Politics Why don't the Tea Partiers get arrested?

While not directed at me, I think the "What do you believe in?" question is a good one.

I believe that, in the 21st Century, in a relatively rich nation (such as mine), every individual should expect, as a right, to have access to:

Healthcare
Education
The Legal System
Clean water
Basic food
A dry place to live and sleep
Safety from others
Free speech
A free press/media that reports news accurately (as opposed to opinion)
Freedom of movement
Employment based on merit
A living wage for any employment
Security of any employment (equal to the security of the business staying in business)
A vote
Dignity ate all times, including in death

I also believe that each member of society has responsibilities.

To contribute to the society to ensure that the weakest are cared for and the rights of all are in place
To obey the law
To support the law
To work when suitable work is available
To contribute to the political process, including to protest when it is failing
To care for the people around them
To work towards greater equality for all human beings, in their country and abroad

I also believe that I have missed a number of key things in both lists.

 

IMPRESSIVE lists. I don't think any of them are asking too much from today's society.

I think it is a good question also, too many on both sides want to shoot a person down for their beliefs but will come up with all kinds of reasons for not giving theirs. I don't think mutual respect can exist if one side is unwilling to give freely what they stand for. To me, it shows they don't have belief in what the stand for. I admire your volunteering.

And that is a question for anyone. What do you believe in? Simple question really if you have passion and true belief , hard question for those who have doubts and no passion.

 

Long-term employment security is a false expectation that specifically the baby boomer generation got accustomed to. They grew up in prosperous economic times, where it was more than easy for companies to offer life-long employment. While this occurred in many developed countries, it hit Japan especially hard when the inevitable economic downturn occurred. Japan has gone, and is still going, through some extreme social changes because of that.

Though the Japanese dropped those expectations, our beloved Western idiots still cling onto that fallacy.

 

I haven't read all the back and forth regarding slave reparations but I will say that I don't understand why it's such an issue with you pan?

It has been proposed in several different ways, yes, but as far as I can tell, no across the board monetary reparation has been made or is even being considered. The difficulty in quantifying such a thing and deciding which individuals would deserve the reparation takes it out of the realm of possibility of ever happening, despite those who continue to raise the suggestion. I'd let this go on the grounds of irrelevancy.

"Stupid White Men" and buying shit made by exploited labor.

Dare I point out the obvious? - Finding American products to buy in this country is as as difficult as finding Icelandic products to buy. I blame stupid white men for exporting all of our manufacturing jobs overseas.

That was easy.

 

Hence the brackets. I wouldn't expect a business to go under .. that would threaten the security of all. A business is there for two purposes - to provide employment and to grow the market. Anyway, these are my beliefs. Yours may differ.

 

I think it's safe to say that everyone has opinions and beliefs that define them. Opinions and beliefs they are willing to fight for. But I also believe that compromise in finding a solution that benefits everyone is the steam that gets the train out of the station, headed towards a destination.

I could probably add to Alistair's list but I certainly couldn't take anything away from it.

Off the top of my head:

We are responsible, not only for ourselves, but for each other. Social and governmental systems which fail to understand this are doomed to failure.

 

It does. A business (unless not-for-profit) is there to maximize profit and provide a product to the existing market. The economy and its population create trends and product demand (for most markets), not the businesses.

There is no such thing as "existence security" for a business, unless a government arbitrarily decides a business is "too big to fail". Even when there is security, a company cannot relay the same to its employees as market changes may require it to layoff some people in order for it to stay profitable.

The unemployed are there to be employed when a business needs them. The purpose of a business is almost never to provide employment (which is why so many factories in the past decade replaced workers with industrial robots).

In the grand scheme of things, businesses are a great way to create employment (especially in the service sector), so I can see where you're coming from.

 

Strangely enough, companies in the US are having a difficult time hanging on to the new breed of young professionals who neither show nor expect company loyalty. They are changing jobs as often as they change cell phones. (upgrading, so they imagine) They're calling the phenomenon "Early Job Mobility" and it's causing worry for some companies who are rapidly losing core employees (experienced baby boomers) to retirement.

