This occupy the world business

[Luk3us 63]

So as you all know there has been a bit of a fuss made as of late in regards to how the 'elite' are basically screwing everyone over and the 'people' have had enough which has lead to all these pansy protests.

 

What are your thoughts and feelings on the matter? My only interest is seeing if justice will ever be done, and holding those responsible for the current economical climate to account. You know those lovely financial institutions that don't actually produce anything but are more than happy to screw you over with complex derivative schemes and manipulated political polices that only serve them. As well as those lovely politicians who insist it is in the 'peoples' best interest to keep these so called 'to big to fail' institutions afloat, forgetting that in a true capitalist system failure is a necessity, else you end up in the limbo we face today...

 

 

So come share, and then we'll all go and occupy the news forum till our demands are met!

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Occupy Wall Street started as an okay idea, but it devolved quickly. I don't like it. Nothing but a bunch of whining hippies pissed because they don't have what they think they're entitled to.

[sith_wampa 6]

Occupy Wall Street started as an okay idea, but it devolved quickly. I don't like it. Nothing but a bunch of whining hippies pissed because they don't have what they think they're entitled to.

Quoted for accuracy.

[Guest Rabbit]

I'll occupy wall street. With my investments. GLD all the way. Cant be corrupted by that. At least, until they liquidate to spite me.

[TheBlackOut 7]

As someone minoring in economics, been interested in politics for years, and knows some about banking regulations, all I can say is it's mostly idiots whining about other idiots who run ****. They can complain all they want and rail against capitalism even though we have long abandoned capitalism.

 

Though I'm glad that Americans are finally realizing they're being shafted at least. Just too bad most Americans are stupid so they don't funnel their anger correctly.

 

edit: I went to the Occupy Dallas one around me, fun people at least. A lot of Anonymous/btard types, mostly internet savvy and younger. They might not be the brightest but at least they're funny and friendly.

[Luk3us 63]

Yes that seems to be the trend of those protests weirdos and internet types, which doesn't aid their cause in the slightest.

[Nmenth 291]

They can complain all they want and rail against capitalism even though we have long abandoned capitalism.

Indeed. As I said in that other thread, it is in fact the absence of Capitalism that is ruining everything and giving it a bad reputation.

[TheBlackOut 7]

Yep. Bailing out banks and providing corporate subsides isn't letting the market work or is letting the Fed do what it does with the extent that it does but this seems lost on many people.

 

However, regardless of how I feel about the movement's somewhat naivety about the issues.. this is pretty aggressive.

 

 

[Guest Rabbit]

Yeah, that's like 20 minutes from where I live. Oakland is known for rioting, honestly. That had nothing to do with Occupy at that point, it was just all about their yearly riot.

[Chronojam 3]

Occupy Wall Street started as an okay idea, but it devolved quickly. I don't like it. Nothing but a bunch of whining hippies pissed because they don't have what they think they're entitled to.

You've been wrong about a great many number of things before, but never this wrong.

 

Quoted for accuracy.

When you do this you're supposed to change what they said to make it accurate.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Chronojam

[Doctor Destiny 41]

You know, I just ignore you. You're never relevant. Now piss off already. I'm not the only one who's figured out that OWS is a sham for more free money from people unwilling to get a job. If you think it's more than that, you're hopelessly misinformed or you're willfully delusional.

[Chronojam 3]

You know, I just ignore you. You're never relevant. Now piss off already. I'm not the only one who's figured out that OWS is a sham for more free money from people unwilling to get a job. If you think it's more than that, you're hopelessly misinformed or you're willfully delusional.

Tell me how you've figured it out, and why you think it's about more free money from people unwilling to get a job. I have a hell of a time realizing where this "unwilling to get a job" bull**** comes from.

