Psypoke
http://forums.psypokes.com/forums/

Occupy Wall Street
http://forums.psypokes.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28773		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  DragonPhoenix [ Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:07 am ]
Post subject:  Occupy Wall Street
Quote:
This dumbass Occupy protest is the most idiotic thing I have ever come across. How about you lazy good for nothing **** get a job and contribute to society, instead of standing outside Starbucks holding up signs for more money from Centrelink because of your poor lifestyle choices (which, incidentally, is not that hard to give up) which means you can’t afford weed anymore.

I just think it’s so damn ignorant that people – wait – non educated people can spout things about wealth disparity, when they don’t understand economics, or business, or anything related to corporations and how things work. CEOs and the so called “fat cats” are entitled to whatever they pay themselves – the stresses and experiences that they have leading billion dollar corporations should be backed up by what they earn. At a level where every decision has to be perfect and there is no room for error, there should be a factor that motivates them to continue to promote integrity and honesty at a leadership level. Besides, it’s not like they aren’t contributing to the 99%, hell, most of them are funding your university loans, your public health cover, so just chill okay.

Furthermore, how do these 1% affect these protesters, exactly? Just because they are better off financially, because they work hard, because they create jobs, because they are trying to keep the natural order of business and trading going despite the tough financial situation(s), what do these protestors want exactly? I know there are some situations like the Qantas situation where the CEO has decided to up his paycheck whilst at the same time offshoring jobs, which I think is a bit rat but in reality the business model implies that you have to do what is best for your shareholders (in other words… the exec’s bosses).

I’d also like to know, what laws imposed exactly, make it so hard for the remaining 99% to function.. because I think what all this really is is a bunch of people getting together because they are sexually frustrated. (ok that might be a bit uncalled for but I actually don’t know much about this point..)

I’m more than happy to discuss this with whoever but if you do something like nitpick every point I’ve made then I will assume you are an idiot and will not respond, because it is a terrible way to conduct conversations.

PS: I do think that people have a right to protest.. I just don’t agree with what they’re protesting about. Maybe it’s because I’m middle class earning under minimum age for a 40 hour week, just so I can have some sort of career and am I bit resentful that people don’t work as hard as I do.


I made this post somewhere else, and although if I was writing my stance right now, I wouldn't word it like I have, now that I am a bit more educated about the topic. However I still think this is an adequate place to start some discussion.

My contention hasn't changed however, I still think this protest isn't warranted.

Also: this was written from an Australian perspective, where businesses aren't big enough to have (much) impact/s on gov't.
Author:  Jigglypuff [ Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
Quote:
This dumbass Occupy protest is the most idiotic thing I have ever come across. How about you lazy good for nothing **** get a job and contribute to society, instead of standing outside Starbucks holding up signs for more money from Centrelink because of your poor lifestyle choices (which, incidentally, is not that hard to give up) which means you can’t afford weed anymore.

Many of the protesters are employed; many work by day and protest at night, or vice-versa. And those that aren't aren't asking for money, handouts, or anything material to be given to them. They're asking for the opportunity to work for a living, because they've been denied it.

Quote:
I just think it’s so damn ignorant that people – wait – non educated people can spout things about wealth disparity, when they don’t understand economics, or business, or anything related to corporations and how things work. CEOs and the so called “fat cats” are entitled to whatever they pay themselves – the stresses and experiences that they have leading billion dollar corporations should be backed up by what they earn. At a level where every decision has to be perfect and there is no room for error, there should be a factor that motivates them to continue to promote integrity and honesty at a leadership level. Besides, it’s not like they aren’t contributing to the 99%, hell, most of them are funding your university loans, your public health cover, so just chill okay.

Again, the majority of the protesters are either college graduates who've found themselves emerging into a world that has no jobs for them to take with their education, or they're people who have worked all their lives and lost their jobs, largely thanks to corporate mismanagement, and now find themselves with nothing and no opportunity to work even the simplest of jobs.

The issue isn't about CEO salary either. It's an issue over where that money comes from; often from laying off employees, cutting wages, and other "cost cutting methods" that serve no purpose other than to pad their own salaries. They're literally getting richer by taking from those who have less already.

To specifically address your point of "there should be a factor that motives them to continue to promote integrity and honesty at a leadership level," that's exactly what these protests are about. There IS no integrity and honesty at a leadership level. These executives have wasted billions of corporate dollars and then salvaged the bottom line by recouping their losses through undercutting the working class.

