I think we just have different views on what recovery may mean in the short term. Since projections seem to go both ways, I don't think we can really make much progress. The one thing I will point out is that people can adapt pretty quickly, and it doesn't seem to take long for people to go from talking about the "new normal" to just accepting it as normal.
Oh, well short-term as in the next few months? Things might die down a bit yes, but Occupy still stages actions and I doubt that passion will die anytime soon. But it's possible the economy will improve marginally during that time. However I'm more talking about a deeper-seated feeling that while we may experience some short term gains, long-term growth in any area that matters has, since the 70s, been going down. Sure employment has kept up but wage growth has stagnated for all but the top 1%. I don't imagine any growth of walmart or target jobs will somehow erase that or erase the bitter taste of realizing your entire life's comfort was erased not by you but the actions of someone else gambling irresponsibly with other people's money. I don't see long-term hope and refuse to believe in "magical" fixes to the economy. If I don't see a policy there to do something I expect nothing but the same failure we've had since the 70s regarding the economy becoming the general pilfering of America's wealth to hand it over to America's already-fabulously-wealthy on a silver platter.
I also find the idea of a violent uprising really hard to imagine. We are a geographically diverse and dispersed population, and cities, states and the feds have massive security/police forces with sophisticated nonlethal weapons to bring to bear. And what's more, we have a history of a solid 200 years of peaceful handoffs from one ruling party to another. Even though America was born of rebellion and has had a civil war, I just have not seen anything to make me believe that a violent revolution (1) would happen or (2) could suceed.
Well perhaps let me paint a more visceral picture to explain what I mean. If we have large general strikes that were able to cripple the economy? It would take 1800s labor era tactics to stop Occupy. Do you know what happened to 1800s labor? They were mass-murdered by "private security" like pinkerton. So yes, if we have police en masse, using pepper spray, rubber bullets, tear gas, and beatings to the point we start having serious body counts at multiple major cities? To where hundreds if not thousands are jailed indefinitely, to where we see marches of riot police/National Guard down most major cities to quell protests and unblock major ports and commerce arteries? Yes, I think with the climate like it is, there is a real chance of violence.
If youtube gets flooded with a million different videos of a million different people getting nearly beat-to-death by police just to protect profits? I think there'd be a revolution by tomorrow. That level of unprovoked violence would so deeply effect the country that I cannot fathom how something drastic would not happen given historically low approval ratings for congress and government in general.
1. As long as they can afford to get by, I have a hard time imagining a problem. People adjusted to having lots of credit card debt to get by, and I imagine they will adapt to whatever else comes along, as long as their living conditions don't suffer greatly. If it does reach the point where a lot of America cannot maintain something close to its rerecession standard of living, then I agree action may result, but without many unions, it seems hard to imagine a general strike.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You seem to think that people who get knocked down from "middle class or near-middle class" to "paycheck to paycheck/desperately poor" are going to magically accept their new positions as the people the economy takes a collective crap on. I content that human history has indeed shown when the middle-class is displaced to poor, the former-middle class gets pissed off enough to convince the poor to kill the rich...
This is basically true. When poor, badly educated people get shat on badly enough, you get riots. When previously well off, well educated, articulate people with organisational skills get shat on badly enough, you get revolutions.
Incidentally, historically speak, revolutions are generally fairly peaceful, bar a riot or two. It's the counter-revolutions that usually follow that are spectacularly bloody.
The revolution that occurred in East Germany was remarkable because it wasn't followed by a counter-revolution. But the revolution itself was peaceful. Revolutions happen when enough people not only think "well fuck this shit" but realise enough people around them are thinking it too. That's not an inherently violent situation in and of itself.
An example that occurrs to me of the way a middle class revolution could possibly happen in the US would be if a large number of people decided that they simply weren't going to pay their taxes until "the 1%" pay theirs at the same rate. If one guy does this, then obviously IRS will screw him and no-one will even notice. If a hundred guys do it, the IRS take on a couple of extra staff and screw the hundred guys, and maybe there's a local news story. If 20 or 30 or 40 million people all decide not to pay their taxes, then the IRS and by extension the federal government is going to have a serious problem. No violence need be involved, but it would take a lot of organisational and persuasive ability, the expertise to anticipate and block countermeasures (eg: "withdraw all your savings into cash so the government can't seize your bank accounts", etc) and the articulacy to get their message out over the media to prevent the state from controlling the discourse. Exactly the sort of campaign you would expect the middle classes to excell at.