 

Stop and think, we'll keep it small scale here, how you will give 50 trained IT staff jobs if there are only 2 IT positions available. From time to time I am involved in HR, and we cannot simply give every qualified person a job because the jobs just aren't available, they do not exist. Some of those IT staff have robust CVs, and they can land a job doing software, but that does not help all 10 of the 48 remaining if we only have 5 programmer positions available. We've managed to place 7 workers, great, the other 53 are still out of a job despite the fact they're qualified, we'd appreciate their work, and they are willing to get a job. Some of those workers cannot afford to keep their apartments anymore, and need to either find alternatives or find somebody else to stay with. Some of those workers took a focused curricula, and only have computer expertise; they never picked up much, say, chemical engineering skills or draft writing experience.

 

Those workers are in a rough spot for every month, every year that they go by without gaining experience or paying the bills. Should they try to get a job as a public accountant? I hear there are CPA positions available. No, they cannot, because those openings do not apply to their experience or skill set! Should they get an IT job the next state over? Maybe they can't afford to relocate anymore, maybe they had to sell their car already or never owned one due to relying on public transit; those jobs do not apply to them.

 

We have all these jobs that look available, but you can only put one employee in one position, some of the on-paper positions just wouldn't work out due to schedules or geography or ability to travel abroad, and we've got plenty of jobs where a person is overqualified or simply entirely unskilled. There's some flexibility; organic chem majors will make it in a biology field. But don't expect them to be able to fill a technical drawing job.

 

Also you're assuming the only people protesting or supporting the protest are jobless! Back up your claims. I support the protests and I probably make more than you. For a thought exercise, let's remove all the protesters who are unemployed from the equation. Pretend they don't even exist. Do you still dismiss the movement, then? Are the claims suddenly valid?

 

What if we restrict it to just white, land-owning males who are 20 and older. Are the claims more valid to you now, without all those poors and those women and those minorities? Think about if that's a better situation. What if it's only white males above 35 who earn $300,000+ per year?

 

Why dismiss the plight of the jobless just because they are jobless? You're a monster, and I don't mean your fursona.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

There are jobs beyond their respective fields like, oh, retail or general labor. You know, jobs that don't require any specialized training whatsoever. Matter of fact, I've had several of those jobs in the past because I needed the work and it paid my obligations just fine. The problem is that people don't want those kinds of jobs. Yes, they suck, I can attest to that first hand but the jobs are there and they're not being taken by these protesters. Ain't nothing wrong with taking a job at Best Buy, Walmart or a local shop who needs a cashier or something like that. Why are all of these jobs going unfilled by the people spending their time accomplishing nothing in cities across the United States, and now the world? I don't want to hear this bull**** about not being able to get a job because plenty are there, ripe for the taking.

 

Without the jobless? Who the **** knows how the protests would have been? Maybe it would be more level headed, but from the attitudes being presented, I seriously doubt any of that. I see nothing moving forward with any traction because I don't see a clear goal for the group. If there's no clear goal, stop wasting everyone's time and go back home. Try again with a clear cut set of ideas. Maybe then the idea will gain some traction, but until then, it's a load of bull****.

 

Why dismiss the plight of the jobless just because they are jobless? You're a monster, and I don't mean your fursona.

Because plenty of the jobless are willfully jobless. And hey, here's a thought: I'm jobless too. But you know what? I get by with general labor like yardwork even though it's not my chosen field.

[Chronojam 3]

If we're going to have a frank discussion here, I hope you're ready to take it all the way, and that's going to involve going into things more than just the tidbits and catchphrases they bring up on talk radio.

 

So let's do that. I'm willing to discuss all the facets here.

 

Let's tackle the issue of "applying beyond their fields." When you apply for a job in America, incredibly often, you will be asked several questions: Why do you want this job? Where do you see yourself in five years? Will you fit in with the team? What does your career track look like? Are you committed to this job?

