The Things That Annoy Me for $100, Alex.
The notion that somehow, there are people out there that are just entitled to better pay and better benefits in their job is perhaps one of the absoluite worst gifts given to us by the Baby Boomers and their progressive forbears. It really chafes me whenever I see it—And moreso when some union, whose leadership gets to live the life of luxury on $200k salaries, puts a bunch of said people in front of the news cameras for a march or two.
You want to know what you need to do if you don't think you're getting paid what you deserve? Or if you think you're being robbed of the benefits you need so much?
YOU LEAVE!!!
Nobody is forcing you to work where you're working, the days of a company enslaving people in Company Towns with Company Currency are long gone—Long before the New Deal, long before our less-intelligent progenitors left us with Social(Ponzi) (In)Security, long before "the unions" gave us "the weekend," which is a laughable story by any measure of reality.
I've had enough of these freeloaders and their Mercedes-driving puppetmasters. You want to make more money out of life? GO EARN IT. Life really is that simple.
Yeah, I'm sure you can come up with a million excuses, but the solution remains the same for each of them—YOU are in control of your life, NOT some faceless company, NOT some fatcat union boss. You don't have to put up with those deplorable conditions, buttercup, because somewhere else out there, there's a better company.
Well, if your Democratic-controlled government haven't chased them all away, that is. But then again, if you voted the business-illiterate into office, whose fault do you suppose that is?
Argh.
Sometimes I wonder if there really is such thing as too much wealth. I mean, if any of these people saw what the living conditions were in any third-world country, would they really plead poverty with a straight face, in front of millions of news consumers no less? Life's a lot tougher when all you have to eat is dirt and mud, and sometimes only dirt—something that these iPhone-toting flat-screen-TV-owning car-driving food-microwaving stooges will probably never understand.
Anyone have any idea on how soon we can start the eviction process for all of California? I'd be absolutely delighted to be a different country from them now, if that'd be doable.
A large group of janitors, security officers, airport workers and other contracted service workers, march and rally in front of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), to protest against, what they say are "low wages and benefits" in Los Angeles, California on June 15, 2011. AFP PHOTO/Mark RALSTON (Photo credit should read MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
[ Daylife Link ]
PS: Our photographer here definitely has something of a flair for the dramatic, because this protest is not large at all. As Mick Dundee would say, you call that a protest? Here's a protest for ya.
Tags: AFP mark ralston #YourProtestStinks
Comments:
Dude, if you seriously don't think you have the freedom to pack up and move wherever the heck you want, we're obviously not living in the same country...
Can you reference what passage(s) in my original post led you to believe I stated there is not the freedom to move within the US? You have the freedom to shove chalk up your nose. You have the freedom to relieve yourself in the kitchen sink. Saying many people may have objections or exercize alternative options to that freedom does not equate to saying the freedom does not exist or that some may choose to do it.
I assume you're in agreement with my other points.
There's not a specific passage to reference -- The entire gist of your comment was that there are things in life that are restricted, and as such, people are trapped in their jobs. And I strongly disagree with that proposition.
Do some people feel like they have no choice? Absolutely, but the fact will always remain the same: They have the freedom to leave.
Does this mean they may incur some temporary instability in their family life? Sure, but we all have to make choices about our living conditions in our life, and just because we choose to stay doesn't imply that we weren't given the option to leave.
And then you go off and relate this to building codes and other restrictions upon domiciles, which relates to this point who knows how -- But again, the solution I proposed in the title of this article works for that situation as well. Don't like living under restrictive conditions, there's always Arizona. Or Montana or South Dakota or New Hampshire.
Heck, there's even something in this world for people who love restrictions on the way they live. California, New York, Massachussetts. If that's not good enough for you, there's always Canada or Britain or the Stargazer Mothership of them all, Sweden.
So yeah, I'm not in agreement with your other points at all, but thanks for trying.
Regards,
Brian
"Heck, there's even something in this world for people who love restrictions on the way they live. California, New York, Massachussetts. If that's not good enough for you, there's always Canada or Britain or the Stargazer Mothership of them all, Sweden."
It appears the Mothership is doing just fine.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/five-economic-lessons-from-sweden-the-rock-star-of-the-recovery/2011/06/21/AGyuJ3iH_story.html?hpid=z3
"This Scandinavian nation of 9 million people has accomplished what the United States, Britain and Japan can only dream of: Growing rapidly, creating jobs and gaining a competitive edge. The banks are lending, the housing market booming. The budget is balanced."
Well hey, if that's the case, why aren't you living over there, Justin? Their socialist model of government is definitely more to your liking than our retrogressive Rethuglican model here, according to the wonderful economic genius that is the Washington comPost, so why not just pack up and go and live in the people's paradise that is Sweden?
I'm not stopping you.
Don't need to. According to many members of the Republican and Tea Parties the US is already a Socialist country. And recall the passage of Medicare part D, the Terry Schiavo case and the trillions of debt raked up from 2000 to 2008 and the unfunded war in Iraq. All enslaving future generations with taxes to pay it back.... but Republicans are against taxes and government interference in people lives, but... I'm so confused.
Here's an interesting chart of reality.
Tax rates and job creation in one graph
In theory, the GOP is so committed to resisting tax hikes because it’s so committed to creating jobs. “The fact is you can’t tax the very people that we expect to invest in the economy and create jobs,” says Speaker John Boehner. But Michael Linden’s chart comparing average annual job creation at different marginal tax rates begs to differ:
Here's an interesting chart of reality.
Tax rates and job creation in one graph
In theory, the GOP is so committed to resisting tax hikes because it’s so committed to creating jobs. “The fact is you can’t tax the very people that we expect to invest in the economy and create jobs,” says Speaker John Boehner. But Michael Linden’s chart comparing average annual job creation at different marginal tax rates begs to differ:
Hmmm… I knew you long ago Brian.
The desire for better pay and benefits is not something given by baby boomers. It's the default human condition. Ask someone in China, or someone in Ghana. So other then a mental device in your head to separate you from "them", What is your point? People seeking work want as much as they can get and an employer wants to pay as little as possible. Where they meet is called the labor market. In any market in which there is a many to one relationship the single agent (i.e. the employer) usually has the information advantage when setting the price. Labor Unions level the information gap. Observing human emotions and reactions at any given moment in the relationship (i.e. protests, lock outs, etc) doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the system to society.
While geographically moving about to maximize your pay is a reasonable option to you that does not mean it is shared be everyone else. There are homes, children, family and friends to consider. All of which provide greater happiness to many people then the dollar amount that appears on their pay check. Private employers have no such conflicting interest. They’re to maximize profit for their share holders. Which is why government regulation is necessary to temper that narrow profit agenda against other needs of society. Those other societal needs beyond simple profit and loss are expressed through elections.
Finally you are not in control of your life. No doubt you can develop a strong delusion that you are in control of your life but making a few observations quickly contradicts that. The design of the home you live in, the streets you drive on, the food you eat, your whole environment is designed and run by the collective actions of other people. You can "vote" with how you spend your money but honestly the chance your "votes" will have any measureable difference is small. And the health and success of a company all depends on the number of "votes"/money it gets from the society it depends on. Less money in people’s hands means less money for companies.