They don't fund loans - they're loans. The money I took out for my education, I'm responsible for. No CEO is going to pay that off; I do. Also, this is America; there is no public health coverage. Well, save for Medicare/Medicaid programs, and those are paid by tax withholdings that the working class all pay into, but that the highest of the upper class avoid through earning their living without a "salary" that runs through the tax system. And, at that, Medicare/Medicaid are terribly difficult to qualify for, because there's just not enough money to go around. The pathetic amount of "aid" you get when you do qualify does nothing to make up for living so far below the poverty level.

Quote:
Furthermore, how do these 1% affect these protesters, exactly? Just because they are better off financially, because they work hard, because they create jobs, because they are trying to keep the natural order of business and trading going despite the tough financial situation(s), what do these protestors want exactly? I know there are some situations like the Qantas situation where the CEO has decided to up his paycheck whilst at the same time offshoring jobs, which I think is a bit rat but in reality the business model implies that you have to do what is best for your shareholders (in other words… the exec’s bosses).

As previously mentioned, the greatest affect is that they are quite literally profiting at the expense of, and often directly by taking from, the rest of the population. They AREN'T creating jobs, and they aren't working hard at anything other than increasing the divide between their paychecks and those of their employees.

Quote:
I’d also like to know, what laws imposed exactly, make it so hard for the remaining 99% to function.. because I think what all this really is is a bunch of people getting together because they are sexually frustrated. (ok that might be a bit uncalled for but I actually don’t know much about this point..)

It's not so much an issue of imposed laws as it is the fact that since these 1% hold a near-majority share of the wealth, they quite literally purchase sectors of government. They're given loopholes through with to avoid paying their fair share and contributing to society. The system is established such that those who already have everything have to pay for nothing and get more, while those who barely have anything have to pay for everything and receive less.

Quote:
I’m more than happy to discuss this with whoever but if you do something like nitpick every point I’ve made then I will assume you are an idiot and will not respond, because it is a terrible way to conduct conversations.

I'm going to assume this falls under the things you'd change about this post, or any sort of debate enters the realm of the impossible.

Quote:
PS: I do think that people have a right to protest.. I just don’t agree with what they’re protesting about. Maybe it’s because I’m middle class earning under minimum age for a 40 hour week, just so I can have some sort of career and am I bit resentful that people don’t work as hard as I do.

See, that's the thing. They only want to even be ABLE to be in your shoes. They've work towards it all their lives, and then had it all taken away from them. There are no careers, there are no jobs, and even being paid under minimum wage for 40 hours a week is more than many of these people can hope for. They're 10's of thousands of dollars in debt from pursuing an education and offered no jobs, no career, no life in exchange for it. Meanwhile, executives can play games with the money, lose it all, and are simply forgiven for their mistakes by the government.

Or, to put it another way, you're not only one of the 99%, but you're "one of the lucky ones" as they call themselves.

I think the best summary of the protests I saw was a sign that read "the middle class should be 'too big to fail'" but the problem is that it already has.
Author:  AmbiguousG [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
Jigglypuff wrote:
Quote:
This dumbass Occupy protest is the most idiotic thing I have ever come across. How about you lazy good for nothing **** get a job and contribute to society, instead of standing outside Starbucks holding up signs for more money from Centrelink because of your poor lifestyle choices (which, incidentally, is not that hard to give up) which means you can’t afford weed anymore.

Many of the protesters are employed; many work by day and protest at night, or vice-versa. And those that aren't aren't asking for money, handouts, or anything material to be given to them. They're asking for the opportunity to work for a living, because they've been denied it.



I'm not sure they're really being denied anything--I had to give up a 'career' in broadcasting (all I wanted to do was behind-the-scenes work for a modest income) just so I could get some health insurance. Where did I get mine? I gave up my pride and went to the factories.

Don't tell me these people have no options. They just haven't looked hard enough.
Author:  DragonPhoenix [ Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
thanks for replying, part of why I posted this was because I wanted to educate myself a bit more about this on a global scale, and on researching I've only been finding really biased opinions and views either for or against, in which stats and figures seem a bit... convenient... and wrong.

"They're asking for the opportunity to work for a living, because they've been denied it."

If that's the issue, then I think that people will either agree or disagree, based on their chosen careers. As an architecture student, I have known people to work for free just to be able to get their CVs and references up to scratch, take extra classes for learning computer programs.. etc.. so I can't personally be sympathetic towards this. AmbiguousG also makes a good point on this -- if you want work, and by this I mean work, not your dream career, it isn't hard to find if you look hard enough.