 

A lot of these interviewers are looking for people who are "loyal" to the company. They want people who honestly prefer to work the position they're applying for, not just want or need and that's an important distinction. They want to hear that, in five years, you are working for them. They want to hear that, for the past five years, you wanted to work for them. They want to hear that you will not simply move on the moment your CV is picked out by what appears to be a better offering.

 

Companies will literally reject applicants who meet all qualifications because of concerns about an employee who will either request/require higher compensation or are likely to leave if they find a better position. It's no secret. They will outright tell applicatns that, literally, there are positions they'd be a better fit for; either our company (please re-apply for that position, be in touch) or at another company (we wish you luck in your job search).

 

This is undeniable. I have personally been on both sides of the process.

 

For a personal anecdote, I applied for a web administration position with a company servicing major American universities. A modest salary of $40,000. Quite simply, in the end, I was overqualified and told as such. I knew I was overqualified, of course; I far exceeded the requirements. Given a test assignment, I completed it promptly and completely. In actuality, I even spotted a few errors in their backend system and reported them; part of the test, or a vital misstep in the interview process to show that I was possibly too ambitious or too competent?

 

This is not uncommon. I was rejected a position at a West-coast chain of fast food restaraunts as well. The hiring process, due to massive joblessness, has become perilous. Why would a company hire me (say, that fast food company) when they can get a more-desperate high school kid who will stick around? On the flip side, why would a high-technology company choose me when they can offer cut-rate salaries to some poor bastards with years of experience over me that are in danger of losing their house and life savings who'll be quite beholden to them?

 

I'm glad to hear that, in the past (what timeframe are you talking about with your retail/labor positions anyhow?) you've managed to land a job for unskilled labor. For a lot of people, that's not possible or practical. A student (gradeschool through university) can use those menial jobs to pick up the slack or get a head start on saving. A graduate with loans coming to term simply cannot; do you think you could effectively pay off, say, $90k in student debt on minimum wage while still living a meaningful life? What if you've got a mortgage, need those health benefits for your children, have your own kids with their own expenses to support?

 

It's ****ing ridiculous to suggest that there is enough menial labor for everybody to just Get A Job, or that those jobs would even support the hardly-extravagant lifestyles the middle and lower-middle class leads. Do you honestly believe that everybody can just Get A Job? Because it took me nearly a year the last time I was unemployed, and I was literally (and to my disadvantage) overqualified.

 

Let's talk about what those jobs even provide, beyond pitiful pay that won't support a family of four. A number of our nation's bankrupt or poor folks, folks living paycheck to paycheck, are that way because of medical expenses. Medical insurance isn't cheap, and the cheaper it is, the more you foot the bill when you inevitably get ****ed, break a bone, catch pneumonia, whatever.

 

A Wal*Mart greeter or fry cook is not given stellar health insurance. Or any. There have been countless reports particularly about Wal*Mart that have identified the harmful business practice of offering multiple part-time assignments rather than offer positions that will give medical benefits, vacation time, etc. A local mom-and-pop shop will not cover your optical expenses. I'd bet a lot of the people on this forum need glasses, and the corner store isn't going to get you the coverage you need.

 

Don't ****ing pretend it will. Although, a possibility I haven't entirely considered. Perhaps you didn't know any of this. If that's the case, I've done you a disservice by assuming malice where ignorance was at play.

 

So, tell me. Do you believe that when a man like Warren Buffet stands up for what these people are clamoring for (and it isn't just a single symptom of our broken systems, and it isn't just a single physical location or single corporation) that he's misguided? Is it an accident? How do you justify the fact that prominent Rich Guys are backing things up and demanding we need changes?

 

These ideas are gaining traction, perhaps you simply did not know that in America (and really worldwide) the majority is showing support. The richest men are showing support. Egyptians, for ****'s sake, are holding protests in support of the American protests. That's traction.

 

The fact that congress is slow or unwilling to respond constructively is not a sign that there's a lack of "traction," it's one of the core complaints from the entire movement.

 

 

......

