Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

I support the 1%. I really do.

...and you reply as if I had not just gone to excruciating lengths to say I'm not talking about causes of the income gap.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

See and this is what I do not get. Libertarians are trying to establish a system in which certain behavior benefits as many as possible and you do not even care. You are mad that one person has 5 apples and another person has 1. You are mad that there is actual diversity, something inherent in nature itself. So...you are mad at the state of nature? That the 99% can not all be the top 1% of income earners?

Well at the very least, I hope I do not see you going around saying "Libertarians are such greedy egoists, they only care about themselves" because here I am trying to show you a system embraced by libertarians that is a net positive for both parties and you could really careless about it.

I'm simply isolating for effects of the income gap. "Regardless of cause" does not mean "cause is irrelevant", it just means it's been isolated, for a particular demonstration about effect. I'm surprised you can draw such conclusions about what I think from such an intentionally limited statement (actually not, you've done it before...) We might actually agree on a more than you are knee-jerk-guessing we do.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

In making a casual chain, yes. Correlations do not infer causation. It is a logical fallacy dating back to Greek civilization. If your link actually does such a thing (I haven't watched it because I am merely addressing the premise you espoused that correlation means causation), then they are incorrect also. It is a logical fallacy. It is not as if logical fallacies are validated by there being a mass of them.

..which is why I said 'tentative conclusion'. Seriously if people would just read my words this would go a lot smoother. I'm studying primate behavior right now, and a progressively more and more sophisticated accumulation of corroborating corollaries are really all we have to go by to make any type of claim. Absolute causal claims are virtually non-existent in the social sciences (which includes economics and politics), as such we can't rely on them. That doesn't mean progress is at a stand-still. I understand the importance of all conclusions from correlation remaining open to re-examinable for any time a contradiction appears, even if it means modifying decades of progress (which happens in social science from time to time.)

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I haven't watched it...

for fucks sake.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I support the 1%. I really do.

I have a feeling you're not trolling.
Care to explain?

Originally Posted by tommo

I have a feeling you're not trolling.
Care to explain?

involuntarily, maybe?

Fact: If you're family's income is over $60 000 USD a year, then you are within the top 10% wealthiest people in the world. Most people on DV I would expect, would fit into this category. How about we start working on solutions to global wealth inequality than try to "occupy wall street".

Just some Food For Thought.

I wonder what percentage of their earnings those who earn $60,000 give to foreign aid. As this small proportion of the population hold so much concentrated wealth, I imagine they are happy to give away 20, 30%..?

Originally Posted by Quantiq

Fact: If you're family's income is over $60 000 USD a year, then you are within the top 10% wealthiest people in the world. Most people on DV I would expect, would fit into this category. How about we start working on solutions to global wealth inequality than try to "occupy wall street".

Just some Food For Thought.

Ummmm.... source?

Also, you don't think this wealth inequality has something to do with the richest people?
Namely slave labour and therefore a need for people to be poor?

Stop making excuses and lame scapegoats. If only a small fraction of you top 10%ers paid your fair share, the world would be a far better place. But no, you just going on living in luxury as if you own everything in the world just because you forcibly displaced indigenous peoples and took their resources. You all sicken me.



I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.

Originally Posted by Xei

Stop making excuses and lame scapegoats. If only a small fraction of you top 10%ers paid your fair share, the world would be a far better place. But no, you just going on living in luxury as if you own everything in the world just because you forcibly displaced indigenous peoples and took their resources. You all sicken me.



I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.

Not yet. I want to become apart of these scum.

"I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum."

I agree, but I don't think we can do it through laws or a forceful attitude, they will only fight back with a more ingrained stance. I think the only way these people will decide to use their money for serious projects devoted to making the whole of humanity a better place is if we convince them philosophically, or back them into a corner where most people will seriously see them as a repulsive and philosophically retarded minority. Our media, our culture, the average person's philosophy needs to take the fact we are a fleeting part of one whole seriously, as a priority of gratifying action, and not some naive hippy dream.

Too lazy to read through all the whining hippies' posts, got better things to do. Simple solution (to the hippies): if you don't like what the 1% is doing, become part of the 1% and try and change it from there. Not hard to do, just don't be lazy. It's like people who don't vote but complain about politics.

Originally Posted by Xei

Stop making excuses and lame scapegoats. If only a small fraction of you top 10%ers paid your fair share, the world would be a far better place. But no, you just going on living in luxury as if you own everything in the world just because you forcibly displaced indigenous peoples and took their resources. You all sicken me.



