News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Will the Left call out its own?

Started by Zeitgeist, February 17, 2011, 07:26:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Zeitgeist

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Liberal Protest of Gov. Walker's Budget Repair Plan

I'm sure you all see the irony no? When the shootings in Arizona were placed on the shoulders of the Right and their rhetoric, they conveniently left out the fact that their own does the same. What happens if someone takes a pot-shot at the governor of Wisconsin, will the left call out their own? Doubtful, as they see their own causes as sacrosanct and everyone else's as irrelevant. The duplicity and hypocrisy is nauseating.

Vekseid

I saw one sign with 'don't retreat, reload' and crosshairs (shown twice). Another was 'Death to Tyrants'. Those were the only two threatening images. If the former isn't a plant I think we all know what the reference is, however misguided.

The Egyptian protesters worked to great lengths to be peaceful, and demonstrate themselves as peaceful. Showing images equating Walker with Mubarak and considering them 'threatening' is amusing, at best.

While the Hitler card is of course annoying, at least the February 2nd, 1933 abolishment of trade unions is a matter of historical fact, and relevant as a means by which Hitler solidified power in Germany, unlike the lies the LaRouchies (anti-Semitic fascists themselves) spread about health care.

That said.

Neither of the people shown with the threatening signs is a public persona. Two, out of a hundred thousand protesters across the state, assuming those two signs aren't plants.

Even assuming the images are legitimate, it does not reflect the majority, or the presented opinion of any public persona, nor does it even target entire groups (Rush Limbaugh's 'leave some of them alive', and one protester with a sign that said "Exterminate All Liberals" with a gun on it).

Obviously, such language should be called out. If you are going to claim hypocrisy, however, you must first show equivalence. This video does no such thing.


Valerian

I live in Wisconsin.  These protests have been nothing but peaceful.

People are angry, yes.  There are, as Veks mentioned, some 100,000 people out protesting across the state.  Out of that many waving signs, you're going to find some that are more ruthless than they should be.  It's not a good thing, and if I had any say, I wouldn't let people carry such signs, regardless of any political affiliation, but you also have to look at the larger picture.  Had Mubarek been assassinated, for example, it would be a very different story.

I'd like to note that growing numbers of moderate Republicans are also coming out to protest, so not all of those signs are being held by liberals in any case.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Sure

Parallels to Nazis are easy enough to justify. Hitler did use social welfare as a way to placate the poor in an increasingly bad economy (Work Through Joy is a good example, Winterhilf another, and the Fascists and possibly Nazis actually did heavily subsidize certain medical personnel like midwives). I feel as if it's emotional language and that almost all comparisons are invalid regardless.

In my experience, neither side will call out its own. The two parties seem to be more factions with certain leanings than groupings of like-minded people, which is how you get RINOs and DINOs and bluedogs and whatever else you want to call them.

But if you want some bad signs from liberals, for equivalence, here's  a few bush era ones: Implies Bush is a criminal, insane, and needs to be arrested, Implies Bush is a Nazi, Death Threat, though perhaps not totally serious, still, Again, death threat.

Vekseid

WinterHilfe an example? A political fraud run in the name of a charity? Strength Through Joy was also targeted at bringing in revenue from foreigners, wasn't it?

Interesting that the t-shirt is actually from Michelle Malkin's site. It looks like something someone put together on Cafepress or Zazzle.

There is nothing wrong with claiming that Bush was not legitimately elected, that argument holds far more traction than the birther movement does, since he 1) Did not win the popular vote and 2) Was appointed by the Supreme Court rather than waiting for the Florida recount to come through. The man's character is not exactly in question - he all but outed himself as a narcissist in his book. The man had no business leading a nation.

Regardless, that shows no such equivalence. Where has a major left wing public figure joked about a politician's assassination, as Glenn Beck has of Nancy Pelosi? Where has a major left wing public figure approvingly noted the mass execution of conservatives, as Rush Limbaugh has of liberals? Where has a major left wing figure called for the free speech of conservatives to be silenced, as Limbaugh recently did of liberals (in addition to wanting to strip away their right to own guns)? Where has a major left wing figure called for 'second amendment remedies'? Name one major left wing figure who declared, of an opposing media organization, 'They are, of course, Nazis.'.

Seriously. I'm interested in the answer. Name one. And then we can start to approach the concept, but one example is not going to be nearly enough.

Zakharra

Quotehere has a major left wing public figure approvingly noted the mass execution of conservatives, as Rush Limbaugh has of liberals?

I wasn't aware that Rush Limbaugh has said that. That sounds more like something Michael Savage would say.

Sure

Winterhilf was admittedly 'charity' the way zakat is 'voluntary' but the fact that they were giving necessities to the poor to curry favor is the basis of the program. Strength Through Joy was not targeted at bringing in revenue from foreigners, it provided free or heavily subsidized vacations to German Workers and was a copy of a similar Fascist program.

Firstly, none of them claim solely that Bush was not legitimately elected. Secondly, declaring the process illegitimate and claiming he did not win the popular vote are two entirely different things. And you've just stated an opinion, about Bush's character and about his qualifications to lead. They are not facts nor particularly relevant, I would think.