 

Where I'm coming from is that a business needs to stay in business (and that may necessitate the things you mention) but, beyond that, the provision of employment opportunities is a major part of its function, in my view.

Human beings, in my belief system, are not simply resources to produce profit for the benefit of a smaller, more privileged group of human beings. The employer has a responsibility to the people who work within the business, and to their families and to the scoiety in which he/she lives, and this responsibility is not simply to always maximise profit whatever the human cost.

 

I would describe that as corporate social responsibility, in part voluntary and in part complying with regulatory standards to ensure workplace safety and employee rights.

I agree with the rest of your list. I would add a system of progressive taxation in which one contributes according to one's means.
--- merged: Nov 13, 2011 4:37 AM ---

I agree.

At a personal level, firmly held beliefs are worth fighting for and compromise is not an option.

At a public policy level and to govern a nation of diverse opinions and beliefs, compromise is often the most effective way to respond to the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.

The country was founded on compromise.

 

I think that if enough people boycott Nike and Reebok and bought New Balance and other shoes made solely here and a market for them develops and Nike/Reebok start losing market share to upstarts and New Balance then they would make shoes here. Same with electronics/appliances/cars/etc. If people start buying US made goods and create a demand for US made good then we'll get more US made goods.

My parents had to save years to buy a new Zenith floor model early in their marriage, we were "stuck" with a small screen black and white for those years. The point is we had a TV. They didn't feel we were entitled to go out and buy the latest one, even if it was a comparable model RCA and it was cheaper. Those TVs yeah they were "expensive" at the time but the technology was also "new". They were American made and lasted forever.

Today, people don't save they buy cheap imported TVs on a credit card that charges 15% interest because they feel they are entitled to have the latest new gadget. When if instead of doing that they had a TV fund and demanded a TV made here, and demand was high enough there'd be a TV factory opening and jobs created and a tax base in some city growing.

Instead, it's "fuck the saving I want what I want NOW, if I can't afford it I have a credit card. By the time you pay the interest on the credit cards you could have bought a US made whatever.

Nissan, Toyota, Honda did not build factories here because they necessarily wanted to, the market at the time demanded it. Yes they may import the parts but they found it was cheaper to assemble the cars here than to ship them pre assembled.

We are a nation demanding instant gratification. We are not willing to wait and save as a plurality, companies know this and thus they know that while some people may protest, the majority don't care where the f'n TV/computer/shoes/etc was made just that the consumer here wants on and wants it NOW. So, the companies will use labor/government regulations/etc as an excuse to ship jobs overseas and exploit slave labor.They are in business to make a profit, if they exploit children and use slave labor to do so, then so be it, the US consumer doesn't care. The US consumer doesn't see the true price paid. Loss of the tax base, loss of jobs, loss of government services. The US consumer doesn't take these things into consideration UNTIL we have a major economic meltdown. Who cares if we are at war and we rely on China to build our tanks, if it's cheaper and our government has no tax base and no companies here will build tanks... then........ BUT our government has the responsibility to encourage and promote with low interest loans and tax credits a tank factory, a ship builder, etc. to stimulate the economy, to rebuild a tax base. In the short term, yes, government spending will increase tremendously, but once those factories are up and running and jobs are created and small businesses like mom and pop shops open around those factories increase so will the tax base. Thus government makes money off the loans and tax credits through interest AND a growing tax base. It's that simple to get business back.

The problem is people are brainwashed to believe government deficits are evil, they are when it is wasteful spending that does nothing to increase the tax base. BUT small business loans and loans to factories actually will long term build a better more stable tax base.

 

Redux's point pretty much sums up my response to you. Companies do engage in social responsibility, but you have to be realistic here. The majority only do it because it brings them one or more of the following:
1. Greater market share (= higher revenue)
2. Better reputation (= higher revenue)
3. Brand recognition (= higher revenue)
4. Avoidance of government fines (= minimize explicit costs = higher profit margin = win)

The reasoning for most businesses to go and engage themselves in socially-condoned projects or provide for their employees better are economic in nature, not based on their goodwill.

And yeah, the businesses' top priority will always be to maximize profit. Do they take action (and even pay) to conform with regulations and perceived social rules? Absolutely. Do they do it because they think it's the right thing to do? Probably not.
--- merged: Nov 13, 2011 5:46 AM ---

There are a small number of countries in the world that can claim their goods "last forever".