A campaign like that would frighten the government far more than any number of riots possibly could, because riots have no political legitimacy, and they can be simply countered by force, in which the government has a massive advantage. You can easily go tell national guardsmen to go shoot rioters; it's infinitely harder to order them to go shoot their neighbors for not paying their income tax.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
Phillishere on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You seem to think that people who get knocked down from "middle class or near-middle class" to "paycheck to paycheck/desperately poor" are going to magically accept their new positions as the people the economy takes a collective crap on. I content that human history has indeed shown when the middle-class is displaced to poor, the former-middle class gets pissed off enough to convince the poor to kill the rich...
This is basically true. When poor, badly educated people get shat on badly enough, you get riots. When previously well off, well educated, articulate people with organisational skills get shat on badly enough, you get revolutions.
Incidentally, historically speak, revolutions are generally fairly peaceful, bar a riot or two. It's the counter-revolutions that usually follow that are spectacularly bloody.
The revolution that occurred in East Germany was remarkable because it wasn't followed by a counter-revolution. But the revolution itself was peaceful. Revolutions happen when enough people not only think "well fuck this shit" but realise enough people around them are thinking it too. That's not an inherently violent situation in and of itself.
An example that occurrs to me of the way a middle class revolution could possibly happen in the US would be if a large number of people decided that they simply weren't going to pay their taxes until "the 1%" pay theirs at the same rate. If one guy does this, then obviously IRS will screw him and no-one will even notice. If a hundred guys do it, the IRS take on a couple of extra staff and screw the hundred guys, and maybe there's a local news story. If 20 or 30 or 40 million people all decide not to pay their taxes, then the IRS and by extension the federal government is going to have a serious problem. No violence need be involved, but it would take a lot of organisational and persuasive ability, the expertise to anticipate and block countermeasures (eg: "withdraw all your savings into cash so the government can't seize your bank accounts", etc) and the articulacy to get their message out over the media to prevent the state from controlling the discourse. Exactly the sort of campaign you would expect the middle classes to excell at.
A campaign like that would frighten the government far more than any number of riots possibly could, because riots have no political legitimacy, and they can be simply countered by force, in which the government has a massive advantage. You can easily go tell national guardsmen to go shoot rioters; it's infinitely harder to order them to go shoot their neighbors for not paying their income tax.
Is this really a revolution though? There would be no change in the sitting government, and the changes would only occur if the sitting government could agree to make them. This seems more like winning change through civil disobedience, which is a valid tactic, but not a revolution. Also, we don't need to shoot our neighbors for not paying their taxes, just arrest them and throw them in federal prison. I wonder if the protest could survive its leaders and other random members being incarcerated over it.
Edit: Also, its REALLY hard to not pay your taxes when it is your employer that withholds for you. The government could actually nullify your whole protest by increasing required withholdings. If it was only 1099 taxpayers who were refusing to pay, then you have a much smaller protester base.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
Do you really think a violent revolution that overthrows the government is possible in modern America? If so, how could it succeed? I am genuinely interested to hear any ideas, no matter how fantastic about how it could happen, because the resources of our police and armed forces are just so vast, and can be swiftly brought to bear in many locations at once. We have about 3 million soldiers, when you combine active duty and reserve personnel.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
This isn't Libya or Tunisia. Best case, you get an Egypt situation where the military abandons the government (hint: this won't happen for a left-wing movement) and takes over.
You seem to think that people who get knocked down from "middle class or near-middle class" to "paycheck to paycheck/desperately poor" are going to magically accept their new positions as the people the economy takes a collective crap on. I content that human history has indeed shown when the middle-class is displaced to poor, the former-middle class gets pissed off enough to convince the poor to kill the rich...
This is basically true. When poor, badly educated people get shat on badly enough, you get riots. When previously well off, well educated, articulate people with organisational skills get shat on badly enough, you get revolutions.
Incidentally, historically speak, revolutions are generally fairly peaceful, bar a riot or two. It's the counter-revolutions that usually follow that are spectacularly bloody.
The revolution that occurred in East Germany was remarkable because it wasn't followed by a counter-revolution. But the revolution itself was peaceful. Revolutions happen when enough people not only think "well fuck this shit" but realise enough people around them are thinking it too. That's not an inherently violent situation in and of itself.
An example that occurrs to me of the way a middle class revolution could possibly happen in the US would be if a large number of people decided that they simply weren't going to pay their taxes until "the 1%" pay theirs at the same rate. If one guy does this, then obviously IRS will screw him and no-one will even notice. If a hundred guys do it, the IRS take on a couple of extra staff and screw the hundred guys, and maybe there's a local news story. If 20 or 30 or 40 million people all decide not to pay their taxes, then the IRS and by extension the federal government is going to have a serious problem. No violence need be involved, but it would take a lot of organisational and persuasive ability, the expertise to anticipate and block countermeasures (eg: "withdraw all your savings into cash so the government can't seize your bank accounts", etc) and the articulacy to get their message out over the media to prevent the state from controlling the discourse. Exactly the sort of campaign you would expect the middle classes to excell at.