“When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip,” -Democratic Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear

"Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

The two I got from Google, joking about killing and assassination of the President. I've not heard any of the things you've heard Limbaugh say, but then again I don't listen to him. I don't listen to Democratic talkshows either, though. And Steve Cohen recently called the Republicans Nazis (or rather said they used Nazi-like tactics) which is the last one, not a news outlet but I think it still counts.

You're right, though, one example doesn't matter. For either of our positions. We'd need a meta-analysis and I don't think either of us have the time or resources to perform one. Until one is made, we're running off of opinions and anecdotal evidence.

Vekseid

Quote from: Zakharra on February 17, 2011, 10:17:12 AM
I wasn't aware that Rush Limbaugh has said that. That sounds more like something Michael Savage would say.

His quote is: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Quote from: Sure on February 17, 2011, 10:19:55 AM
Winterhilf was admittedly 'charity' the way zakat is 'voluntary' but the fact that they were giving necessities to the poor to curry favor is the basis of the program. Strength Through Joy was not targeted at bringing in revenue from foreigners, it provided free or heavily subsidized vacations to German Workers and was a copy of a similar Fascist program.

Firstly, none of them claim solely that Bush was not legitimately elected. Secondly, declaring the process illegitimate and claiming he did not win the popular vote are two entirely different things. And you've just stated an opinion, about Bush's character and about his qualifications to lead. They are not facts nor particularly relevant, I would think.

The overall tone here is discussing the applicability of calling Republican/Rupert Murdoch tactics fascist versus the applicability of calling progressive/liberal tactics fascist. You explicitly pointed out that the intent of Nazi social programs was to appease the poor - and they generally never materialized in any real form in the first place, for example.

And Bush revealed his narcissism in claiming that the low point of his presidency was, of all things, being called out by Kanye West. No sense of responsibility for any of his failures - but heaven help him if his feelings were hurt. Carter hurt his feelings, too.

Quote
“When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip,” -Democratic Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear

This is wishing disfigurement on someone at the least, which I will certainly concede was very, very common on the left. I don't know if it was as common or as bad as what Pelosi got, however. The hate Republicans had for that woman was mindblowing. Maybe because she was actually effective.

Quote
"Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

I'm trying to find the actual source for this. I can only find right wing sites claiming it but - oddly - none of them show the video.

One claims it is from 2006, another from 2004. At least in the former case, Kerry could simply call it a figure of speech by way of assuming the presidency - since little timing context is provided on the sites where I find it.

Quote
The two I got from Google, joking about killing and assassination of the President. I've not heard any of the things you've heard Limbaugh say, but then again I don't listen to him. I don't listen to Democratic talkshows either, though. And Steve Cohen recently called the Republicans Nazis (or rather said they used Nazi-like tactics) which is the last one, not a news outlet but I think it still counts.

You're right, though, one example doesn't matter. For either of our positions. We'd need a meta-analysis and I don't think either of us have the time or resources to perform one. Until one is made, we're running off of opinions and anecdotal evidence.

I was being a bit facetious with that. It's mostly that the left has been very slow to accuse Fox, Murdoch, Ailes, and Republicans of fascism, though many have cited proto-fascist elements such as anti-intellectualism, belief in the use of force to gain political power, citing criticism as 'anti-American' when they have power, a strong jingoistic streak, and so on. Then the LaRouchies came around and beat everyone to the punch, and the right wing picked up on it.

I'm not saying that they don't genuinely believe it. One authoritarian trait is to assume that everyone else thinks like you, so they genuinely fear a strong, charismatic leader who is not 'one of them', because America is struggling right now and struggling people are very vulnerable.  "We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." - FDR

So they also see the equivalence.

Callie Del Noire

There is a bit of 'wish they were dead' on both sides. I find it interesting, to use a lesser example, that there was less moral outrage in the media when this sort of thing showed up:



Than this:


(This sort of thing drew like 2 weeks of commentary from the various groups on TV when they first started appearing)


Point of the matter. Each side has idiots that take things too far. Always have. Always will.

Poor Congresswoman Gifford that was shot by a 'potential conservative crank', and the poor college dean who was stabbed by someone aiming for the conservative governor who was speaking there.

LOTS of stupid, banal people.


Noelle

Pretty sure that last Obama poster was made by a supporter rather than a Republican, as a response to all of the "Obama is a socialist/fasicst/nazi/marxist/Muslim/communist/etc." allegations. It would surprise me that anyone would take offense to it as being something slanderous against the president, given it kind of fires back at those who throw out those kinds of terms freely and satirizes it. The first one is just stupid :( The only nazis are nazis.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Noelle on February 17, 2011, 05:23:47 PM
Pretty sure that last Obama poster was made by a supporter rather than a Republican, as a response to all of the "Obama is a socialist/fasicst/nazi/marxist/Muslim/communist/etc." allegations. It would surprise me that anyone would take offense to it as being something slanderous against the president, given it kind of fires back at those who throw out those kinds of terms freely and satirizes it. The first one is just stupid :( The only nazis are nazis.

I put that one out because I couldn't find the one that that caused the 2 weeks of discontent and hate on TV. I think that outrage for either side being represented as Hitler should keep them from doing it to the other side but common sense isn't as common as you'd like.


Vekseid

I think it was largely ignored because the Bush protests were largely ignored, in general - even though they were far, far larger than anything the Tea Party has ever put together.