 

Look, I've presented a lot of questions here, I know. What might work is if you just toss some answers back along with your extended thoughts about other things, basically two posts (go ahead and seperate them out or doublepost if you want). Let's not bother with the typical forumy point-by-point refutation/debate, let's just keep things rolling a bit; I don't want you to stop, drop, and give a line for each question mark I've used. The important thing is discussion, after all.

 

So here's the two biggest lines of thinking I'd like you to consider for now, as far as an actual reply goes. Can your current job pay for your housing, food, and most importantly will it get you either experience or education to improve your lot in life? Could you pay for a sick child, self, or parent on your current wage, could you cover a hospital visit?

 

If not, consider how ****ed up that is if you are indeed an adult and you're stuck in this position and a lot of rich people out there think the average American should be entirely on your own while they waste their excess and clamor for more. To me, it's not greedy or unethical for you to ask for some help if you get sick; it's greedy and unethical to refuse you some help, and greedy and unethical to reinforce whatever policies keep you in your ****ed up position.

 

e: typo on stellar

Edited October 29, 2011 by Chronojam

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Let's tackle the issue of "applying beyond their fields." When you apply for a job in America, incredibly often, you will be asked several questions: Why do you want this job? Where do you see yourself in five years? Will you fit in with the team? What does your career track look like? Are you committed to this job?

 

A lot of these interviewers are looking for people who are "loyal" to the company. They want people who honestly prefer to work the position they're applying for, not just want or need and that's an important distinction. They want to hear that, in five years, you are working for them. They want to hear that, for the past five years, you wanted to work for them. They want to hear that you will not simply move on the moment your CV is picked out by what appears to be a better offering.

Each time I've been asked that set of questions, it was for a position directly related to a career, as opposed to simply just being a job for some scratch. Maybe it's my interview experience but for every job I've interviewed that wasn't a career job, I was asked silly bull**** that anyone can answer so long as they're not a nervous trainwreck. But again, this has been my experience so I cannot say for everyone else

 

Companies will literally reject applicants who meet all qualifications because of concerns about an employee who will either request/require higher compensation or are likely to leave if they find a better position. It's no secret. They will outright tell applicatns that, literally, there are positions they'd be a better fit for; either our company (please re-apply for that position, be in touch) or at another company (we wish you luck in your job search).

Yeah, well, if that were actually true, I would have a job somewhere right now. The opposite is just as true, if not more so. Underqualified people are hired far less than one perfectly qualified, but in either case, underqualified people still land jobs and it amazes me that they do.

 

For a personal anecdote, I applied for a web administration position with a company servicing major American universities. A modest salary of $40,000. Quite simply, in the end, I was overqualified and told as such. I knew I was overqualified, of course; I far exceeded the requirements. Given a test assignment, I completed it promptly and completely. In actuality, I even spotted a few errors in their backend system and reported them; part of the test, or a vital misstep in the interview process to show that I was possibly too ambitious or too competent?

No idea. I'm not in HR, but I doubt your ambition is what did it, unless they said that directly. Likely it was the overqualification, but I really don't know since I wasn't there. You can assume what you want, but it could very well be wrong.

 

This is not uncommon. I was rejected a position at a West-coast chain of fast food restaraunts as well. The hiring process, due to massive joblessness, has become perilous. Why would a company hire me (say, that fast food company) when they can get a more-desperate high school kid who will stick around? On the flip side, why would a high-technology company choose me when they can offer cut-rate salaries to some poor bastards with years of experience over me that are in danger of losing their house and life savings who'll be quite beholden to them?

Perilous isn't much of an excuse. Actually landing a job requires some amount of actual work on your part too. Not to say you're guilty of this yourself, but I'm willing to bet many people are.