A campaign like that would frighten the government far more than any number of riots possibly could, because riots have no political legitimacy, and they can be simply countered by force, in which the government has a massive advantage. You can easily go tell national guardsmen to go shoot rioters; it's infinitely harder to order them to go shoot their neighbors for not paying their income tax.
Is this really a revolution though? There would be no change in the sitting government, and the changes would only occur if the sitting government could agree to make them...
Define "revolution". If those changes are radical enough, then we have an " effective revolution", even if it's not a revolution in the sense of a discontinuity in governmental legitimacy.
Re: withholding etc. Yes, point taken. I wasn't advocating tax strikes as the best method of effecting a revolution, I just wanted to give an example of the kind of action that can cause one when the middle class get sufficiently pissed off.
PS What happens when the company accountants are in on it too?
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
This isn't Libya or Tunisia. Best case, you get an Egypt situation where the military abandons the government (hint: this won't happen for a left-wing movement) and takes over.
I'd actually suspect local separatist movements to gain hold in states, violent reaction from the federal government and a steady disintegration of the national government. As for those 3 million soldiers, the usual way that a revolution happens is when the rank and file and lower officers say "fuck you" and refuse to follow orders.
You do realize that people are talking about revolution as a bad thing. People remember the 20th century, so no one is expecting the Glorious Revolution.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
It would only ever be taken up by a fringe, the real revolution would come from voters who lean one way or the other
The electorate has much more power than they think they have if they're properly riled up
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
Do you really think a violent revolution that overthrows the government is possible in modern America? If so, how could it succeed? I am genuinely interested to hear any ideas, no matter how fantastic about how it could happen, because the resources of our police and armed forces are just so vast, and can be swiftly brought to bear in many locations at once. We have about 3 million soldiers, when you combine active duty and reserve personnel.
Traditionally, large empires would guard against violent revolt by garrisoning province A with soldiers from far-away province B. Those B-ian soldiers wouldn't care much about the A-ite inhabitants and wouldn't have too many problems with orders to violently suppress any armed dissent. In fact China still does exactly this.
I'm not sure that the same situation would apply in the US. I'm sure American soldiers would have no problem taking down "a few dozen crazies", but asking them to use deadly force against a widescale civilian revolt, Gadaffi-style using AA guns on crowds of American protestors, etc? Maybe not so much. Do you know any members of the US armed forces? Why don't you ask them how they'd feel about doing that? Sure, they could, but I'm not 100% certain that they would.
1. As long as they can afford to get by, I have a hard time imagining a problem. People adjusted to having lots of credit card debt to get by, and I imagine they will adapt to whatever else comes along, as long as their living conditions don't suffer greatly. If it does reach the point where a lot of America cannot maintain something close to its rerecession standard of living, then I agree action may result, but without many unions, it seems hard to imagine a general strike.
So you'd be cool with getting fired next week and starting a new job at Wal Mart*? I do not think so.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're forgetting the mercenaries employed by the wealthy. The richest individuals have private armies with compounds to match. They're already protected from violent reprisals from the labor force. They've learnt well from the French Revolution.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
This isn't Libya or Tunisia. Best case, you get an Egypt situation where the military abandons the government (hint: this won't happen for a left-wing movement) and takes over.
I'd actually suspect local separatist movements to gain hold in states, violent reaction from the federal government and a steady disintegration of the national government. As for those 3 million soldiers, the usual way that a revolution happens is when the rank and file and lower officers say "fuck you" and refuse to follow orders.
You do realize that people are talking about revolution as a bad thing. People remember the 20th century, so no one is expecting the Glorious Revolution.
Yes, absolutely. There is absolutely no chance of a violent revolution in the US in the foreseeable future, and it definitely isn't something OWS is advocating, so I'm not even sure how it came up in this thread :P
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
This isn't Libya or Tunisia. Best case, you get an Egypt situation where the military abandons the government (hint: this won't happen for a left-wing movement) and takes over.
I'd actually suspect local separatist movements to gain hold in states, violent reaction from the federal government and a steady disintegration of the national government. As for those 3 million soldiers, the usual way that a revolution happens is when the rank and file and lower officers say "fuck you" and refuse to follow orders.
You do realize that people are talking about revolution as a bad thing. People remember the 20th century, so no one is expecting the Glorious Revolution.