Jude

#12
It's only my perception based on a time when I was less involved in politics than I am today (because I was younger), but my recollection agrees with Vekseid about how much attention was paid to the anti-Bush crowd versus the Tea Party.  It seemed to me that the media was largely indifferent to them, often painting them as irrelevant or uninteresting.  Even the worst accounts of the Tea Party that are full of wild accusations don't downplay their passion and involvement.  If I had to describe both in once sentence based on the societal perception at large...

Bush Protesters - "Young people who don't have a clue."

Tea Partiers - "Well-to-do white people who are overreacting to perceived tyrannical threats with shades of racism."

As far as whether or not the left will call out their own goes, the answer is obvious.  Some will, some won't.  I doubt that anyone but the most committed liberals and conservatives believe that their side has a monopoly on integrity.  Anyone who falls into that group believes in the superiority of their ideals to a dangerous level anyway:  they're the people holding the signs the rest of us should be condemning.

Callie Del Noire

I think that is about it.. with a faint hint of :

Bush Protestors -"Exercising their constitutional rights with restraint'.

Tea Partiers - "Dangerous whack jobs who are racists and one step short of militia memberships"

Vekseid

Not really. It was an active attempt of marginalizing them. If you listened to the radio during that period, the only thing you heard about the protests was how they were obstructing traffic.

Callie Del Noire

My favorites were some of the comments about the early accusations of fraud by ACORN. It was all a frame job by the conservatives to keep the downtrodden from getting the right to vote.


Zakharra

Quote from: Vekseid on February 17, 2011, 11:20:29 AM
His quote is: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Actually kill or defeat? I have listened to him for years and he comes across more as using the  system to electorially defeat them, rather than kill them off.  It is possible he weas taken out of context? somethng I know both sides are very good at doing. The sound-byte generation.

Now Savage, that man can get hot and heated at the microphone.

Callie Del Noire

I've never SEEN or HEARD Limbaugh saying that.. BUT it is quite likely he'd say something like that or put it in one of his books. It sounds like the stupid self important sort of rhetoric pundits on both sides say.

I agree with a  lot of folks, the President among them. That we need to tune things down and relax this sort of thing.

Vekseid

Quote from: Zakharra on February 18, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
Actually kill or defeat? I have listened to him for years and he comes across more as using the  system to electorially defeat them, rather than kill them off.  It is possible he weas taken out of context? somethng I know both sides are very good at doing. The sound-byte generation.

Now Savage, that man can get hot and heated at the microphone.

The source and context is here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,163548,00.html

It comes from a similar line he gave at a speech to Republicans the year before, I believe, but I can't find that instance.

Remiel

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on February 18, 2011, 03:21:12 PM
I've never SEEN or HEARD Limbaugh saying that.. BUT it is quite likely he'd say something like that or put it in one of his books. It sounds like the stupid self important sort of rhetoric pundits on both sides say.

I agree with a  lot of folks, the President among them. That we need to tune things down and relax this sort of thing.

Callie, I would argue that we conservatives need to stand up and say, "these men do not represent us.  They do not speak for us.  They are talking heads, and nothing more, trying to stir up controversy in order to create ratings.  Please do not listen to them, or take seriously anything they have to say."

Zeitgeist

For sure it would have been wiser to use the word 'defeat' rather than 'kill'. But we aren't justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, right? Right?

Anyhow. If we are saying, that by extension, Limbaugh shares responsibility for any wacko perceived as a 'conservation' wacko, who goes out and commits murder, well then so too will be anyone else who uses such charged language. 'Kill the Bill' anyone? It wouldn't be much of a leap for an already deranged person to make, that if you kill a Wisconsin Republican Representative, who effectively 'Kill the Bill'.

You can't have one set of rules for one group, and then cast them aside when they are no longer convenient. You don't get to change the rules just because you agree with the underlying cause.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Remiel on February 18, 2011, 06:32:47 PM
Callie, I would argue that we conservatives need to stand up and say, "these men do not represent us.  They do not speak for us.  They are talking heads, and nothing more, trying to stir up controversy in order to create ratings.  Please do not listen to them, or take seriously anything they have to say."

Agreed. I've been saying it.. though I don't consider myself that much of a conservative. I'm not against big government, I'd rather be a Reagan style 'grow the economy' type that despises the exportation of jobs out of the country. I'm pro-choice, support the death penalty and think that we are coddling our people into a country of whiners and complainers. I think we need to bring back tax breaks for companies that work to grow our economy, reinstate ones for R&D, and slap anyone who thinks the only way to 'grow business' is to deregulate. A studied cost-benefit approach to regulating things would have stopped some of the stupidity that we suffered though in the last few years.

Relying on blowhards like Limbaugh and outright liars like Anne Coulter does nothing to finding the direction we need to go. Neither of the two pundits I mentioned have done little to moderate the behavior and attitudes of the public. Pundits and speakers should be a focusing point. With folks like them around, civility is rapidly dying in the media. I'm sure with two minutes of thought we could find someone just as toxic on the liberal side.

Sadly it's easier to find the obnoxious than the true speakers that we need to build something better out of our country.


Vekseid

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on February 18, 2011, 06:41:02 PM
For sure it would have been wiser to use the word 'defeat' rather than 'kill'. But we aren't justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, right? Right?