 

I'm glad to hear that, in the past (what timeframe are you talking about with your retail/labor positions anyhow?) you've managed to land a job for unskilled labor. For a lot of people, that's not possible or practical. A student (gradeschool through university) can use those menial jobs to pick up the slack or get a head start on saving. A graduate with loans coming to term simply cannot; do you think you could effectively pay off, say, $90k in student debt on minimum wage while still living a meaningful life? What if you've got a mortgage, need those health benefits for your children, have your own kids with their own expenses to support?

My labor jobs were well before I pursued some higher education so it's been a few years since then, but I've continued working oddjobs here and there just to keep my bank account from dwindling all the way down. In any case, a retail job or labor job isn't going to make anyone rich, but that's the problem I've seen with some of the people participating in OWS. They want a lavish lifestyle, but forget they need to earn that lifestyle.

 

It's ****ing ridiculous to suggest that there is enough menial labor for everybody to just Get A Job, or that those jobs would even support the hardly-extravagant lifestyles the middle and lower-middle class leads. Do you honestly believe that everybody can just Get A Job? Because it took me nearly a year the last time I was unemployed, and I was literally (and to my disadvantage) overqualified.

I'm well aware that there will never be a zero percent unemployment rate. That's a virtual impossibility. However, when I look at people on OWS, many of them look like they're in their 20s with a skewed perception of reality or highly unrealistic expectations. So, in all seriousness, why aren't they working? Surely a college kid or someone right out of college will be able to land a spot more easily than a 15 year career man would be able to. Maybe it's just me, but I'm certain that at least some of the OWS people are willfully unemployed. And don't even go around denying that either, because you know you'd be lying if you denied it.

 

Let's talk about what those jobs even provide, beyond pitiful pay that won't support a family of four. A number of our nation's bankrupt or poor folks, folks living paycheck to paycheck, are that way because of medical expenses. Medical insurance isn't cheap, and the cheaper it is, the more you foot the bill when you inevitably get ****ed, break a bone, catch pneumonia, whatever.

Based on my experience, and my brother's experience, even retail and labor jobs can provide good insurance. My last full time position had stellar insurance and I was making below $10 an hour. My brother works at gamestop and even he has good insurance, and it was that way before he was hired full time. Perhaps he and I were just fortunate, but if he and I had marginally effective insurance, many other people can find the same thing. Besides, these jobs can feasibly support a family IF there's some fiscal responsibility. **** ain't gonna be lavish, which too many people expect. I know there are genuinely destitute people, but they're eclipsed by shallow, empty people who actually are the goddamn problem. But you keep assuming families. From the looks of things at OWS, many don't seem to be family men.

 

A Wal*Mart greeter or fry cook is not given stellar health insurance. Or any. There have been countless reports particularly about Wal*Mart that have identified the harmful business practice of offering multiple part-time assignments rather than offer positions that will give medical benefits, vacation time, etc. A local mom-and-pop shop will not cover your optical expenses. I'd bet a lot of the people on this forum need glasses, and the corner store isn't going to get you the coverage you need.

**** ain't gonna be lavish, and it is possible to find affordable anything if you look hard enough.

 

Don't ****ing pretend it will. Although, a possibility I haven't entirely considered. Perhaps you didn't know any of this. If that's the case, I've done you a disservice by assuming malice where ignorance was at play.

Take your patronizing bull**** and **** off already.

 

So, tell me. Do you believe that when a man like Warren Buffet stands up for what these people are clamoring for (and it isn't just a single symptom of our broken systems, and it isn't just a single physical location or single corporation) that he's misguided? Is it an accident? How do you justify the fact that prominent Rich Guys are backing things up and demanding we need changes?

If people are listening, that's fine, it means it's working. However, it doesn't mean that I'm not still disgusted by the behavior of some of the participants. It's well and good if things move forward and some changes are made that bring positive change; that's a good thing. However, it's undeniable that some of the protesters are just bandwagoneers for the sake of being there and their actions are despicable.

