It’ll get cold soon and then they will go home
My favorite part:
Bruso said he was there because he wants to get rid of lobbying in government.
?Our government is being bought by corporations,? said Bruso, a Service Employees International Union member, who came to the march of his own accord.
A union member, SEIU at that, blaming corporations for lobbying.
Was there any news coverage of people moving their money yesterday from banks to credit unions? I wanted to know if so few people did anything it was not even worth mentioning, OR no news outlet covered it because they might be sponsored by banks who wanted no coverage of it.
Well, they got the whole effigy thing going on.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Fareed Zakaria isn’t a voice I have much confidence in on this issue (or many others, for that matter), but a few basic ideas:
-
He is trying to project a motive on the OWS crowd - he wants to attribute their anger to something he has an interest in, not necessarily what the OWS crowd says they are about. All good indicators show the OWS isn’t upset about a lack of social mobility - they’re mad because they think a pie exists, and someone isn’t sharing. I haven’t seen any notion that OWSers want the ability to “move up” - quite the opposite, they want the richest “1%” to move down.
-
His use of statistics to show that Americans “can’t” move up is, frankly, bizarre, because it has to assume that everyone in the lower percentage strata is trying but failing to move up. That certainly isn’t the case. Nor does it account for people who are “trying” but have made choices that prevent them from doing so.
Illustration: assume a college attendee goes to school for a degree in art history and wants to become a museum curator, a highly specialized narrow employment opportunity. He can’t find a job, not suprisingly. He’s (1) college-educated, (2) trying to “move up” with a job as an art museum curator, but (3) can’t, so he slings coffee down at Starbucks. Is he a casualty of the loss of social mobility? Of course not, and had he majored in, say, mechanical engineering, he wouldn’t be having this problem.
Does the statistics account for this? Not sure, but it doesn’t sound like it.
- Zakaria ends his complaint by syaing the problem is the declining quality of education. To a certain extent, I agree. But he complains that California - as an example of this problem - pays more for prisons than it does for education, i.e., our lack of social mobility can be attributed to a lack of funding in education.
This is utter nonsense. Education doesn’t suffer from a lack of money, certainly not in California. It suffers from a lack of good teachers, smarter administration, and a philosophical commitment to real education that challenges kids to learn rather than placate, babysit, and improve self-esteem.
As a slight aside, I’ve noticed a weird phenomenon lately - we live in the richest country known to human history. We have in our hands the kinds of technology that was science fiction not 20 years ago. We don’t lack food - we suffer from an obesity epidemic. We are awash in more consumer goods (and choices for consumer goods) that is beyind explanation.
Yet, for some reason, everything - and I mean everything - is apparently “underfunded”. Everything. Infrastructure. Education. Research and development. Pothole filling. Everything.
It’s amazing. It’s inexplicable.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Was there any news coverage of people moving their money yesterday from banks to credit unions? I wanted to know if so few people did anything it was not even worth mentioning, OR no news outlet covered it because they might be sponsored by banks who wanted no coverage of it.[/quote]
Amounted to 1/2 of 1% of the big banks’ customers bailed. BOA continues to laugh.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Fareed Zakaria isn’t a voice I have much confidence in on this issue (or many others, for that matter), but a few basic ideas:
- He is trying to project a motive on the OWS crowd - he wants to attribute their anger to something he has an interest in, not necessarily what the OWS crowd says they are about. All good indicators show the OWS isn’t upset about a lack of social mobility - they’re mad because they think a pie exists, and someone isn’t sharing. I haven’t seen any notion that OWSers want the ability to “move up” - quite the opposite, they want the richest “1%” to move down. [/quote]
To an extent, I can agree with the “projection” aspect as well. Especially given what “not-Sachs” (I forget his name) said in the video above.
I’m not so sure about the “moving down” part however. As I’ve said earlier, the primary complaint I hear (from the non-theatrical and/or crazy-hippy) is the loss of the middle class and what the call the “American Dream.” That and a feeling that they are “being screwed” by the one-percent.