Of course not. But your first post presents an air of equivalence. None of the major right wing media personalities avoid this sort of language - Palin, Bachman, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, O'Reilly. When Nancy Pelosi asked for the rhetoric to be toned down after Beck and O'Reilly -both- talked about her being assassinated, she was simply mocked for it.

What does it say, if this sort of thing gets the attention of Maddow, Maher, Kos, et. al and they call this out? It doesn't make things even. It means that the voices currently representing the right are vastly morally inferior, and you acknowledge that.

If you want to stop those sorts of comparisons, you need to actively support those voices who do call out their rhetoric - David Frum, for example. He's already nearly as popular as Ann Coulter is. It's sad, in a way, that his site is barely bigger than Elliquiy. But amusing just how far Coulter has fallen.

Quote
Anyhow. If we are saying, that by extension, Limbaugh shares responsibility for any wacko perceived as a 'conservation' wacko, who goes out and commits murder, well then so too will be anyone else who uses such charged language. 'Kill the Bill' anyone? It wouldn't be much of a leap for an already deranged person to make, that if you kill a Wisconsin Republican Representative, who effectively 'Kill the Bill'.

Limbaugh is only one voice and the most moderate of the six I listed above.

If you are going to make such a claim (regarding language like 'Kill the Bill', which you know did not originate in Wisconsin), it would instead be more pertinent to look at and act upon the sort of language that influences people like Scott Roeder, the Hutaree, Richard Andrew Poplawski and so on. There are common threads behind right wing violence in America - typically, the lies that drive them. Especially when they are lies about specific groups or people.

Quote
You can't have one set of rules for one group, and then cast them aside when they are no longer convenient. You don't get to change the rules just because you agree with the underlying cause.

Of course not.

Which makes me wonder why you demand that the Left be held to a higher standard than the Right.

The methods presented in Egypt will most likely be adopted here in the United States, only better and far more difficult to counter. Meaning yes, stressing nonviolence and establishing friendships will become a key factor in the progressive movement's strategy here. If that happens - by definition making a very strong statement against threats of violence or allusions to it - where does that put you?

itsbeenfun2000

As of yesterday they had 40000 protesters in Madison. Nine arrests a few days ago when some protesters got to close to a restricted area and wouldn't move. As of today the protests have been peaceful. Here is my question. Is it right for someone to take away the rights of a few to benefit the many? That is exactly what Walker is doing.

Vekseid

Walker isn't trying to benefit the many. If this were just a resolution requiring that union workers pay their pensions and health care benefits, this would not have generated such a firestorm. Walker would still be called out as a hypocrite for creating the deficit, certainly.

But removing the right to collective bargaining and requiring recertification each year is what has lit this fire, though Walker obviously is avoiding that part of the argument - because it paints him as the corporate shill he is. It's an attempt to destroy public unions in Wisconsin. I've had my own, personal grievances against unions in general, but when employers are limited, collective bargaining is the only peaceful means by which employees can correct that market deficiency. At the dawn of the 20th century, when companies had a monopoly on employment in certain regions, they enacted a system - company scrip - that was in fact wage slavery. A popular song (Sixteen Tons) was written about it.

1) You're not paid in cash, but rather in company scrip.
2) You can only spend scrip in the company store.
3) You're not paid enough scrip to cover your needs, so you go in debt to the store.

And if you try to struggle against it, the company is not above murdering your wife and children.

Callie Del Noire

You hit it on the head Veks,

If Walker had asked the groups to step up and take the same benefits plan as the rest of the working community and pay eased up on matching paymetns into benefit programs and accept a higher health coverage costs to help save money there would have been a lot of gnashing of teeth but that's it. He's trying to use this as a way to break unions. I've seen a bit of the same being tried down here in Florida, tying the removal of collective bargaining to cost saving measures to make the unions look 'bad'. I find the union busting tactics distressing.

I was working in a non-union shop when Lockheed took over the contract. Right off the bat they tried to roll everyone back 2 ranks by 'accident'. (When you got 12 year workers who were 30 year navy retirees that isn't smart), then they told the shop leads a week before change over that they had hired 'new shop' leads and they were to train them up, and then they tried to hijack the travel teams hotel selections (which was going to take the teams hotel bennies) AND then declared comp pay for more than 120 days outside country pay wasn't 'warranted at the same time they increased travel time outside country (ie.. doubling the number of 120 day claims that would have occured)

Needless to say I occasionally find myself a bit grateful they canned me. Even though it's nearly 2 years without a job (longest time since I was 14 years old)

Corporate greed seems to be growing (I used to joke about MBA = Masters of Business Atrocities, not so sure anymore)

Zeitgeist

I find it unlikely businesses could get away with treating their workers poorly for long. Not in this day and age of 24 hour news, cell phones, Twitter and Facebook. Besides, it's a bad business model, you won't for long be profitable by abusing your workers. Does this mean there shouldn't be a safety net, some oversight, no, but the model unions is a dying breed in my opinion. I have no inherent 'right to work'. I work because I provide my employer with a skill that compliments their business and for which they fairly compensate me for.