Yes, absolutely. There is absolutely no chance of a violent revolution in the US in the foreseeable future, and it definitely isn't something OWS is advocating, so I'm not even sure how it came up in this thread :P
It started with a discussion of how OWS was just kind of making this shit up, people disagreed and talked about it being about real structural issues and things went on from there.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
Do you really think a violent revolution that overthrows the government is possible in modern America? If so, how could it succeed? I am genuinely interested to hear any ideas, no matter how fantastic about how it could happen, because the resources of our police and armed forces are just so vast, and can be swiftly brought to bear in many locations at once. We have about 3 million soldiers, when you combine active duty and reserve personnel.
Traditionally, large empires would guard against violent revolt by garrisoning province A with soldiers from far-away province B. Those B-ian soldiers wouldn't care much about the A-ite inhabitants and wouldn't have too many problems with orders to violently suppress any armed dissent. In fact China still does exactly this.
I'm not sure that the same situation would apply in the US. I'm sure American soldiers would have no problem taking down "a few dozen crazies", but asking them to use deadly force against a widescale civilian revolt, Gadaffi-style using AA guns on crowds of American protestors, etc? Maybe not so much. Do you know any members of the US armed forces? Why don't you ask them how they'd feel about doing that? Sure, they could, but I'm not 100% certain that they would.
Our military? No I don't see them doing that. However, based on previous actions it's not something I would put past our police force.
I really don't think we're anywhere near a revolution though. As bad as things are, the majority of people in this country are still pretty comfortable, and definitely not anywhere near the widespread poverty that typically is the catalyst for a violent unprising.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Our military? No I don't see them doing that. However, based on previous actions it's not something I would put past our police force.
I really don't think we're anywhere near a revolution though. As bad as things are, the majority of people in this country are still pretty comfortable, and definitely not anywhere near the widespread poverty that typically is the catalyst for a violent unprising.
We're not. But a couple more generations of the same policies in the same direction...
Next election is really important.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. As long as they can afford to get by, I have a hard time imagining a problem. People adjusted to having lots of credit card debt to get by, and I imagine they will adapt to whatever else comes along, as long as their living conditions don't suffer greatly. If it does reach the point where a lot of America cannot maintain something close to its rerecession standard of living, then I agree action may result, but without many unions, it seems hard to imagine a general strike.
So you'd be cool with getting fired next week and starting a new job at Wal Mart*? I do not think so.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're forgetting the mercenaries employed by the wealthy. The richest individuals have private armies with compounds to match. They're already protected from violent reprisals from the labor force. They've learnt well from the French Revolution.
* not a management position either
1. No, but I also would not try to overthrow the government over it. That said, I literally can't wrap my head around the idea of being reduced to work like that, since every lawyer I know who lost their job got a job that was around as good as the one they lost within 6 months or so (longer than in the past) so maybe if I was in this crazy situation where all I could do was work at walmart, I would react differently than I think. Are there really people taking that huge of a step down in terms of employment?
2. This just supports the idea that a violent revolution can't work. When the workers strike, have the private army break them. When they fight back, call in the military to subdue a hostile crowd. No need to have soldiers shooting their neighbors for protesting. . .
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
Do you really think a violent revolution that overthrows the government is possible in modern America? If so, how could it succeed? I am genuinely interested to hear any ideas, no matter how fantastic about how it could happen, because the resources of our police and armed forces are just so vast, and can be swiftly brought to bear in many locations at once. We have about 3 million soldiers, when you combine active duty and reserve personnel.
Traditionally, large empires would guard against violent revolt by garrisoning province A with soldiers from far-away province B. Those B-ian soldiers wouldn't care much about the A-ite inhabitants and wouldn't have too many problems with orders to violently suppress any armed dissent. In fact China still does exactly this.
I'm not sure that the same situation would apply in the US. I'm sure American soldiers would have no problem taking down "a few dozen crazies", but asking them to use deadly force against a widescale civilian revolt, Gadaffi-style using AA guns on crowds of American protestors, etc? Maybe not so much. Do you know any members of the US armed forces? Why don't you ask them how they'd feel about doing that? Sure, they could, but I'm not 100% certain that they would.
Our military? No I don't see them doing that. However, based on previous actions it's not something I would put past our police force.
I really don't think we're anywhere near a revolution though. As bad as things are, the majority of people in this country are still pretty comfortable, and definitely not anywhere near the widespread poverty that typically is the catalyst for a violent unprising.
I don't think the US is anywhere near a violent uprising either. If certain economic/political trends continue for another decade or so though, I wouldn't be very surprised to see people starting talking one in terms of probabilites rather than possibilities. But I think we'd see a "middle class" revolution in the US before a "redneck revolution". In that event though, I'd be deeply fearful of a redneck counter-revolution.