I can't counter any of your points, because whilst they can be true in some cases, they're not true in other cases - CEOs reward themselves highly to foster competition to avoid international "poachings" -- I did a commerce subject once and there was a case study (I can't remember if it was real or not, it was probably scenario based otherwise I would've remembered) whereby a salary cap was imposed on execs - this led to decreased competition, leading/best CEOs accepting job offers in other countries, up and coming CEOs using their positions as something to stick on the resume before jumping ship so looking at short term goals rather than LT, unfavourable trading conditions occuring within that country.. and so forth). This is most likely theoretical but I do think CEOs and execs deserve everything they are paid - first and foremost they have obligations to their shareholders (those who invest in & therefore own the business, and need to vote off and agree on all salary increases) to make a -profit-. The bigger the corporation the bigger the paycheck, because the (right) decisions that are made are a lot more crucial and a lot more risky

I can understand that there are corporations who lay out hundreds of employees in return for a higher paycheck, but you can't hire people if there's no actual work, I mean most layoffs aren't caused because CEOs sit around and think "hmmm my bonds don't pay off for another two years" -- rather a multitude of reasons -- such as departments becoming obsolete, international labour being a very viable option, technology superseding human skills, management needing to trim down rungs too avoid Chinese whispers.. etc...

Meanwhile, executives can play games with the money, lose it all, and are simply forgiven for their mistakes by the government.

Money is never lost -- whatever gets spent, someone else gets... but if you're refferring to something illegal or something else maybe an example?

I guess what it comes down to, is your personal stance and how you were brought up in life - I might be stereotyping here but it feels like those who were brought up given everything without being taught to think smart, are the ones more likely to support this. My personal opinion is: execs aren't obligated to providing jobs - if you don't like the way businesses are run then start your own. Too risky? Need to take out loans on top of your own? well acutally these are exactly the decisions and hurdles that execs make -- only on a multimillion dollar level.

Another person did tell me though, that the 99% debate has crossed over more towards a socialism vs capitalism thing, where people are protesting over the influence corporations have over govt laws and taxes and policies that are being passed - which I (still) don't agree with, but can understand more. I guess the only reason why I don't think this is much of an issue is because I haven't heard of a case where democratic govt' (australian, american or other) has blatantly passed laws which favour business over individuals - I mean sure the gov't probably does lean in favour to business but what has been compromised?

It's not so much an issue of imposed laws as it is the fact that since these 1% hold a near-majority share of the wealth, they quite literally purchase sectors of government. They're given loopholes through with to avoid paying their fair share and contributing to society. The system is established such that those who already have everything have to pay for nothing and get more, while those who barely have anything have to pay for everything and receive less.

I'm not sure I understand this.. what do you mean by purchasing sectors of government?
Author:  GofD [ Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
DragonPhoenix wrote:
"They're asking for the opportunity to work for a living, because they've been denied it."If that's the issue, then I think that people will either agree or disagree, based on their chosen careers. As an architecture student, I have known people to work for free just to be able to get their CVs and references up to scratch, take extra classes for learning computer programs.. etc.. so I can't personally be sympathetic towards this. AmbiguousG also makes a good point on this -- if you want work, and by this I mean work, not your dream career, it isn't hard to find if you look hard enough.


This is true. HOWEVER, if youve payed X thousand of dollars, gone for X amount of years in university, just so you get a GOOD paying job to support yourself, and end up having to work at Fast Food Chains and Box Stores, just so you can pay off your loan. (Of course we have to add in living expenses, medical, FOOD and all that, in which case your gonna end up squeezing by). Now you mean to tell me you wouldnt be the SLIGHTEST bit upset? Some of these are protesting just that. Theyve gone into university, to better themselves to get get a job to support themselves, ONLY to find out that they might end up working here. They do WANT to work, they just want to get a job that IS ABLE TO SUPPORT THEM. Not just have a job to "work".
Author:  Jigglypuff [ Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
DragonPhoenix wrote:
If that's the issue, then I think that people will either agree or disagree, based on their chosen careers. As an architecture student, I have known people to work for free just to be able to get their CVs and references up to scratch, take extra classes for learning computer programs.. etc.. so I can't personally be sympathetic towards this. AmbiguousG also makes a good point on this -- if you want work, and by this I mean work, not your dream career, it isn't hard to find if you look hard enough.