Vekseid

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on February 21, 2011, 06:49:35 AM
I find it unlikely businesses could get away with treating their workers poorly for long. Not in this day and age of 24 hour news, cell phones, Twitter and Facebook. Besides, it's a bad business model, you won't for long be profitable by abusing your workers. Does this mean there shouldn't be a safety net, some oversight, no, but the model unions is a dying breed in my opinion. I have no inherent 'right to work'. I work because I provide my employer with a skill that compliments their business and for which they fairly compensate me for.

It worked for the coal industry, and armed revolts were required at times to get concessions. When companies have a monopoly on employment, they have gotten away with slavery. This is true of governments, as well, but in principle you can make a government accountable. Corporations at the dawn of the 20th century got away with murdering the wives and children of labor organizers, and had the US government to back them up. As bad as things may seem now on all levels - the only reason you can make a claim like that is that the value we place on life was a price paid for with a lot of blood, more than a century after this nation's founding.

Right now most of the brutal labor is done by migrant workers and prison workers. People who either don't have anyone or anywhere to turn to, or don't think they do. This includes the return of debtor's prisons to Minnesota, here, even.

While you may not have a 'Right to Work', you should have the right
- Not to have negative externalities imposed upon you without your understanding and consent.
- To be provided guarantee of payment for the services you provide your employer.
- To be mobile between places of employment.
- To be able to strike out on your own and sell your goods and services on your own.

Some of those are guaranteed on paper, not all of them in reality, especially not now. Businesses are encouraged to impose negative externalities and get away with them for as long as possible. Businesses, especially mom and pop shops, are routinely fading out of business, and not paying their workers. How do you take them to court when they have nothing?

Lack of employment mobility is a big one, and is especially brutal during hard times.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Vekseid on February 21, 2011, 07:29:08 AM
It worked for the coal industry, and armed revolts were required at times to get concessions. When companies have a monopoly on employment, they have gotten away with slavery. This is true of governments, as well, but in principle you can make a government accountable. Corporations at the dawn of the 20th century got away with murdering the wives and children of labor organizers, and had the US government to back them up. As bad as things may seem now on all levels - the only reason you can make a claim like that is that the value we place on life was a price paid for with a lot of blood, more than a century after this nation's founding.

Right now most of the brutal labor is done by migrant workers and prison workers. People who either don't have anyone or anywhere to turn to, or don't think they do. This includes the return of debtor's prisons to Minnesota, here, even.

Is there an example of these sort of abuses of private sector workers in the Digital Age? I appreciate the fact that the trials and tribulations of worker rights activists in the 20th Century deserve credit for the improved workplace environments we enjoy today, I only suggest that the danger of such activities arising again, with all the manners of communication we have, is unlikely.

Quote
While you may not have a 'Right to Work', you should have the right
- Not to have negative externalities imposed upon you without your understanding and consent.
- To be provided guarantee of payment for the services you provide your employer.
- To be mobile between places of employment.
- To be able to strike out on your own and sell your goods and services on your own.

Some of those are guaranteed on paper, not all of them in reality, especially not now. Businesses are encouraged to impose negative externalities and get away with them for as long as possible. Businesses, especially mom and pop shops, are routinely fading out of business, and not paying their workers. How do you take them to court when they have nothing?

Lack of employment mobility is a big one, and is especially brutal during hard times.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'negative externalities'. Can you give me an example?

Employment mobility? Can you be more specific? There is no one stopping me from resigning my position tomorrow and taking up a job with another company. Who says I can't do that?

Are you saying if my employer chose not to pay me for the past two weeks of work, I would have no viable, legal recourse? Are you saying they only pay me at their leisure and whim?

I ask these questions not with sarcasm but with curiosity.

Oniya

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on February 21, 2011, 06:24:45 PM
Employment mobility? Can you be more specific? There is no one stopping me from resigning my position tomorrow and taking up a job with another company. Who says I can't do that?

There is, however, the fact that very few places have those jobs available for you to step into.  You have every right to resign your position whenever you want, but what if there's no one else hiring for your qualifications?  You get skipped over as 'overqualified', and you sit on your butt arguing with unemployment because you left your job voluntarily - despite the fact that your employer made your working conditions bad enough for you to want to quit.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Oniya on February 21, 2011, 07:04:29 PM
There is, however, the fact that very few places have those jobs available for you to step into.  You have every right to resign your position whenever you want, but what if there's no one else hiring for your qualifications?  You get skipped over as 'overqualified', and you sit on your butt arguing with unemployment because you left your job voluntarily - despite the fact that your employer made your working conditions bad enough for you to want to quit.

Well, this is all rather hypothetical from my perspective. I wouldn't personally quite a job unless I had something firm to go to. Not just firm but actually offered a position elsewhere before I put in any kind of resignation. I can only presume this would be a responsible course of action as I have not only my own welfare to think of, but an obligation to my son, i.e. court ordered child support. I've worked in difficult job environments before, largely personality clashes, but nothing so awful I was left no choice but to quit on the spot.

I've worked fast food, temp jobs, assembly jobs, did a tour in the US Navy, and since worked in the tech field. The last twelve years spent as a database programmer at a law firm. I have no degree, only a GED, and no industry certifications but have somehow managed to remain employed since I was 18.

Perhaps I'm just 'fortunate'. Not everyone is so fortunate I guess. I don't say that with a snarky tone. I'm sure it is true.