1. No, but I also would not try to overthrow the government over it. That said, I literally can't wrap my head around the idea of being reduced to work like that, since every lawyer I know who lost their job got a job that was around as good as the one they lost within 6 months or so (longer than in the past) so maybe if I was in this crazy situation where all I could do was work at walmart, I would react differently than I think. Are there really people taking that huge of a step down in terms of employment?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/12law.html?gwh=44832CD976F519F08DC4CDF20FE2074ELaw firms in turn are feeling the strain. Thelen and Heller Ehrman, two firms whose deep San Francisco roots extend back decades, have collapsed outright, in part because of the business slowdown. Each firm left several hundred lawyers out in the cold. Many others, including Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and Katten Muchin Rosenman, two Chicago firms ranked among the nation’s hundred most profitable by American Lawyer magazine, and the international giant Clifford Chance have jettisoned dozens of associates.
Overabundance of experienced attorneys plus industry-wide cutbacks and business practice restructuring means that layoffs could be coming to a firm near you. And, if that happens enough, some of the ballers will also be left out in the cold.
And the engineering and software development fields abound with stories of people who went from 6-figure salaries to years of unemployment to the service industry. Trying to maintain that lifestyle because "the call is going to come any day now" often ends with people draining their savings.
Yes, absolutely. There is absolutely no chance of a violent revolution in the US in the foreseeable future, and it definitely isn't something OWS is advocating, so I'm not even sure how it came up in this thread :P
spacekungfuman was suggesting the distinct possibility the economy will open up enough walmart and target jobs that people will magically accept and spell the complete end of Occupy. I was suggesting that it's far more likely for a successful violent uprising to occur in America than for the American people to accept Walmart/target jobs at minimum wage while the wealthy get incredibly wealthier and rig the system to their favor.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. No, but I also would not try to overthrow the government over it. That said, I literally can't wrap my head around the idea of being reduced to work like that, since every lawyer I know who lost their job got a job that was around as good as the one they lost within 6 months or so (longer than in the past) so maybe if I was in this crazy situation where all I could do was work at walmart, I would react differently than I think. Are there really people taking that huge of a step down in terms of employment?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/12law.html?gwh=44832CD976F519F08DC4CDF20FE2074ELaw firms in turn are feeling the strain. Thelen and Heller Ehrman, two firms whose deep San Francisco roots extend back decades, have collapsed outright, in part because of the business slowdown. Each firm left several hundred lawyers out in the cold. Many others, including Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and Katten Muchin Rosenman, two Chicago firms ranked among the nation’s hundred most profitable by American Lawyer magazine, and the international giant Clifford Chance have jettisoned dozens of associates.
Overabundance of experienced attorneys plus industry-wide cutbacks and business practice restructuring means that layoffs could be coming to a firm near you. And, if that happens enough, some of the ballers will also be left out in the cold.
And the engineering and software development fields abound with stories of people who went from 6-figure salaries to years of unemployment to the service industry. Trying to maintain that lifestyle because "the call is going to come any day now" often ends with people draining their savings.
I am very familiar with the layoffs that article is talking about, since I know lots of people who were let go from their firms. It took them a while in some cases, but people found jobs that were reasonable replacements. None of my friends or friends of friends did not land on their feet, but I know some first years became almost unemployable because they were let go before they had any skills, and firms only hire entry level lawyers straight out of law school. Not saying this is universal or even applies outside my field and city. If people are really going from 6 figures to walmart, and that continues to happen, it probably is unsustainable.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yes, absolutely. There is absolutely no chance of a violent revolution in the US in the foreseeable future, and it definitely isn't something OWS is advocating, so I'm not even sure how it came up in this thread :P
spacekungfuman was suggesting the distinct possibility the economy will open up enough walmart and target jobs that people will magically accept and spell the complete end of Occupy. I was suggesting that it's far more likely for a successful violent uprising to occur in America than for the American people to accept Walmart/target jobs at minimum wage while the wealthy get incredibly wealthier and rig the system to their favor.
No, I said jobs that let people maintain their lives more or less. If all that appears is Walmart jobs, then that will not settle down the country, but I'm not sure recovery + nothing but Walmart jobs is possible.
No, I said jobs that let people maintain their lives more or less. If all that appears is Walmart jobs, then that will not settle down the country, but I'm not sure recovery + nothing but Walmart jobs is possible.
Well so far we've only been generating those sorts of jobs. So I guess the point is a bit moot. ;p
Aside from the regular expansion of the tech sector I haven't seen any real increase in sustainable jobs elsewhere. So I'm pretty sure any employment we add is all going to be min-wage service sector jobs.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Every layoff, in any sector, is a game of musical chairs. Especially if every other sector is contacting, someone's going to be left without.