[quote] 2. His use of statistics to show that Americans “can’t” move up is, frankly, bizarre, because it has to assume that everyone in the lower percentage strata is trying but failing to move up. That certainly isn’t the case. Nor does it account for people who are “trying” but have made choices that prevent them from doing so.
Illustration: assume a college attendee goes to school for a degree in art history and wants to become a museum curator, a highly specialized narrow employment opportunity. He can’t find a job, not suprisingly. He’s (1) college-educated, (2) trying to “move up” with a job as an art museum curator, but (3) can’t, so he slings coffee down at Starbucks. Is he a casualty of the loss of social mobility? Of course not, and had he majored in, say, mechanical engineering, he wouldn’t be having this problem.
Does the statistics account for this? Not sure, but it doesn’t sound like it.[/quote]
His primary statistics seem to be coming from an article I haven’t read, perhaps it’s time to look it up.
That said, I think the loss of the middle class is a major part of this “feel” as it were. Many argue that this is the first generation in many that won’t do as well or better than their parents. As an American, that is challenging to hear. I guess, in a sense, this doesn’t necessarily relate to the social mobility you are talking about, but I do think it is a part of things.
[quote]3. Zakaria ends his complaint by syaing the problem is the declining quality of education. To a certain extent, I agree. But he complains that California - as an example of this problem - pays more for prisons than it does for education, i.e., our lack of social mobility can be attributed to a lack of funding in education.
This is utter nonsense. Education doesn’t suffer from a lack of money, certainly not in California. It suffers from a lack of good teachers, smarter administration, and a philosophical commitment to real education that challenges kids to learn rather than placate, babysit, and improve self-esteem.[/quote]
First, I think he is pointing out societal priorities. What do we (as a society) do with the bottom quintile? Obviously we are putting a large number of them in prison. Given the difficulties with finding a job after spending time in prison, this has an even greater impact.
Secondly, I agree with you in large part in regards to education. There are a lot of reasons why education has been doing so poorly in the last few decades. While I do think funding is an aspect of it, I think there are many other more pressing problems. I think we both agree in the need to improve the quality of education.
[quote] As a slight aside, I’ve noticed a weird phenomenon lately - we live in the richest country known to human history. We have in our hands the kinds of technology that was science fiction not 20 years ago. We don’t lack food - we suffer from an obesity epidemic. We are awash in more consumer goods (and choices for consumer goods) that is beyind explanation.
Yet, for some reason, everything - and I mean everything - is apparently “underfunded”. Everything. Infrastructure. Education. Research and development. Pothole filling. Everything.
It’s amazing. It’s inexplicable.[/quote]
Well, of course this is true. And of course the largest difference is with societal expectations.
As an aside, thanks for the comment. It’s interesting reading your thoughts.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not so sure about the “moving down” part however. As I’ve said earlier, the primary complaint I hear (from the non-theatrical and/or crazy-hippy) is the loss of the middle class and what the call the “American Dream.” That and a feeling that they are “being screwed” by the one-percent. [/quote]
But the remedies being suggested/hinted at by the OWS aren’t about opening up the equality of opportunity…they are wanting policy to achieve equality of result. These are at odds, and are very different.
Absolutely correct, and it is driven by this generation’s (and the last several) desire to vote themselves goodies and force the next generation to pay for it. That is the primary reason the next generation will find themselves poorer and worse off than their parents.
And I agree, it is a prt of things - I’d even say the biggest part of things.
As an American, that is challenging to hear. I guess, in a sense, this doesn’t necessarily relate to the social mobility you are talking about, but I do think it is a part of things.
Your statement - and Zakaria’s - implies that we arbitrarily lock up the “lowest quintile” as a “societal priority”. It also implies taht criminals are the victims under our “societal priorities”.
This is nonsense. Do they break the law? We aren’t criminally punishing the poor. Our societal priority is to punish criminals who violate the law. People make bad choices, and they have to face the consequences of those bad choices. That’s an indispensable corollary to the “American Dream” for anyone truly interested in preserving that ideal.