Getting a job is hit-and-miss though. Reports on the numbers vary widely, but "1 job for every 4 unemployed Americans" seems to be emerging as the "official" statistic. And with the number of people I know who've spent upwards of 12 months doing nothing but filling out job applications anywhere, even getting any job just isn't the easy.

It's always one of two things. For many, the places you studied and earned your degree for either aren't hiring at all, or you're unqualified with "only" a Bachelor's degree - a Master's is becoming the common requirement for entry-level work. Not to mention "minimum X months experience" already in the field even for an entry-level position; how are you supposed to get experience when even the entry-level requires it?

The opposite side of the spectrum is that be being a college graduate, you're overqualified to work most of the jobs available. Many of my friends were only able to get a job by lying and saying they never went to college because jobs in food service and retail won't take anyone who supposedly "is qualified for anything better that comes their way." Even though everyone knows that the odds of "anything better" turning up are slim-to-none.

And while you're stuck playing the job-hunt game for months at a time, the bills don't just stop.

DragonPhoenix wrote:
This is most likely theoretical but I do think CEOs and execs deserve everything they are paid - first and foremost they have obligations to their shareholders (those who invest in & therefore own the business, and need to vote off and agree on all salary increases) to make a -profit-. The bigger the corporation the bigger the paycheck, because the (right) decisions that are made are a lot more crucial and a lot more risky

That's where you and I fundamentally disagree. A CEO should not be paid hundreds, even thousands of times what the average worker in the company is paid. Their decisions aren't that important or that difficult. They certainly should be paid more, sure, but when the CEO is paid millions a year, doesn't pay taxes, and then is given "bonuses" of all these gifts, while the laboring workers in the company are paid minimum wage? That's fundamentally wrong.

DragonPhoenix wrote:
I can understand that there are corporations who lay out hundreds of employees in return for a higher paycheck, but you can't hire people if there's no actual work, I mean most layoffs aren't caused because CEOs sit around and think "hmmm my bonds don't pay off for another two years" -- rather a multitude of reasons -- such as departments becoming obsolete, international labour being a very viable option, technology superseding human skills, management needing to trim down rungs too avoid Chinese whispers.. etc...

If there's no actual work to be done, if there's no need for workers, and if we're cutting costs, then why not start with the CEOs? Why should they get paid more money as a reward for cutting other workers' wages?

DragonPhoenix wrote:
Money is never lost -- whatever gets spent, someone else gets... but if you're refferring to something illegal or something else maybe an example?

The bank bailouts. The "too big to fail" industries. The megacorporations. They lose millions, billions on the stock market, squandering money on personal perks, paybumps, and anything else the company doesn't need. And then when they wind up in the red, they cut costs - not their own costs, not the costs created by those who wasted all the money, but the average workers. They "downsize" to save some money. And then the government hands them a bailout. And doesn't charge them taxes on anything. And gives them a tax refund. Meanwhile, the average worker loses 30% of his/her paycheck to taxes - the same taxes the "bailed out" their CEO, the same taxes that were refunded to the CEO, who didn't pay any taxes him/herself. Again, fundamentally wrong.

DragonPhoenix wrote:
I guess what it comes down to, is your personal stance and how you were brought up in life - I might be stereotyping here but it feels like those who were brought up given everything without being taught to think smart, are the ones more likely to support this. My personal opinion is: execs aren't obligated to providing jobs - if you don't like the way businesses are run then start your own. Too risky? Need to take out loans on top of your own? well acutally these are exactly the decisions and hurdles that execs make -- only on a multimillion dollar level.

And again, we'll have to disagree completely. The 1% are the ones brought up given everything for nothing, not the 99%. And executives should be obligated to provide jobs - what is the point of any business if it does not provide fair employment to its community? We have laws about fair wages, and nondiscrimination, but it's acceptable to simply not hire people, and to lay off the ones who've helped build the company? Absolutely not.

DragonPhoenix wrote:
Another person did tell me though, that the 99% debate has crossed over more towards a socialism vs capitalism thing, where people are protesting over the influence corporations have over govt laws and taxes and policies that are being passed - which I (still) don't agree with, but can understand more. I guess the only reason why I don't think this is much of an issue is because I haven't heard of a case where democratic govt' (australian, american or other) has blatantly passed laws which favour business over individuals - I mean sure the gov't probably does lean in favour to business but what has been compromised?