Which is why we hope for recovery, and more chairs for the people who lost to sit in. The questions now seems to be (1) will there be enough chairs and (2) will they be at the right class of tables.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
1. As long as they can afford to get by, I have a hard time imagining a problem. People adjusted to having lots of credit card debt to get by, and I imagine they will adapt to whatever else comes along, as long as their living conditions don't suffer greatly. If it does reach the point where a lot of America cannot maintain something close to its rerecession standard of living, then I agree action may result, but without many unions, it seems hard to imagine a general strike.
So you'd be cool with getting fired next week and starting a new job at Wal Mart*? I do not think so.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're forgetting the mercenaries employed by the wealthy. The richest individuals have private armies with compounds to match. They're already protected from violent reprisals from the labor force. They've learnt well from the French Revolution.
* not a management position either
1. No, but I also would not try to overthrow the government over it. That said, I literally can't wrap my head around the idea of being reduced to work like that, since every lawyer I know who lost their job got a job that was around as good as the one they lost within 6 months or so (longer than in the past) so maybe if I was in this crazy situation where all I could do was work at walmart, I would react differently than I think. Are there really people taking that huge of a step down in terms of employment?
Hi. How you doing. I worked for one of the top telecommunication companies in the US. I got paid a decent salary, worked 40-48 hours a week, got full medical benefits, almost 3 weeks vacation a year (once you factored in personal days and shopping days and things). It was a great job and a great company to work for. And then they sold the state, and my job disappeared. My Union helped me with severance. I went to another telecommunications company after that. Applied for the job there. Even better benefits and pay and hours. I got 3 interviews, so I signed a lease for an apartment near the office. Then they got clamped on by upper management. No need to hire new bodies when the old bodies were doing the work just fine. No matter that they were working on average 50-60 hours a week. They were handling it, so why did the company need new people?
No job. No degree. And rent to pay. And the only place to get a job was walmart. So, I went to work for Walmart. And in the meantime of trying to pay my bills and feed myself and my boyfriend ($50/fortnight is not a lot of food for 2 adults), and not get kicked out of the apartment, I racked up debt. credit card debt until nobody would give me any credit. negative balance in my bank account that only ever got smaller. i lost my car insurance because i couldn't pay for it. so I lost my driver's license. my car went unregistered and uninspected for almost two years. I lived in constant fear of the police. I met the sheriff five times, when he came to deliver the eviction papers because i couldn't pay my rent. But I made too much money at walmart to qualify for any state aid, or even city aid. I owned my car because my grandmother had died and I'd used most of my inheritance to pay off the loan on it, or that would have been repossessed.
I got out of the situation, though. But $20,000 in debt. That's payed off though, I got myself out of that hole with the help of my parents and a stable place to live. But the psychological factors? I'm still anxious as hell when I drive, getting behind a wheel is almost paralyzing for me due to remembered fear and anxiety about police, or getting to an accident, or speeding, or anything. The psychological damage of knowing that even after 3 interviews I still wasn't able to get a good job. And right now, I'm still not. I've got my degree now, finished that up finally. Lot of good it does me. I'm still floundering and drowning in a sea of self-loathing and self-hate that was not necessarily caused by, but certainly agitated by living on credit to the point of disaster.
So.... to your first statement, and I say this with all respect that I can muster, Go jump into a lake. I hope you never have to go through that, I truly do. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. But you have no idea what you're talking about.
Which is why we hope for recovery, and more chairs for the people who lost to sit in. The questions now seems to be (1) will there be enough chairs and (2) will they be at the right class of tables.
No offense, but wishing for the status quo to recover when there is no evidence whatsoever that shows we will be able to foster long term growth anywhere and a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression...it's really got to take the cake for some of the biggest acts of magical thinking I've encountered. You're a lawyer, you should know better! ;p
Things don't just magic better, they get better because people do things to make them better and yet no one can point to any factors that will come together to return solvency to our economy. Meanwhile Athens is burning and threatening to start a Eurozone domino effect which could crater the entire world economy. Even if it doesn't, I just can't fathom how you can arrive at the idea that things will improve from all of that.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Which is why we hope for recovery, and more chairs for the people who lost to sit in. The questions now seems to be (1) will there be enough chairs and (2) will they be at the right class of tables.
No offense, but wishing for the status quo to recover when there is no evidence whatsoever that shows we will be able to foster long term growth anywhere and a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression.
That's an awfully bold claim. I don't suppose you'd like to back any part of that up? Preferably with links that don't include lizard people or BUY GOLD in large flashing letters?