America is not one of them.

 

pan, I agree that American consumerism feeds the beast. The rest of your comments sound a bit disjointed.

Boycotting Nike and Reebok and buying New Balance shoes will not solve the overall problem as there are not enough American alternates for everything foreign made. Choices are limited. For instance, if we want a coffee maker not made somewhere in Asia it will take extensive searching, probably online, and cost a good (great) deal more. We are a society suffering from joblessness and lowered wages (thank you stupid white men) who are now too broke to afford expensive appliances. Fortunately they are available in mass quantities because appliance manufacturers have found a way to bring them to market cheaply (thank you stupid white men).

Stupid white men taketh away good paying jobs and stupid white men giveth back the only shit we can afford.
--- merged: Nov 13, 2011 6:39 AM ---

Sadly, it was not always this way, Remixer. Businesses in the past were not all focused on maximizing profits ad infinitum. Most set modest goals which they (and their shareholders) were satisfied with. CEO's did not earn 200x the pay of the average employee, corporations did not hold more wealth than some counties and experienced, well paid employees were looked upon as an asset rather than a liability to the bottom line. Goodwill was in a company's self-interest much in the way that giving back to a community that supports you is basically the right thing to do, financially and morally. Civic duty and all.

No, businesses did not always place maximizing profits as a top priority yet they did as well and were possibly more stable, than they are now.

You're young and what you are witnessing is something quite new, in its scope. Corporate greed has always been around, but it hasn't always been as prevalent.

This sort of thinking only perpetuates the myth that the current way of doing things is the only way of doing things.

 

Hey, I'm not supporting corporate greed in any fashion. You're also making very misplaced assumptions about myself due to my age. Then again, you must be used to having young ones constantly give you that retort.

Regardless, modest business practices are nothing strange, even in this day and age. See the company Chick-fil-A.

Or me. I own a business here in Afghanistan concentrating on everything print and my aim is to establish a quality and well-sized print industry here so that things such as school textbooks can be printed domestically, rather than getting those ridiculously bad quality books imported from Pakistan/India. Also started a publishing house to import Persian-based university-level books for literature as well as natural and social sciences. There's also a print academy I'm starting soon to get Afghans trained and give them the ability to find higher-skilled employment than most of them maintain.

All that being said and done, my business still needs to be profitable as my time, skills and knowledge are valuable. Whenever it is possible, I maximize revenue on any product to increase the profit margin to the max.

However, a common mistake is made when looking at normal, economics-based business management and identifying it as corporate greed. Profit is profit is profit. Everyone wants to maximize it. The difference is how they do it.

 

I refuse to EVER open up again. I refuse to ever have an OPINION in this forum again. If my opinion is to be mocked and disrespected. If evry time you need to reply to me you MOCK me by using "stupid white men" then there is no sense in my sharing here or being a part of this community. I shared my opinion my views and how I felt and why. I stated I found that offensive and you have to mock it. I'm done. I obviously am not "liberal" enough to have respect shown to. Did I degrade anyone? Did someone say they disliked and took offense to something and then I in every reply I had to say that which they said offended them? Or have I tried to be respectful? Yet, I get no respect back. Fuck it, why should I say ANYTHING or why should anyone say anything if you are going to sit and mock them? You can say it isn't personal but that is BS or you wouldn't say it in every reply to me.

And you admit you didn't even read the whole conversation, so you pick out what you believe will upset me, and you were right, and you decide I don't deserve your respect because of my beliefs. Fine, I have no respect for you. So goodbye.

 

Agreed, and I apologize for my age bias, Remixer. From your original comment, I got the idea that you believed the only priority of a business should be to maximize profit at any cost (no pun intended) .

It goes without saying that profit is the motivator and increased profits through sound business management, process efficiencies, well trained staff, increased sales and product improvements is the goal. I have no problem with that. It's capitalism at its finest and benefits everyone.