It's not so much an issue of imposed laws as it is the fact that since these 1% hold a near-majority share of the wealth, they quite literally purchase sectors of government. They're given loopholes through with to avoid paying their fair share and contributing to society. The system is established such that those who already have everything have to pay for nothing and get more, while those who barely have anything have to pay for everything and receive less.

I'm not sure I understand this.. what do you mean by purchasing sectors of government?

You've answered your own question. The laws, the politicians, the entire system of government is in a state that ensures that the 1% who own 40% of the wealth can only get more of it. And, as you said, money has to come from somewhere. So if the 1% are only getting more, that means the 99% are only getting less. And that money is "well spent" getting the correct officials into offices of power, to ensure that nothing could upset the status quo, and that the money keeps flowing in the same direction.

I wouldn't say Occupy is capitalism vs socialism. I think that's a gross generalization, and a generally incorrect view on the matter. If I were to try to boil Occupy down to a single, simple concept, it would be this: Corporate Personhood should be abolished, and the corporations and rest of the 1% should be held accountable to the same laws, taxes, and "fair share" that the rest of the country is subject to.
Author:  DragonPhoenix [ Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
I guess someone is going to have to explain to me how student loans work, because in Australia you don't have to repay your student loans unless you start to earn a specific amount - kind of like an extra tax. Your loans are also capped, so you can't study forever and ever, but also there's no interest incurred on them. Universities make the bulk of their revenue on international students who cannot qualify for loans, hence Australia's widening cultural spectrum.

Quote:
This is true. HOWEVER, if youve payed X thousand of dollars, gone for X amount of years in university, just so you get a GOOD paying job to support yourself, and end up having to work at Fast Food Chains and Box Stores, just so you can pay off your loan. (Of course we have to add in living expenses, medical, FOOD and all that, in which case your gonna end up squeezing by). Now you mean to tell me you wouldnt be the SLIGHTEST bit upset? Some of these are protesting just that. Theyve gone into university, to better themselves to get get a job to support themselves, ONLY to find out that they might end up working here. They do WANT to work, they just want to get a job that IS ABLE TO SUPPORT THEM. Not just have a job to "work".


I'm going to do another bit of generalisation here: I personally think that people are discontent with their job options are the ones who didn’t try hard enough in college, the ones who spent all of school cruising by, the ones who went to college just because everyone else was, the ones who didn’t know what to major in so just chose something they’re flatly disinterested in, or ones that plain make bad decisions. I will admit it really got to me in high school, when people asked me out to somewhere, and I told them I had work, and they just didn’t understand that I can’t just not to go work and just call in sick all the time. Because when it comes down to it, in a job interview, if there’s more suitable candidates than yourself, why would anyone hire you? If Jack doesn’t know how to handle situations where people have exploded at him, but Sally has, then why would the firm hire Jack? What I’m getting at, is that people nowadays want to be accepted for mediocrity, want to be accepted just for forking out money to a brand name (or not even) school. And whilst this has nothing to do with CEOs or anything, this has much to do with the conduct of those just standing outside business trading areas just to prove a point.

One of my friends is majoring in French. A conversation we had awhile ago was: “What are you going to do for work?” “I don’t know.” “Why are you studying it then?” “Because I enjoy it. Stop judging me because I do what I enjoy.” It’s not really typical of me to be slinging personal stuff like that in a debate of sorts (mainly because I seem to get a barrage of “you don’t know the full story so shut your face” responses), but when I see signs and things saying “I spent 72K on a major in LGBT studies and now I can’t repay my loans,” I can’t really help but think “you know what you were probably warned about your job prospects you can’t just blame multicorporate America because you can’t get a job.”

“You’re just lucky that you study something you like and that there are good career prospects,” people might say to me, but I actually didn’t intend on studying or liking architecture. I made the decision because I knew that there would be good prospects for job security with the current housing boom/urban sprawl happening in Melbourne (and around the world for that matter).

I’m not saying that people who follow their dreams shouldn’t be entitled to finding their dream jobs, I just think that people should know that whatever your field, there are going to be adversaries, whether it be a GFC, or CEOs taking all your opportunities away, or whatever reason, and people have to recognise that not everything will be simply given to you, and these hurdles will be even tougher in some industries than others. A college degree does not mean you will get a job – people need to realise this when they decide not to turn up to classes, or other things. This is real world, this is real life, – I just can’t believe that most of these protestors haven’t realised no one gives a **** about them personally. This was the point I was trying to make when I said your stance on this issue is based on how you were raised up.