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. As long as they can afford to get by, I have a hard time imagining a problem. People adjusted to having lots of credit card debt to get by, and I imagine they will adapt to whatever else comes along, as long as their living conditions don't suffer greatly. If it does reach the point where a lot of America cannot maintain something close to its rerecession standard of living, then I agree action may result, but without many unions, it seems hard to imagine a general strike.
So you'd be cool with getting fired next week and starting a new job at Wal Mart*? I do not think so.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
You're forgetting the mercenaries employed by the wealthy. The richest individuals have private armies with compounds to match. They're already protected from violent reprisals from the labor force. They've learnt well from the French Revolution.
* not a management position either
1. No, but I also would not try to overthrow the government over it. That said, I literally can't wrap my head around the idea of being reduced to work like that, since every lawyer I know who lost their job got a job that was around as good as the one they lost within 6 months or so (longer than in the past) so maybe if I was in this crazy situation where all I could do was work at walmart, I would react differently than I think. Are there really people taking that huge of a step down in terms of employment?
Hi. How you doing. I worked for one of the top telecommunication companies in the US. I got paid a decent salary, worked 40-48 hours a week, got full medical benefits, almost 3 weeks vacation a year (once you factored in personal days and shopping days and things). It was a great job and a great company to work for. And then they sold the state, and my job disappeared. My Union helped me with severance. I went to another telecommunications company after that. Applied for the job there. Even better benefits and pay and hours. I got 3 interviews, so I signed a lease for an apartment near the office. Then they got clamped on by upper management. No need to hire new bodies when the old bodies were doing the work just fine. No matter that they were working on average 50-60 hours a week. They were handling it, so why did the company need new people?
No job. No degree. And rent to pay. And the only place to get a job was walmart. So, I went to work for Walmart. And in the meantime of trying to pay my bills and feed myself and my boyfriend ($50/fortnight is not a lot of food for 2 adults), and not get kicked out of the apartment, I racked up debt. credit card debt until nobody would give me any credit. negative balance in my bank account that only ever got smaller. i lost my car insurance because i couldn't pay for it. so I lost my driver's license. my car went unregistered and uninspected for almost two years. I lived in constant fear of the police. I met the sheriff five times, when he came to deliver the eviction papers because i couldn't pay my rent. But I made too much money at walmart to qualify for any state aid, or even city aid. I owned my car because my grandmother had died and I'd used most of my inheritance to pay off the loan on it, or that would have been repossessed.
I got out of the situation, though. But $20,000 in debt. That's payed off though, I got myself out of that hole with the help of my parents and a stable place to live. But the psychological factors? I'm still anxious as hell when I drive, getting behind a wheel is almost paralyzing for me due to remembered fear and anxiety about police, or getting to an accident, or speeding, or anything. The psychological damage of knowing that even after 3 interviews I still wasn't able to get a good job. And right now, I'm still not. I've got my degree now, finished that up finally. Lot of good it does me. I'm still floundering and drowning in a sea of self-loathing and self-hate that was not necessarily caused by, but certainly agitated by living on credit to the point of disaster.
So.... to your first statement, and I say this with all respect that I can muster, Go jump into a lake. I hope you never have to go through that, I truly do. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. But you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm sincerely sorry for what you have been through, and hope things go well from here on out. But, after everything you have been through, would you support or participate in a violent overthrow of the government?
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Violent overthrow?
no.
But OWS is not violent overthrow.
One of the favorite lines from West wing: "It's really amazing that every 4 years we get to overthrow the government"-Amy Gardiner
Voting, involvement, all of that 'junk' is part of a government overthrow.
One of the favorite lines from West wing: "It's really amazing that every 4 years we get to overthrow the government"-Amy Gardiner
Voting, involvement, all of that 'junk' is part of a government overthrow.
I see nothing wrong with using the system to enact change. That is what the system is for. FO2Man is saying that a violent revolution is one of three potential outcomes of the current situations. But let's not get carried away with rhetoric. If the people vote different types of candidates into office, and the outgoing politicians hand over power peacefully, there is no "overthrow" just democracy in action.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
One of the favorite lines from West wing: "It's really amazing that every 4 years we get to overthrow the government"-Amy Gardiner
Voting, involvement, all of that 'junk' is part of a government overthrow.
I see nothing wrong with using the system to enact change. That is what the system is for. FO2Man is saying that a violent revolution is one of three potential outcomes of the current situations. But let's not get carried away with rhetoric. If the people vote different types of candidates into office, and the outgoing politicians hand over power peacefully, there is no "overthrow" just democracy in action.
Violent revolution is always a potential outcome. Not probable, but potential. Same as the Status Quo and incremental change.