I do have a problem with the trend I see lately - companies who seek greater and greater profits, not by investing in improvements in the areas above but by extracting it in nickels and dimes from the quality of their product, employee wages and benefits (not to mention the burden put on existing employees required to do multiple jobs when co-workers have been laid off - peak productivity of those remaining employees will drop off eventually) , and customer service.

Sure, it benefits shareholders, in the short term, and top management who enjoy ballooning salary increases and bonuses based solely on profit gains, but no one else - not even the business itself. Not surprising they collapse in on themselves, eventually.

If the difference is in how they do it, I'd say too many businesses these days are not doing it with an eye towards their own future. If a company has done all it can do to improve their product, establish their brand, bring in sales, hire good people, streamline their operations and they are still struggling to make and keep a profit, then yeah, they need to think about cutting back on their labor and employee benefits. Companies who make these cut-backs, not out of necessity but to further line the silk pockets of their shareholders and top management are acting out of greed. I find it shameful.
--- merged: Nov 13, 2011 8:26 AM ---

Unless you're some Koch Brothers billionaire shipping American jobs overseas and importing cheap foreign made goods back into the US for us jobless saps, I don't understand why on earth you'd feel my "stupid white man" was directed at you, unless you failed to understand the context in which I was using it - which is not the same context in which you presented it. I thought the term fit nicely with the point I was trying to make. The fact that the top echelon of American corporations is comprised mostly of white men, is not my doing.

Get a grip, pan. I wasn't looking to offend you personally. I happen to like most white men. I'm extremely fond of one in particular, in fact.

Where else do you feel I was attacking you personally?

 

I never understood reckless corporate greed.

The top priority for chief officers is not to maximize shareholder value. That is their second priority.

The number one priority for chief officers is a profitable business based on a sustainable and long-term model. When you go and risk considerable long-term losses and dents in reputation for short-term gains, the priorities are mixed up.

To some extent I blame the competitive organizational cultures within multinational companies and large banks. When you're willing to go beyond hell to reach pole position, often unnecessary risks are taken and codes of ethics are broken.

 

Essentially, I think we are in agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe that any job (or any business) can be absolutely secure and I am also well aware that sometimes jobs have to be cut to ensure the sustainability of a business. I'm a management consultant, so I'd be in trouble if I didn't understand that. When I mentioned security of employment, I didn't mean to imply that all loss of employment should be avoidable. I was thinking more along the lines of the contract (psychological and/or legal) between employee and business that demands that an employee be treated fairly. Unfortunately, not all employers do that. In particular, places where employment is "at will" can leave employees subject to the whims of unscrupulous business owners. I believe they deserve protection from the unscrupulous, using employment law if necessary.

 

pan646,

Thank you for your well thought out, and heart-felt opinions. I appreciate you taking the time to share them.

It makes me really wonder about the thought processes people go through to get to a conclusion like that....and then believe it is justified.

I worry about OWS going extremely left also. It would be a shame to see the middle lose it's voice. Honestly, until I joined DemocraticUnderground, another forum, during the last presidential election, I did not believe that extremists to the left were just as bad as the extremists to the right. It is amazing the similarities between them. Both groups are, full of hate towards others, not logical in their arguments, do not listen to different viewpoints, spew half-truths, and lies and on and on...you get the point. There is a divesre large group on that forum, but they continually get drowned out by extremists.
--- merged: Nov 14, 2011 8:36 PM ---
Eddie, just saw your rep

Sorry Eddie, just read your response.

Not sure I would call it "reminding" though. It seem,s more like "intimidating" others..or else.

 

There's no demand anyway, at least here in the US, for goods that last forever. The lack of desire has followed (or maybe preceded) expectation. People get tired of looking at the same stuff after shorter and shorter periods of time. "Dear, a stainless refrigerator is so last year. Let's go shopping!"

Occasionally you think it would be great if things lasted longer, like when your 6 month old hairdryer craps out before your hair is completely dry and you're forced to go to Walmart with wet hair and suffer painful visual indignities just to replace the s.o.b. But once you're there you realize it's not such a bad thing because you really needed other stuff anyway and good Lord, everything is so cheap so why not get a few things you don't really need like a new plasma TV or a pleather handbag.

Of course, there's things like artificial organs and limbs. We want those things to last forever or at least until Jesus returns or the rapture commences.