I just think that there are many more productive things a person can do when trying to increase their job prospects, rather than disrupting trading centres and making loaded slogans when most people do not understand basic business and trading concepts, and how LSOs are structured and managed.

Quote:
And again, we'll have to disagree completely. The 1% are the ones brought up given everything for nothing, not the 99%. And executives should be obligated to provide jobs - what is the point of any business if it does not provide fair employment to its community?


Hmm yes I’ve thought about it, and yes I will agree that execs should be obligated to provide jobs. However, the primary initial point of any business is to provide a service and in return have something of equal value exchanged – eg, local milkbars, private tutoring etc.. Employment opportunies are on the list – but if your milkbar is doing good business and there’s enough work for the right amount of people, you shouldn’t be obligated to provide more jobs, not even if your milkbar is making millions. There’s a formula of sorts I learnt in Microeconomics which gauges the viability of employing extra employees.. which I can’t remember at the moment.. but yeah. Probably a bad comparison but just trying to demonstrate my point.. anyway..

As for the 1% vs 99%.. see below

Quote:
That's where you and I fundamentally disagree. A CEO should not be paid hundreds, even thousands of times what the average worker in the company is paid. Their decisions aren't that important or that difficult. They certainly should be paid more, sure, but when the CEO is paid millions a year, doesn't pay taxes, and then is given "bonuses" of all these gifts, while the laboring workers in the company are paid minimum wage? That's fundamentally wrong.


I guess this is where we do disagree -- I think any work output performed by CEOs and the like can never be really known, and I've already laid out my reasoning in previous posts, and "their decisions aren't that important or that difficult" is really contentious, but this is the first time someone has tried to argue that CEOs don't pay taxes -- care to elaborate? Over here anyone who earns over a certain amount per year has their financial records scrutinised very carefully (this one I know for a fact - one of my friends works for the Australian Taxation Office) -- and in addition to this, the tax payable percentage is a lot higher than compared to median wage workers. If this protest had been about the rich not paying their taxes then sure, I don't think anyone would object to that, but if that were in case what this protest had been about I find it hard to believe that no one has mentioned this in any propaganda I've encountered thus far.

This is steering clear off the tangent a little, and I don't mean to be a white knight or anything but as it seems like our arguments stand mainly on how much/little CEOs do, I'll just add these points in brief:
1. Most LSOs are politically based, and with good reason - the ones with good business skills get to the top. Lousy paychecks do not foster improvement of personal skills and promotions and cause a very unproductive business environment.
2. Charisma, leadership, communication, decision making skills etc.. are skills that not everyone possess -- statements like "anyone can make those decisions" are extremely wrong.
3. Many LSOs have economies of scale which mean there are almost countless rungs of succession. That's why almost no CEOs are under 50 - it takes patience and a lot of “being there at the right time,” as well as proven experience and knowing how to make good relationships with other businesses.
4. CEOs and execs also have to inspire their directly beneaths, and are responsible for their subordinates’ perfomances.
5. CEOs and exec's lives are now intertwined with their firm and hence their personal privacy is scrutinised. (Public branding and reputations at risk even in unrelated work incidents).

I can appreciate these more because I work in a small office where I communicate with my boss personally where he explains to me how the economy works -- the building industry has taken a batterring during this economic downturn. We're continually lowering our tender offers and still not getting any jobs. I know damn well that my job is at risk, but if the decision is made I’m not going to harp on about it claim inequality, because I know the extent of the decisions that need to be made. I can only imagine what pressures and decisions that are needed to be made on an LSO level, but I did used to “work” (unpaid) at IBM so I know a little about the organisational structure and can appreciate corporate life (and because my best friend works at a large accounting firm).

Quote:
The bank bailouts. The "too big to fail" industries. The megacorporations. They lose millions, billions on the stock market, squandering money on personal perks, paybumps, and anything else the company doesn't need. And then when they wind up in the red, they cut costs - not their own costs, not the costs created by those who wasted all the money, but the average workers. They "downsize" to save some money. And then the government hands them a bailout. And doesn't charge them taxes on anything. And gives them a tax refund. Meanwhile, the average worker loses 30% of his/her paycheck to taxes - the same taxes the "bailed out" their CEO, the same taxes that were refunded to the CEO, who didn't pay any taxes him/herself. Again, fundamentally wrong.


