the resources to let everybody live like an average American. Sooner or later, resource usage has to be reduced. Everybody will have a very low standard of living unless we figure out how to live comfortably with less.
Ah, you're one of those "I never personally heard about the plan so there must not be one" people. You guys got on my last nerve during the pandemic.
Would you say your question is "what is to be done?"
I'd rather not be sent into poverty like in 1930s Germany tyvm. The "winner takes all" mentality though needs to go. The US especially has a lottery winning mentality.
Right, the economy isn't something that supports the life of all humans. Billionaires have yachts so it must only be working for them. And since only billionaires benefit from the economy, we can wreck it no problem. There won't be deaths from starvation and exposure, because food and housing aren't part of the economy we're going to wreck.
People in America are already starving.
I am sorry you missed the theme. Please let me help.
The objective is to build an economy that supports everyone being well fed and well housed, instead of the very few hoarding rockets, jets, yachts, and multiple homes, while many more remain unfed and unhoused.
/s
The "economy" will exist whether it's a capitalist system or something else. Blaming the system is a stupid take when it's the actors within it causing the issues you complain about.
It's like blaming gravity.
Maybe those bills shouldn't exist? Hmm?
Why are you linking a trash source like this here? The guy is a chemical engineer who was antivaxx and despite lacking the scientific background made a lot of unqualified claims.
Given they are a complete joke when discussing subjects outside their expertise why would you think this has credibility?
What?
Their source is a chemical engineer who tried to make antivaxx claims as if they had expertise on the subject which they can't.
Ya you clearly donβt get it. The economy is already destroyed for poor people. You canβt wreck what is already destroyed. Since the economy is already destroyed for poor people the next step is pulling the rich down with us and making them bleed.
UAW members being poor doesn't really play any importance here in my opinion - if we were to use this way of thinking for protests, restricting them to only those directly affected/impacted by the subject of said protest, IMO there would either be no change or things could get violent.
If anything, you as a person in authority could easily silence the whole problem at that point by wiping out the protesters.
I think it is better for the people who care to do something, regardless of whether they are affected or not, since the alternative is for society's most exploited people taken advantage of even more
What specifically are you doing?
Because I don't see a broken economy anywhere. I see people not voting locally, so housing prices in their area skyrocket. I see people not campaigning, so we never hit a critical mass of Congresspeople to effect national change. I see people born with silver spoons in their mouths invoking "class solidarity" while telling me that it is literally impossible to live on even 150% of the median income.
So, what specifically are you, yourself, doing?
You need a lesson in economics. Is $32 billion better in 100 people's hands or in the hands of 400,000 peoples hands? The Average UAM makes ~$64k a year, add in where these manufacturing plants are that's not enough for a single individual to live within driving distance to work. The auto makers could give every unionized work a $40k a year raise and still have $16billion in profits!
The Average UAM makes ~$64k a year, add in where these manufacturing plants are thatβs not enough for a single individual to live within driving distance to work
Median income in Wayne Michigan is just under half that, at 27k. It's absurd to suggest "a single individual" cannot live there on a UAW salary.
UAW provides great salaries and benefits (and continues to do so, with this strike) and suggesting UAW members are impoverished discredits the union.
Idk where you're getting $32B from. Ford has $42B cash-on-hand and while you don't went to spend even most of that, I agree that it can be better allocated as pay/benefits up to a point.
The rock bottom is still pretty far
for you perhaps, millions if not billions globally are already there.
Choosing the status quo to maintain your own minor and almost certainly temporary comforts over change serves no one but the obscenely rich and powerful.
We're not talking globally though.
Seems very ungrateful to the job creators and innovators that just because the economy doesnt work for you, you want to wreck it for us too. Why not try starting up your own car company instead of cutting into the profits of the hard working Ford and GM families.
User is a sarcastic concept account cosplaying as the most ridiculous pro-billionaire stooge possible π
First I didn't get that it was a joke. Then I got that it was a joke and it was an okay joke. Then I saw the joke over and over. Now I'm sick of the joke and I downvote it (not that it helps).
Thanks for being honest about yucking our yum, I guess π€·
It's almost like acting like a dumbass and being a dumbass are identical to each other!
To the unobservant, yes.
Not their fault that end stage capitalism and the resurgence of fascism have made the most braindead takes mainstream enough that it's more difficult to spot the difference between sincere idiocy and satire π€·
Congratulations, you win the "stupidest shit I've heard all day" award.
I suppose you also think Christian Bale is actually Batman?
It's a parody account.
It's a shitty parody account and we all know it's your alt, weirdo.
Stalking me? Who's the weirdo again?
Uhhhh what?! Lol the car manufacturers made $32 billion in profit last year. A record amount. Are you honestly going to say there's not enough money to pay their works a livable wage? The union isn't even being out of line for what they are asking for. 400,000 workers even devided across everyone equally (which isn't what the are asking.) would be $80,000 a year. That's a life changing amount of money for those workers cbd would do better in their hands, apposed to a few executives and owners. However, that's not even close to what they are asking for! So you are lying or dumb.
The car manufacturers need that profit to distribute to their shareholders, or do stock buyback or whatever best benefits the share price etc. By doing so they are helping the whole economy and that money will eventually trickle down to the little guys in some form or another.
For example: instead of giving all that money to the greedy UAW, GM can use it to buy back their stock. The price of the stock and the net worth of the people who own most of it therefore goes up. They borrow against that stock for a new yacht in the Mediterranean and use it to visit a charming seaside village in Greece or Italy. They eat at the nicest restaurant in the nicest resort in that village.
Now, you see how that money helped the villagers who otherwise never would have seen a dime of it? The auto workers arenβt going to spend any of that money in Greece or Italy. Not to mention support the families of boat-makers, boat-loan-processors etc along the way.
"oh well someone please think of the poor shareholders and executives making millions off other peoples labor!"
The is no trickle down. It's been 70 years of that crap and it gets more moronic every time. There is no evidence that high executive pay or shareholder payouts benefits the economy. Just out right lies. What the Villiers should do is murder the people hording resources and spend their vacations in Greece and Italy.
It's a parody account, you dumb fucks
Pull the sticks out of your asses for christ sake
Is your autistic ass really arguing against the entire concept of satire and parody?
Dude we get it. Shitty "satire" account is your alt and shitty satire is shitty satire. Find a new hobby, because you suck at satire.
When you have to point out that something is satire, it's pretty dogshit satire.
Or your audience is fuckin stupid
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.
Youβre 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.
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.
Thanks for the report CNmsNbc! Much appreciated
Youβre talking out of your ass with bs anecdotes. I donβt care.
The corporate executives are tanking the economy not the workers. If you believe otherwise youβre an idiotβ¦β¦ 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
"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.
Bruh, in your analogy where are you getting the money and materials to patch up the building? Itβs 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.
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/...
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.
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.
Billionaires? Starve?
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.
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.
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 energiesβ¦
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.
People like you ARE the disease
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 doesnβt work, itβs time for some guillotines, then nobody has to starve at all.
I don't know. Let's find out π
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
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.
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 arenβt 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.
@lemmy.world
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
go to feed...
Billionaires the original welfare queens.
save