Funding for education has exploded over the past fifty years, and government subsidization all but guarantees access to college. The money is there. The quality is not.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not so sure about the “moving down” part however. As I’ve said earlier, the primary complaint I hear (from the non-theatrical and/or crazy-hippy) is the loss of the middle class and what the call the “American Dream.” That and a feeling that they are “being screwed” by the one-percent. [/quote]
But the remedies being suggested/hinted at by the OWS aren’t about opening up the equality of opportunity…they are wanting policy to achieve equality of result. These are at odds, and are very different.[/quote]
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Most are asking for the capacity to work “middle class” jobs that allow them to support their families.
Absolutely correct, and it is driven by this generation’s (and the last several) desire to vote themselves goodies and force the next generation to pay for it. That is the primary reason the next generation will find themselves poorer and worse off than their parents.
And I agree, it is a prt of things - I’d even say the biggest part of things.[/quote]
Well we seem to agree on the problem, if not the exact cause of the problems. Demographics drastically changed. A cold war was won. A war on Terror began. Globalization occurred (is occurring). I do think there was a large feeling of “WE WON!” that occurred in the 90s. And I do agree that “voting themselves goodies” played a role. But the debt and deficit were created by real problems in addition to simple greed.
[quote]
Your statement - and Zakaria’s - implies that we arbitrarily lock up the “lowest quintile” as a “societal priority”. It also implies taht criminals are the victims under our “societal priorities”.
This is nonsense. Do they break the law? We aren’t criminally punishing the poor. Our societal priority is to punish criminals who violate the law. People make bad choices, and they have to face the consequences of those bad choices. That’s an indispensable corollary to the “American Dream” for anyone truly interested in preserving that ideal.[/quote]
What is criminal? What do we do with citizens who break the law? Where is the line drawn? These are societal priorities.
In the US, we’ve been sending many, many more people to jail in these last few generations. I don’t believe it is arbitrary, but I also think that this was a societal decision, and one that was perhaps wrong or–at least–one that should be reexamined. Is it good for society that 1% of us are incarcerated? Your statements imply that you believe it is. I am not so sure.
Funding for education has exploded over the past fifty years, and government subsidization all but guarantees access to college. The money is there. The quality is not.[/quote]
The standards have also drastically changed. As an illustration: What do we do with little Billy who has a mental disorder? What would we do with him 50 years ago? Obviously these different standards will create an explosion in funding.
Now before I get too far off course, I agree with you in large part. If you think funding issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the problems in education, we’ll have to disagree. I think they did play a role, although there are far more important matters that should be addressed first.
Wow, that graph came out poorly.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Wow, that graph came out poorly. [/quote]
Scrolled by it fast and thought it said Incinerated Americans
Forget Wall Street: Occupy Hollywood
Some potential jobs, but others would have us cripple ourselves.
Sloth, what happened exactly? Protesters were locked arm in arm and the woman was pushed or fell? Why were they locked arm in arm? Why were people pushing against them? And how did an old lady get in the middle of that? I’m really confused. I tried a quick google news search, but only saw something about an accident on Friday night.
Did she a “balloon person dropped her arm there was a space and I went flying through it”?
http://dailyfreepress.com/2011/10/26/occupy-boston-asks-for-funds-to-restore-greenway/
Occupy Boston seeking donations to fix their mess, sort of like a bailout
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Most are asking for the capacity to work “middle class” jobs that allow them to support their families. [/quote]
Are they? And are they doing so without making an appeal that the “richest 1%” should subsidize that lifestyle trhough transfer of wealth? Ok, show me.
Ok, then what do you think caused the problems?
Sure, all criminal laws are. But you haven’t said - which of these societal priorities are askew and therefore are improperly contributing to this group of people being unfairly incarcerated? Unfortunately, generalities won’t do, because the opportunity cost is less public safety in the name of whatever you (and Zakaria) think needs to be decriminalized.
So, what do you propose, if this is a problem?
Ok, the explain why, and explain which category of criminals should not be part of the prison population.
It hasn’t. You’re welcome to explain otherwise, but in light of the explosion in funding for education at the same time of the decline in education, the burden is on you to explain why more spending would course-correct this problem.
The lady from Occupy DC was trying to leave out the front door of an event.