This whole paragraph I think is a stereotypical scenario -- many companies are required by law to undertake audits which highlight exactly which areas are losing money, and those who made those decisions are very replaceable by those currently below them looking for promotion/s. And as I have stated in previous posts, those who post a loss AND decide to increase their paycheck by slashing jobs do have a board/shareholders to answer too. I can recognise that this scenario could probably happen but I do think there a million other factors and that it's not as simple as cutting jobs so CEOs can enjoy more Martninis on Friday nights, but rather a large range of factors. In any case… I wasn’t really referring to money being lost that way, I was referring to any expenses made by a business, whether good or bad for it, will result in revenue for another, which is good thing because one of the major contributing factors of and economic downturn being businesses not spending any money.

Quote:
If I were to try to boil Occupy down to a single, simple concept, it would be this: Corporate Personhood should be abolished, and the corporations and rest of the 1% should be held accountable to the same laws, taxes, and "fair share" that the rest of the country is subject to.


This is nice and all on paper, but as noted about I'm surprised that CEOs/LSOs don't pay taxes, which of course are on top of taxes like tariffs and such. Of course, if this is the contention of the protests, I could have a little more sympathy but some evidence from sources would be good, because speculative statements on whether or not legal financial requirements occur don't really cut it.

PS: Can you please extend the idle login time I lost my old post :cry:
Author:  GofD [ Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
DragonPhoenix wrote:
I guess someone is going to have to explain to me how student loans work, because in Australia you don't have to repay your student loans unless you start to earn a specific amount - kind of like an extra tax. Your loans are also capped, so you can't study forever and ever, but also there's no interest incurred on them. Universities make the bulk of their revenue on international students who cannot qualify for loans, hence Australia's widening cultural spectrum.


You my friend are DANG lucky. I currently have a student loan for 10K (canadian) (roughly). Once my course is done, interest begins to accumulate on it, however I do not HAVE to start repaying it back for 6 months (this is a GOVERMENT loan). Once its been 6 months, they want their money. It does not matter if I have a job or not, OR if I have a Job, how much I am making. They want there money, and their gonna get it. Now Im rather fortunate, since this is a Goverment loan. If this was a student loan from a bank, as SOON as a I graduate, the bank would be sending me letters to get there money back. No grace period, no waiting till your making X-amount of dollars. Once you graduate its "You start paying, and you start paying NOW"


DragonPhoenix wrote:
I'm going to do another bit of generalisation here: I personally think that people are discontent with their job options are the ones who didn’t try hard enough in college, the ones who spent all of school cruising by, the ones who went to college just because everyone else was, the ones who didn’t know what to major in so just chose something they’re flatly disinterested in, or ones that plain make bad decisions. I will admit it really got to me in high school, when people asked me out to somewhere, and I told them I had work, and they just didn’t understand that I can’t just not to go work and just call in sick all the time. Because when it comes down to it, in a job interview, if there’s more suitable candidates than yourself, why would anyone hire you? If Jack doesn’t know how to handle situations where people have exploded at him, but Sally has, then why would the firm hire Jack? What I’m getting at, is that people nowadays want to be accepted for mediocrity, want to be accepted just for forking out money to a brand name (or not even) school. And whilst this has nothing to do with CEOs or anything, this has much to do with the conduct of those just standing outside business trading areas just to prove a point.


This I sorta have to agree with. If you blow off your studies, or blow off your responsiblites at work, your gonna have a tough time finding work. It wont matter if you protest, because its YOUR OWN DANG FAULT. Now I have much for sympathy for those who went to university, worked there butts off to get good grades, and when they get out... Nothing. They cant find a job, even after puttinng out dozens of resumes, hitting the pavement for hours at a time and come up empty. THESE are the people who have the most to protest about.

Now im not one to talk since Im 20 and dont have a job. Now some of this IS PARTICALLY MY FAULT. Ill admit, I maybe should have gotten a summer job back in HS. Unfourently knowing now is a little too late. I should have my drivers license, but I dont (Some of it was laziness, some of it was me being WAY to nervous). Now that said, its not all my fault. I live in a small RURAL area. A lot of the jobs on job bank is for "medically" related feild of studies and a lot about gettin the Jobs is "who ya know". So if you know NO ONE, in the area, you are up $%^&* creek without a paddle. This is because there more likely to hire someon THEY KNOW, even if you have the requirements.
Author:  Jigglypuff [ Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
In lieu of quotes all over the place again, let's just run down the list.