Oniya

It's a sobering wake-up call, in all honesty.  It used to be that there were certain places that were always hiring (possibly due to high turnover from crappy working conditions, but whatever).  Now you have people with college and post-graduate degrees sometimes, tripping over themselves to put in an application at the local gas station and McD's - and the people that have those jobs are putting up with anything their employers dish out, just so that they can keep the job and feed their families.

In that kind of job market, there is no 'job mobility'.  You cling to what you have with your very fingernails.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vekseid

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on February 21, 2011, 06:24:45 PM
Is there an example of these sort of abuses of private sector workers in the Digital Age? I appreciate the fact that the trials and tribulations of worker rights activists in the 20th Century deserve credit for the improved workplace environments we enjoy today, I only suggest that the danger of such activities arising again, with all the manners of communication we have, is unlikely.

Migrant workers and private prison labor, in the United States, are the most egregious examples. Only the latter is technically legal, but in many cases the former amounts, effectively, to slavery.

Quote
I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'negative externalities'. Can you give me an example?

A negative externality is a cost imposed on a party who did not agree to have that cost imposed on them. Pollution and spam are probably the two most common examples you are familiar with. For pollution, the quality of life of those who experience it is directly impacted (inhaling toxins), or indirectly affected (e.g. all of the Gulf Coast fisheries that had their summer ruined by the spill). Most of the cost of spam is paid for by the recipient, for example. Elliquiy is also subject to thousands of hacking attempts per day. I have to pay for the bandwidth used in those attacks, that is an externality I have to pay because some script kiddie wants to build their botnet.

Calculating the cost of externalities can be very complex. For example, global warming is not a major concern due to sea level rise directly. Rather, seaside aquifers become brackish or saline, forests can't 'move' fast enough for the rate of change in weather, fish don't all migrate fast enough, plankton don't either and we are experiencing a mass dieoff, and so on. The cost of salt poisoning aquifers alone is already enormous.

Quote
Employment mobility? Can you be more specific? There is no one stopping me from resigning my position tomorrow and taking up a job with another company. Who says I can't do that?

1) Not everyone in this country lives in a major metropolitan area where jobs are relatively plentiful.
2) Health insurance is tied to employment, which is the major factor discouraging entrepreneurship in the United States. Two years ago I lost two thousand dollars worth of contracts for want of affording a $300 hospital visit.
3) I'm guessing you've never signed a non-compete agreement, or been forced to.
4) Tying benefits directly to seniority rather than merit. This is, partly, a union problem, but also relevant to many companies.
5) And of course the job market as it is now - being stuck in a situation where there is no other job available.

Quote
Are you saying if my employer chose not to pay me for the past two weeks of work, I would have no viable, legal recourse? Are you saying they only pay me at their leisure and whim?

In some parts of the country, cases are being delayed by up to three years because of Republicans obstructing judicial appointments.

So for certain definitions of viable, depending on how long you can do without your last paycheck, and whether whoever owes you actually has anything to give you.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Vekseid on February 21, 2011, 09:07:42 PM
Migrant workers and private prison labor, in the United States, are the most egregious examples. Only the latter is technically legal, but in many cases the former amounts, effectively, to slavery.

Migrant workers, as well as illegal immigrants I'll grant you. In either case these people should not be taken advantage of (well no one should) but they are especially vulnerable. This recently happened in our neighborhood, with Chipolte. There are a number of possible remedies, all of which move beyond the subject of this post I am sure. It wouldn't think it's rule however, rather the exception.

Quote
A negative externality is a cost imposed on a party who did not agree to have that cost imposed on them. Pollution and spam are probably the two most common examples you are familiar with. For pollution, the quality of life of those who experience it is directly impacted (inhaling toxins), or indirectly affected (e.g. all of the Gulf Coast fisheries that had their summer ruined by the spill). Most of the cost of spam is paid for by the recipient, for example. Elliquiy is also subject to thousands of hacking attempts per day. I have to pay for the bandwidth used in those attacks, that is an externality I have to pay because some script kiddie wants to build their botnet.

Calculating the cost of externalities can be very complex. For example, global warming is not a major concern due to sea level rise directly. Rather, seaside aquifers become brackish or saline, forests can't 'move' fast enough for the rate of change in weather, fish don't all migrate fast enough, plankton don't either and we are experiencing a mass dieoff, and so on. The cost of salt poisoning aquifers alone is already enormous.

What does spam, global warming and seaside aquifers have to do with what we are discussing? Which granted, has now moved beyond the subject of the post, but if we are talking about the relative quality and security of a union job versus a non-union job, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Are you referring to workplace safety? Granted, working as I do for a private non-union company I don't have at my disposal a third-party to oversee the means and manner of my work environment, no one, least of all my employer or management wishes to work in an environment any less than comfortable and safe.

Quote
1) Not everyone in this country lives in a major metropolitan area where jobs are relatively plentiful.
2) Health insurance is tied to employment, which is the major factor discouraging entrepreneurship in the United States. Two years ago I lost two thousand dollars worth of contracts for want of affording a $300 hospital visit.
3) I'm guessing you've never signed a non-compete agreement, or been forced to.
4) Tying benefits directly to seniority rather than merit. This is, partly, a union problem, but also relevant to many companies.
5) And of course the job market as it is now - being stuck in a situation where there is no other job available.

In some parts of the country, cases are being delayed by up to three years because of Republicans obstructing judicial appointments.

