Yug

bobo expresses his support for ows...

Yug

I checked out the link, interesting take on the situation. I had a few comments on the article.

I agree with parts of the assessment: no corporate bailouts followed on by big CEO salaries (essentially on our dime). If the company needed a bailout in the first place, then how could they justify a high CEO salary - obviously he/she didn't run the company in a fashion that they deserved to HAVE a big paycheck.

Down with corporate greed: first define precisely what that 'greed' is. (note - self-interest and greed are not the same thing) A company that employs illegals to avoid paying a worker a decent salary is greedy, or if they do it to unfairly undercut their competition (who plays by the rules) is greedy. If they don't give in to unreasonable union demands because they won't be able to afford to stay in business; that is not greed - that is good business sense. It IS greed on the part of the union, however. If a parasite takes too much from a weakened host (due to the current economy), it may just kill it - unless they have an expectation of a sympathetic govt to put US taxpayers on the hook for the union greed by bailing out the company to stay afloat and continue the union-demanded payouts that would otherwise bankrupt the company (which would then allow the company to renegotiate those fat union bennie packages to a more reasonable & more fair level) Isn't it funny how fairness in THIS instance is not desired by ows? (that tunnel-vision would, however, make sense if ows was actually instigated by (and in some cases paid by) the unions, in which case they would intentionally NOT demand fairness unfavorable to unions) Oh, wait, that is exactly what DID happen; some ows 'protestors' have admitted being paid by union, and acorn. Strange that unions go on strike and demand more from a company when the economy is favorable, and they claim that they deserve more because the company made more $$ (note to unions - this is when companies have more $$ and are able to do more infrastructure building, maintenance of existing infrastructore, more R&D, more investments, etc), not because the union members have actually done anything to actually earn it - like process improvement, speeding up of processes, improved quality, etc. In other words - they demand it just because they want it, or they'll go on strike. Why, if improved economic conditions cause them to demand more, do they not also agree to do with less when the economy is down? Doesn't sound quite fair to me, sounds like a one-way street. You give, we take, and never expect us to give back because we have power to strike.

Wall Street is evil - well, most of those retirement funds (including union retirement funds) are probably invested via wall street in many different stocks and bonds; Wall Street investments make $$, and those invested retirement funds make $$, too. Are the ows people saying that they want their retirement funds to go under, or just somebody else's returement funds to go under? Maybe they hate the middle class, too.

Wealth Redistribution is the Answer - if you over-tax (read: legally forcibly steal) the wealthy (read: job creators') guys' assets to the extent that they then lose all incentive to continue a business, or to even start a business, you will be able to spend your undeserved $$ for a short while. Once that is gone, there will be no-one left to take it from. What will you do then, demand it from govt (or riot in the street when govt can't give it to you)? NEWSFLASH!!! - govt doesn't make $$ to give to you, govt doesn't make any $$ at all, they have to take it from the folks that you have just driven out of business, or have driven out of the country. Do you think people will continue to run an unprofitable business, or take all the risks to start-up a business just out of the goodness of their hearts? Would you? (and don't BS me, you wouldn't do it, either, unless there was something in it for you - that is human nature) If you would (first off - you are a fool), eventually after having nothing to show for it, or continually losing $$, eventually you would not even be able to feed yourself. Then what would you do? Even the people feeding the OWS freeloaders are rebelling against long hours (16+ hour days) feeding ows protestors when there is really nothing in it for them. How will the people passing out food live? Off the 'gratitude' of the ows freeloaders? That gratitude (and there appears to be very little of it, based on the news reports) won't pay bills, clothe you, feed you, heat your house, or put gas in your car. Are you going to pay your landlord with gratitude? Or if he refuses to be satisfied by being paid merely with 'your gratitude' passed on from the ows guys' gratitude, is he now a greedy landlord for expecting you to actually pay something for use of, and wear and tear on, his property? Doens't sound very realistic, does it? Your landlord has bills to pay to, or he loses his property. Then he will be sitting on his butt on the curb right next to you. So much for gratitude.

Back to redistribution - if you want what someone else has EARNED (emphasis on the word 'earned'), without having earned it yourself - YOU are the greedy one. Sometimes someone is in the right place at the right time to be aware of, and to have the skills required for an opportunity. That person has not TAKEN anything away from anyone else. That is just the way life is much of the time. What would you have the person do when offered an opportunity that will benefit him, his company or his family? Should he scour the neighbor hood to see if anyone else wants that job first? (get real, why should someone else be first?) By the time he comes back (with no takers), the job may have gone to someone else (that wasn't as stupid), and he has now lost out. Should he refuse the opportunity given to him because EVERYONE was not also given the opportunity, or because everyone else wasn't qualified for the opportunity offered? Should he scream from a street corner - UNFAIR! UNFAIR! UNFAIR! - because society failed to prepare everyone equally to be able to take that job? Get real! Not everyone has the same skills (go blame God for that, and see how far it gets you), not everyone applies themselves as dilligently when it comes to learning those skills - should the one who puts more effort into learning/practicing those skills be rewarded less, just so some lazy person won't feel offended that he didn't get a job that he didn't prepare himself for (even though he DID have to opportunity to learn it). Gotta spread those job opportunities around, too, I guess, regardless of how well you might be able to do it. And then what about people that rely on the results of those jobs/opportunities? Are they greedy for expecting the best quality product, or the best skill level for services that they pay for? Should they get used to expecting mediocre products and services because unqualified people were hired (by spreading the jobs around) so someone wouldn't feel 'offended' that they weren't hired (even though they wasted opportunities to prepare themselves) for something they were unqualified for. What about bus drivers, or airline pilots or any other type of service-related job were people's lives are at stake if the driver/pilot (or even a doctor) is not qualified? Should we be expected to now put our very lives at risk by hiring unqualified people just so they won't be offended (and sue, or protest at Wall St), or because they fill some specific preferred/protected demographoc category? What kind of world would that make? Not a realistic world, more likely a 'third world'. (but at least no-one feels 'offended')

By the way - you are NOT the 99%; you are probably no better than 47%, at most (those are the un-taxed freeloaders on the backs of the rest of us)

Celebrate the land of opportunity - actually if the ows folks had their way, there would be no incentive for taking advantage of opportunity, or no incentive for being an entrepreneur and thereby making opportunities for others by your efforts. There will be mass poverty/misery/mediocrity with a small cadre of 'rulers' that are perpetually in power. Those would be the pelosis/reids/bushes/rockefellers. These ows people don't really want equal opportunity, they want equal outcomes regardless of expending greater or lesser effort to bring about those outcomes. They would call that fair. Gee, I wonder how fair it seems for the person that HAS expended more effort, and then sees the person that only took half the effort get the same reward. I think that person would eventually think it foolish to do more than the half-effort person, since they would still get the same reward as if they had made MORE effort. Eventually, human nature being what it is, ALL people (except a few self-deluded types) would settle to a level where they would be making as little effort as possible to still be able to get by. At that point, all society suffers because now all jobs are done by people making the minimum effort (like the union guy that won't work an extra 5 min to get the job done - unless he is paid time and a half and credited with a whole hour - tell me he's not being greedy, and demanding something he has not earned), and all products are being made not to the best quality standard, but to the absolute minimum acceptable standard (unless inspectors are bribed to look the other way).

Whew! That wore me out. This is an area that gets my 'dander' up. I wish all those ows people would carry their thoughts forward far enough to see just what kind of a world would result from carrying out all their desires - I fear it would be nothing like they envision.

john_ny

Looks good, but way too long to read tonight. Maybe, in the morning.

__________________
John

sunfish

Exactly