I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.

You love old data don't you?
There's 7 billion people now.
Also, I work part time now and still give money to charity.

Why would I want to be a millionaire who purchases votes undermining democracy?

Occupy members are not complaining that they aren't rich. No, thats not the issue. The issue is the lack of financial security and freedom, overwhelming institutionalized debt, and the lack of job opportunities that pay a living wage. This is why there is so much frustration at these greedy corporations and banks who buy out our politicians and hold back economic reform.

Laziness has nothing to do with it.

The economic model can NOT support everyone having a degree oriented career.

What happens when all the youth go to college - get a degree- and try to find work in their field? What happens when this model continues year after year after year? You have too many people graduating than there are available career orientated jobs. There is nothing a politician can do about this. Its the nature of the economy and higher education in a capitalistic model - to create an upper class. An upper class doesn't exist if there is no middle class or lower class.

Who will flip your burgers? Who will wait your tables? Who will be clerks at the register? Who will clean? Our economy would collapse if we lost these labor and unskilled work. We literally can not afford for everyone to be in the "upper class"

What you end up with instead is - are educated graduates who couldn't find work in their fields and end up in lower paying jobs that can't afford all their bills - including their education. How is this an issue of laziness? This is an issue of the American Dream gone wrong.

This is why we need a living wage - not a min. wage. I guarantee you, had we a living wage to begin with Occupy wouldn't exist.

So much of the frustration of occupiers stems from a LACK OF FINANCIAL SECURITY, coupled with the fact that America is ABUNDANT in profits. So why is there so much disparity? With the abundance of profit that America creates - no one should have to work more than 30 hours a week to have a modest American life. Instead, the power of the dollar decreases and the number of hours needed to support a living increases.

And now the number of hours to support a living has increased so much you need on average two incomes to support a living. Very few young adults can afford their own apartment these days. Most need roommates. I only point this out because this reality only increases as the years go by. If it continues you will need THREE incomes to support the same apartment.

These are three major sources of frustration for occupy members - which encompass all fields of work in the 99% from teenagers at mc donalds to lawyers

UNEMPLOYMENT: the number of unemployed is much larger than what the US admits to having, as not everyone who is unemployed is actually registered as unemployed. Unemployment is easily twice as high than what the statistics say it is. Many have simply given up because of underemployment

UNDEREMPLOYMENT: Many jobs refuse to offer full time hours so that they can deny benefits. Underemployment is also concerned with low wages and the large amount of educated graduates working at unskilled jobs that a teenager could have. Underemployment is on the rise

OVER-EMPLOYMENT: The flip side of underemployment is companies are consolidating by laying off their employees - and asking a single employee to do the work of two or more - demanding 60 to 80+ hours a week - demanding increased productivity - less time off - and usually all for the same SAME PAY.

The working class has been voicing for a living wage for years. Instead politicians give us the excuse they can't give it to us because corporations won't allow it. Corporations will just higher their prices and decrease the power of the dollar all over again. Economic reform is being held hostage by corporations and the politicians that give them service.

We need to get money out of politics - Occupy's number one goal - and have people be the voice and power behind the government as was originally intended by our constitution.

Originally Posted by tommo

You love old data don't you?
There's 7 billion people now.

And tommo elevates the thread into untold levels of absolute inanity.

Seriously, that was the worst post I've ever read. Self-contradictory, utterly irrelevant, downright bizarre.

Originally Posted by juroara

Laziness has nothing to do with it.

The economic model can NOT support everyone having a degree oriented career.

What happens when all the youth go to college - get a degree- and try to find work in their field? What happens when this model continues year after year after year? You have too many people graduating than there are available career orientated jobs. There is nothing a politician can do about this. Its the nature of the economy and higher education in a capitalistic model - to create an upper class. An upper class doesn't exist if there is no middle class or lower class.

This is exactly what people don't see.
I just looked around my class last year and thought "Does EVERYONE here really think they're gonna make it in this field?"
"There's 20 people in this class, there's probably not even enough jobs for these 20, and next year there's gonna be another 20 or 30".

Yet every single one of them wanted to get a job in that field. Because they didn't just look at the numbers.

Xei - Your posts aren't even mildly intelligent anymore. I have no interest in anything you say now.