So for certain definitions of viable, depending on how long you can do without your last paycheck, and whether whoever owes you actually has anything to give you.

1. True, I can't argue with that but that has always been the case, and likely will remain so. Do you suggest there is a remedy to controlling the flow of populations and where people chose to live?
2. I'm all for the ability for people to be able to buy health insurance from any provider regardless of employment or state.
3. No I haven't. But then no one forces you to sign anything. You always have a choice. Granted your choices might be limited, but you do have a choice. A coerced contract would be tantamount to blackmail, no?
4. I've not seen institutionalized and sanctioned tenure/seniority benefits anywhere I've worked. When I think tenure I think teachers, and professorships. Unions.
5. Certainly true, but employment and economies rise and fall with times. This will pass. If only our leadership, the government would be willing to rip the proverbial band-aid off rather than inch, by inch.

Nothing you describe resembles my reality. That doesn't mean my reality is everyone else's certainly but I assure you I was most certainly not born with a silver spoon in my mouth nor afforded any special gifts or talents. Rather, at the age of 16 I was told to 'not come home' and spent the next few years going from foster home, to group home, to shelter, until I joined the Navy and pulled myself together. Now I make 67K a year with nothing more than a GED at back.

The point of this is, how is it I can do this, but so many others cannot? More to the point, without the 'benefit' of a union I've managed to make a reasonable enough living absent any 'right to work' or third party looking out for my interests?

Vekseid

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on February 21, 2011, 10:53:34 PM
Migrant workers, as well as illegal immigrants I'll grant you. In either case these people should not be taken advantage of (well no one should) but they are especially vulnerable. This recently happened in our neighborhood, with Chipolte. There are a number of possible remedies, all of which move beyond the subject of this post I am sure. It wouldn't think it's rule however, rather the exception.

A lot of clothing with 'made in the USA' is made using prison labor, as well as a lot of manufacturing in general. Our tax money effectively subsidizes these industries. People get strung up on drug or debt charges, or in the case of one judge out East, outright imposing unlawful sentences for kickbacks from the prison company.

Quote
What does spam, global warming and seaside aquifers have to do with what we are discussing? Which granted, has now moved beyond the subject of the post, but if we are talking about the relative quality and security of a union job versus a non-union job, I have no idea what you're referring to.

You asked for the definition of a negative externality and examples.

For an example related to employment, there are millions of examples - any workplace hazard that is not made clear to you when you sign up, or that you are effectively coerced into accepting. Sorry if that seemed like a tangent. More relevant examples - the eleven workers who died when the oil rig blew up in the Gulf, their families, and every business they were patronizing, because of company carelessness. Mine workers in general fought for union rights, in part, because of the hazards of their work.


Quote
Are you referring to workplace safety? Granted, working as I do for a private non-union company I don't have at my disposal a third-party to oversee the means and manner of my work environment, no one, least of all my employer or management wishes to work in an environment any less than comfortable and safe.

This entirely depends on where you work, and the value of you and what an accident would damage versus the value of whatever you are bringing in is and how replaceable you are. What do you do? Now compare that to crab fishermen, where they don't even have to worry about disposing of the body.

Note that does not necessarily mean crab fishermen are facing negative externalities. "My job is not to get you home safe, my job is to get you home rich." The lack of safety is inherent in their wage. This is not necessarily true when, for example, blacks face artificial barriers to obtaining transportation and living arrangements elsewhere, and thus have a comparatively limited number of options for employment.

Quote
1. True, I can't argue with that but that has always been the case, and likely will remain so. Do you suggest there is a remedy to controlling the flow of populations and where people chose to live?

Well no, it's much better now than it was when it was legal to refuse to sell black people a residential property in a neighborhood. Those laws might not be necessary any longer, but they were at one point.

There is also a need for a better mass transit infrastructure. This is slowly being corrected by market forces, but this sort of thing is a good example of when a government can smooth a transition.

Quote
2. I'm all for the ability for people to be able to buy health insurance from any provider regardless of employment or state.

That is not a solution. There is no reason for an insurance company who provides something that everyone benefits from to exist - that is, by definition, the role of government. It is actually looming national defense issue with the spectre of bioterrorism (and one of the reasons post offices are required to operate even when there is no seeming need for them).

An efficient market requires a large number of providers and a large number of consumers. Insurance companies are exempt from antitrust regulations, and operate as monopolies or otherwise engage in open price fixing and gauging. They are regardless in very limited number, and this makes the efficient market hypothesis not applicable. There is no market based solution.

Health care is also very much a public good - that is, the quality of one person's health impacts everyone they interact with.

Quote
3. No I haven't. But then no one forces you to sign anything. You always have a choice. Granted your choices might be limited, but you do have a choice. A coerced contract would be tantamount to blackmail, no?

The legal term is unconscionable provision.

It's important, when you consider this aspect, to take into account that not everyone is educated, literate, or thinks as critically as they should. Or that sometimes people are desperate. And when it comes time, they may not understand they have legal remedies, or may not be able to afford a civil procedure.

Quote
4. I've not seen institutionalized and sanctioned tenure/seniority benefits anywhere I've worked. When I think tenure I think teachers, and professorships. Unions.

Was where I worked, and it wasn't a unionized position. The seniority benefits union members got there were atrocious, though, but only part of the company was unionized.