 

These ideas are gaining traction, perhaps you simply did not know that in America (and really worldwide) the majority is showing support. The richest men are showing support. Egyptians, for ****'s sake, are holding protests in support of the American protests. That's traction.

popularity != traction. Let's keep that in mind. Warren Buffet's support... that's real traction.

 

The fact that congress is slow or unwilling to respond constructively is not a sign that there's a lack of "traction," it's one of the core complaints from the entire movement.

If it's a complaint of the movement, it's not publicized enough. But that might be a lack of organization on their part.

 

......

 

So here's the two biggest lines of thinking I'd like you to consider for now, as far as an actual reply goes. Can your current job pay for your housing, food, and most importantly will it get you either experience or education to improve your lot in life? Could you pay for a sick child, self, or parent on your current wage, could you cover a hospital visit?

I don't have a job so... no. But I was smart enough to not move the hell out when I knew it wasn't fiscally, or feasibly, possible for me to sustain myself on the wages I had. Now, I realize that for many, moving back in with their parents isn't a feasible solution, but for those that have that solution, they need to use it! My problem with some of the protesters is their refusal to even try to improve their situation in one way or another. Be it looking for a job, cutting back on something, moving back in with parents or friends, doesn't matter. For those people who are really stuck out in the cold and didn't mismanage themselves, they need to keep plugging along like I am. The right opportunity will always surface if they persevere. Those people deserve the help and they're probably not protesting, but trying to support their families instead.

 

However. Is it too much to ask for some of the people to plan ahead?

[TheBlackOut 7]

Some of your complaints seemed to be more focused toward the educational system that the U.S. has and the hiring practices that are usually affected by governmental statues more than anything, Chronojam.

 

Occupy the Congress would be more effective. I mean the god damn oxymoron of Congress is effectiveness and efficiency.

[F15pilotX 4]

Granted, our education system really is a sham. Homeschooled kids are generally far, far better educated than public schoolkids, and if the government would give tax credits for it like they should, it'd be more cost-effective than what we have now.

Edited November 6, 2011 by F15pilotX

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Homeschooled kids have poorer networking skills and the tradeoff is not worth it. I don't like the idea of homeschooling and I never have.

[F15pilotX 4]

Depends who you talk to. A lot of them will get together in cooperative groups, so it really is just like going to a smaller school. The kids I know that were homeschooled were usually some of the more popular people wherever they went.

[Chronojam 3]

Hey, don't think I'm blowing you off or ignoring your points; I've been really busy lately and it would be cool if other people joined the discussion in the mean time. Just stopping by to make sure things are working and to leave this here

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I'm not worried about it. You and I have a different opinion on the matter. You're for the method; I'm not. I'm not objecting to their proposed changes and whatnot, I'm just not a fan of the method.

[TheBlackOut 7]

I agree with the Doc, I just don't agree with the method. And they're just not targeting the right things. You have to look at monetary policy, banking practices, why and how they [the banks] operate, etc... And when you do, you should really be looking at the government, not the banks. Some of the blame lies on them, but come on, you should be mad at the enabler moreso, not the one who got enabled!

 

This country just seems really confused politically, definitely does not make for a good next few years.

 

edit: Also went down to Occupy Dallas for lulz a few days ago, snapped some photos. Nothing too interesting, the movement down here is really small and mostly composed of unemployed anonymous members, lol. I got there after they tried to surround a bank and got dispersed and pepper sprayed by the police. Damn, would have made for good photos too

[Masked Shah 5]

Yeah people demanding things... like freedom, and free speech... when it's clear everyone should bow down to my rule without questioning.

I mean what type of Government would allow it's people to peacefully protest, without putting bullets in women and children to let them know you mean business?

 

If it weren't for the protesters in during the Spring, I wouldn't be ousted, and Shodirkdirka wouldn't be under democratic rule.

 

TYRANTS AGAINST PROTESTERS!!!

[sith_wampa 6]

Upvote for terrorism.

[Luk3us 63]

Downvote for posting in old topics.