Originally Posted by tommo

This is exactly what people don't see.
I just looked around my class last year and thought "Does EVERYONE here really think they're gonna make it in this field?"
"There's 20 people in this class, there's probably not even enough jobs for these 20, and next year there's gonna be another 20 or 30".

Yet every single one of them wanted to get a job in that field. Because they didn't just look at the numbers.

In my sisters school they recognized the economy doesnt need thousands of new architects everywhere =/ (when most of the professors admit they teach becuase they themselves couldn't find work!)

So they solved the issue by having students compete to enter in their last year, where only a fixed amount can win entry. From the start, only 1/4 of the students were going to be given the opportunity to graduate. Which makes "economic" sense - except that it leaves the majority of students in financial debt with an education they couldn't finish.

It kinda makes me think of idiocracy where you have to win healthcare - win an education!

Originally Posted by tommo

Xei - Your posts aren't even mildly intelligent anymore. I have no interest in anything you say now.

What on Earth was the point you were even trying to make? Your post is literally absolute nonsense, it's terrible. What did it have to do with the point I'm making if the data is a few years old? Do you think the global wealth distribution has undergone a dramatic shift in the last decade? Of course not, it's exactly the same situation you plank, except likely even more exaggerated. And you're on the side of the people who were complaining about inequitable wealth distribution in the first place. Incredible.

To juroara, why would you want to be another millionaire who purchases votes? I can see what you mean with your first statement. It would be absolutely terrible to be a millionaire and having a voice! I guess you're right, be poor and not heard!

I'm not even going to bother spending the time arguing the importance of hard work in achieving success.

The ironic thing is, Occupy, at least in Toronto, wants more political interaction in regards to "the problem". But wait, you said "There is nothing a politician can do about this". Am I missing something? Because all the smelly hippies downtown say the government can fix this, but you just said the government can't!

You're right, start handing out money to everyone. Start throwing around money we don't have. Question, where would this money to throw around come from?

Originally Posted by tommo

This is exactly what people don't see.
I just looked around my class last year and thought "Does EVERYONE here really think they're gonna make it in this field?"
"There's 20 people in this class, there's probably not even enough jobs for these 20, and next year there's gonna be another 20 or 30".

Yet every single one of them wanted to get a job in that field. Because they didn't just look at the numbers.

I've read a lot of the "left-brain", "logical" jobs are being replaced by machines/automated or moving overseas

Hopefully Pink is right and we're entering a conceptual age, this would create a boom in creative jobs like art, music, design, inventions, storytelling, etc. something a machine can't do or is difficult to outsource

Right-brain jobs are getting higher in demand because they tap into artistry, empathy, creativity and big-picture thinking. This provides value to employers. This provides value for customers Hiring managers want people who are intrinsically motivated, because they know that employees doing what they love are good at what they do.

Think about this, 95% of purchasing decisions come from the subconscious and we all know the subconscious deals with creativity, art, emotion, imagination, etc.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.

O.K there comrade! I should refer you to the 74 glorious poverty stricken years of the USSR, which started with that exact mind set in 1917.

Originally Posted by crazydude007

O.K there comrade! I should refer you to the 74 glorious poverty stricken years of the USSR, which started with that exact mind set in 1917.

I think Xei was being sarcastic.

I'd sure hope so. Hard to tell sarcasm, or even to think when as tired as I am.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I've read a lot of the "left-brain", "logical" jobs are being replaced by machines/automated or moving overseas

Hopefully Pink is right and we're entering a conceptual age, this would create a boom in creative jobs like art, music, design, inventions, storytelling, etc. something a machine can't do or is difficult to outsource

Right-brain jobs are getting higher in demand because they tap into artistry, empathy, creativity and big-picture thinking. This provides value to employers. This provides value for customers Hiring managers want people who are intrinsically motivated, because they know that employees doing what they love are good at what they do.

Think about this, 95% of purchasing decisions come from the subconscious and we all know the subconscious deals with creativity, art, emotion, imagination, etc.

hehe, I dunno. Maybe....
On the other hand, most right brain jobs are being replaced by left brain ideas and people; following trends and obvious marketing strategies which aren't creative etc.

Originally Posted by crazydude007

You're right, start handing out money to everyone. Start throwing around money we don't have. Question, where would this money to throw around come from?

Since you've made a false assumption that I think the solution is to start handing out money - I have no reason to further this conversation with you. Please re-read my posts and try again.