Tenure is a separate concept from unions. It is supposed to make sure that an educator can express an opinion without fear of political retribution, whether from donors, officers of the University, or politicians. That probably needs to be re-thought on a more general level, but the freedom of academic expression is more important than the freedom of the press. At least in their subject matter, professors at least know what they are talking about.

Quote
5. Certainly true, but employment and economies rise and fall with times. This will pass. If only our leadership, the government would be willing to rip the proverbial band-aid off rather than inch, by inch.

We're in a liquidity crisis. That requires an influx of capital to the general populace, which shows no sign of occurring any time soon as the Democrats are too cowardly to try and the Republicans certainly won't. About the only thing that might happen to correct that is the meaningful rise of an alternative currency.

Quote
Nothing you describe resembles my reality. That doesn't mean my reality is everyone else's certainly but I assure you I was most certainly not born with a silver spoon in my mouth nor afforded any special gifts or talents. Rather, at the age of 16 I was told to 'not come home' and spent the next few years going from foster home, to group home, to shelter, until I joined the Navy and pulled myself together. Now I make 67K a year with nothing more than a GED at back.

You were given public shelter, took a public job, and take advantage of public mobility. These are things you benefit from.

QuoteThe point of this is, how is it I can do this, but so many others cannot? More to the point, without the 'benefit' of a union I've managed to make a reasonable enough living absent any 'right to work' or third party looking out for my interests?

Most of it is just gross ignorance, though your own personal health is a factor - you qualified for the Navy, after all, and gained from that experience.

One of my worst clients - actually I will flat out call them the worst - runs a payday loan company. Those companies, by any reasonable market expectation, should not exist. But they prey on the ignorant, the desperate, and the paranoid. Charging 12% fees to transfer money, %400 interest rates, and so on. The owner was staunchly conservative, of course, but wasn't interested in paying the debt he owes me. But he makes his living by driving others into debt and collecting from them.

So as for 'special benefit'
1) Were you ever denied a bank account after you got out of the Navy, without doing something silly?
2) Do you at least understand basic math enough to know what 25% monthly interest rates mean? You don't have to work out the compound.
3) Did you have the benefit of being raised in a household that did not tell you banks are evil and should not be dealt with under any circumstances, or at the very least, had the benefit of being wise enough not to believe them?

Life experience matters. Knowing where and how to find what you need matters. Critical thinking and a good general awareness of the world matters.

It's hard to put a value to that. It applies to a lot of fields - paying for the promotion and server work I've done for Elliquiy - rather than doing it myself - would cost a couple thousand dollars per month. Instead I make a bit each month, because people see my experience and hire me out of the blue for it.

I know it's hard to feel sympathy for people who refuse to learn. But I do not believe this means that they should not have the opportunity.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Vekseid on February 22, 2011, 10:25:40 AM
So as for 'special benefit'
1) Were you ever denied a bank account after you got out of the Navy, without doing something silly?
2) Do you at least understand basic math enough to know what 25% monthly interest rates mean? You don't have to work out the compound.
3) Did you have the benefit of being raised in a household that did not tell you banks are evil and should not be dealt with under any circumstances, or at the very least, had the benefit of being wise enough not to believe them?

I don't have the energy to reply in kind to everything you've said here, but I did read it and will consider it and my entrenched positions on long held beliefs. I appreciate the feedback.

I've never been denied a bank account. Though I have been turned down for a personal loan. And rightly so in retrospect, I had no business taking out a loan and only sought to remedy a financial issue that had more to do with my then poor financial habits than any true emergency.

I am in fact a bit leery of banks, but only in large part because I'm a bit of a control freak and paranoid when it comes to my finances. Just prior to this financial mess I got out of debt, completely. No credit card debt, no car loan, no mortgage, no nothing. I intend to keep it that way.

Have I benefited in my past and today from public services? Yes, just like everyone does. But I've never had the benefit of a union led advocate, and have managed just fine. Again, my experience isn't the same as everyone else's but I can't imagine my circumstances are so very different from a large number of people. As far as the Navy goes, that was a contracted service. The Navy chose to feed, shelter and provide me with a fair wage, and in return I agreed to work for them. After my contract enlistment expired, I could either re-sign or leave. I chose to leave. Same goes for unions I suppose, no one is forced to join a union, although they have large influences over certain fields.

Anyways, where I am sure we disagree is that unions are some sort of panacea to the woes that ail our country. I firmly believe competition and innovation are our way forward, both of which in my opinion, unions stifle by design and function.

Vekseid

Where have I said unions are a panacea?

What unions solve is where and when the employment market becomes non-perfect.

That is, when there are a limited number of employers, or a monopoly on employment in a given mobility region, wages get driven down to sustenance levels - effectively slavery.

The converse is also a major problem. When there are a lot of people seeking a service, but the only providers are through a guild which owns an effective monopoly for providing that employment, costs soar. To the point where it can threaten entire economies - like health care in the US.

Unions are a valid solution to a real problem which does, occasionally, occur. You don't necessarily even need extreme examples - workers banding together to say "You either fix this condition in our employment or we all quit." - for example. The working body has equal leverage with the employer - in theory - because they have the talent. Or at the very least, the disruption they can cause would at least be weighed against the cost of behaving.