Student loans - it varies a bit, but the ~7% interest rate seems to be pretty common. Mine are 6.8%, in the amount of $30,000. My parents were also kind enough to take out another $60,000 in loans themselves in their names. All of this because we were told that we made "too much money" to qualify for any sort of financial aid besides the grant I was given upon enrollment due to my grades/test scores, etc. Obviously, none of that money was taken out in loans without reason - we simply didn't have $90,000 laying around to spend on a piece of paper.

As for repayment, it's a pretty simple system. The day you take out the loan (which is usually the first day of your fall semester, you take the whole loan at once), it begins earning interest. Once you graduate, you get 6 months to find your feet. Then the bills arrive. I'm one of the luckiest, not only because my parents were able to float so much of the loans for me (though once I pay mine off, the ones they still have will become my debt as well), but because I was able to pay off $2500 of the interest that had accrued in the 6 month grace period. The remaining $1200 of interest was added to the capital, and now earns more interest. I will be paying $300 each month for the next 10 years to pay them off, unless I choose to pay more. Thankfully, I'm in a position where I can afford to do so. Most of my friends are not so lucky. They're in more debt and barely making minimum payments on their loans.

Next up, majoring in employment. While I agree there are certainly pros and cons to choosing a major, I don't think that colleges should only be churning out degrees in the handful of fields that are currently hiring. College isn't about turning every 20-year-old into a doctor. The point of it is to pursue your passions and, in doing so, be equipped to make a career out of them. Does that mean that a college degree should automatically equal the dream job in your chosen field? Certainly not. But, when the system says "you go to college because that's how you get a good job" then there ought to be jobs available, good or otherwise. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, for too many people, a Bachelor's degree means you're overqualified to work retail and fast food, but underqualified for anything beyond an unpaid internship (and even then, some internships require a Bachelor's AND existing experience), assuming you can even get an interview at all.

Next, providing jobs. Certainly no business should be expected to hire more people than it can sustain. That would be disastrous. What I do take issue with, however, is that you see these large companies not only not hiring, but downsizing their workforce, claiming it's to "save money." Saving money is all well and good, but when your profits go from $50 million to $250 million (after laying off 200 workers), I find that to be unjust. Clearly, the layoffs were not necessary. Hardworking people were treated as expendable resources of no more value than a pencil, just because the bottom line wasn't black enough. On a personal level, I find that kind of behavior to be disgusting.

On to CEOs. I did not mean that CEOs never make important decisions - that was a poor choice of words on my part. However, I don't see most CEOs making important decisions these days. We're not innovating. We're not leading. We're lagging further and further behind. The most important decisions these megarich CEOs have made lately are "where do we downsize the company to ensure that this quarter's profits are more profitable than last quarter's profits?"

I don't oppose making tough decisions like downsizing when a company needs it - when there aren't profits, and when without intervention the company will fail. But those kinds of companies aren't what this is about; it's about the ones that aren't failing, that aren't in danger of failing, and that are in many cases doing better than ever, and are still making these "tough decisions" that ultimately are only for the benefit of the smallest percentage of those involved. That's where my problem lies, and that's where Occupy's problem lies too, at least in theory.

As for your job - you're lucky that you get such insight into the company and its leadership. I'm in a similar boat. These megacorporations are not. An average worker isn't going to see the CEO or any of the board (save for the occasional round on all the workers to remind them that they are being watched and can be let go at any time that some companies unfortunately employ), much less have the opportunity to work up to that. In most companies, working up to middle management is the end of the career path.

As for corporate taxes, which I still believe to be the core issue of this movement, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... -no-taxes/ is a nice summary. Basically, there are more than enough loopholes available so that these corporations (as well as their top-earners) can manage to pay significantly less in taxes, and even none at all. This isn't a new problem, mind you - it's been going on for years, and it's what many believe has contributed most to this economic downturn. The article also mentions the ever popular practice of not only not paying taxes, but still receiving a tax rebate. You can find plenty more on the subject - "big corpor" in Google should be enough for autocomplete to fill in the rest on tax evasion for you.

Other things you may want to check out:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/ How much more CEOs are paid than their employees, and how much of it is "pay" vs how much is "bonus"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/corpor ... 2011-07-29 Corporate profits as a share of GDP
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content ... employment I think the title says it all - Corporate Profits Soaring Thanks to Record Unemployment

EDIT: http://xkcd.com/980/huge/ - Also, the entire bottom-right side of the Dollars chart pretty much sums up why I feel that CEOs are overpaid.
Author:  DatVu [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Occupy Wall Street
If I had time, I'd mention why I think this is totally retarded. Maybe in the next couple of days.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/