That's an awfully bold claim. I don't suppose you'd like to back any part of that up? Preferably with links that don't include lizard people or BUY GOLD in large flashing letters?
What sort of "evidence" do you want in particular? I posted a boatload of general claims in the last page regarding general trends that could herald an eventual cratering of the economy. Including the Eurozone problem. Would you like somecharts on how wages have stagnated since the 70s, or how consumer debt, Student loan debt is at record highs, savings are down? How about a rousing Elizabeth Warren talk regarding the growth of uncontrollable costs that may destroy the middle class? If you want me to cite sources I need to know which claim you want sourced. ;p
In general, the middle class is dying by every measurable stat I've seen, and nobody can point to anything that will turn this around. "Hoping it will turn around really hard" does not make it do so. As well, job booms do not appear to affect any of the above statistics either. So even if we have a "jobs recovery" that says nothing of purchasing power of the median family nor their ability to continue fighting rising prices/inflation.
P.S. Lizard people are so yesterday, It's all about the Toad-People now! Yes, they're out to seduce you with their alluring croaks-which-sound-conveniently-like-speech and their evil sticky-tongues of doom from which there is no escape! ;D
I see nothing wrong with using the system to enact change. That is what the system is for. FO2Man is saying that a violent revolution is one of three potential outcomes of the current situations. But let's not get carried away with rhetoric. If the people vote different types of candidates into office, and the outgoing politicians hand over power peacefully, there is no "overthrow" just democracy in action.
To clarify I said violent overthrow would be likely if police in every major city were massing and racking up body counts of unarmed protesters. Basically 1800s labor era tactics, shoot all the "strikers" or "blockaders" and use any force necessary to disperse the protesters. I think a coordinated national campaign of police terrorism WOULD spark a violent revolution.
I never said that we were likely to ever arrive at that scenario. It's basically the worst case scenario regarding Occupy.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
That's an awfully bold claim. I don't suppose you'd like to back any part of that up? Preferably with links that don't include lizard people or BUY GOLD in large flashing letters?
What sort of "evidence" do you want in particular? I posted a boatload of general claims in the last page regarding general trends that could herald an eventual cratering of the economy. Including the Eurozone problem. Would you like somecharts on how wages have stagnated since the 70s, or how consumer debt, Student loan debt is at record highs, savings are down? How about a rousing Elizabeth Warren talk regarding the growth of uncontrollable costs that may destroy the middle class? If you want me to cite sources I need to know which claim you want sourced. ;p
In general, the middle class is dying by every measurable stat I've seen, and nobody can point to anything that will turn this around. "Hoping it will turn around really hard" does not make it do so. As well, job booms do not appear to affect any of the above statistics either. So even if we have a "jobs recovery" that says nothing of purchasing power of the median family nor their ability to continue fighting rising prices/inflation.
P.S. Lizard people are so yesterday, It's all about the Toad-People now! Yes, they're out to seduce you with their alluring croaks-which-sound-conveniently-like-speech and their evil sticky-tongues of doom from which there is no escape! ;D
Exactly none of those offer more than weakly-tangential support for the absurd claim you made. You haven't the background or knowledge to make the kind of inferences you're making.
The "absurd claim" here is that there are "a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression". This is the sentence you disagreed with and FO2Man provided links on how shit was getting worse since the 70s.
Exactly none of those offer more than weakly-tangential support for the absurd claim you made. You haven't the background or knowledge to make the kind of inferences you're making.
So the Eurozone isn't in a potential debt crisis? The Derivatives market isn't currently under a federally insured BoFA subsidiary that Uncle Sam could not afford to cover if it goes sour? Contagion couldn't possibly link the two? The fact that Boeing, GE and other major manufacturers are pulling out of the USA and hollowing our industrial base means nothing? Corporations aren't sitting on huge piles of cash instead of investing? They're not holding off hiring on new workers to squeeze more productivity out of existing ones? That we're turning into an entirely consumer goods/services economy within the USA while also having a shrinking middle class less able to afford to support said economy causes no possible worry? The situation in Iran has no potential to create price-shocks on oil? Are you ever going to give a response of any substance or do you insist on snidely calling people stupid without ever managing to say much else? Do you need me to rephrase all of this, add extra detail and format it in a college term paper for it to count? Do you think I like using the Cavuto this much? ;p
I'm not saying we're going to go into a depression RIGHT NOW but that if no policy changes are made in Washington then where the hell are jobs or for that matter any real increases in worker compensation going to come from in the next ten years? Even if we just don't grow, or grow very slowly that still leaves us one disaster away from recession or depression depending on scale. (Of which, we have a few contenders already thanks to Europe and Iran.) If someone thinks the USA's economy is headed for a long term plunge you could try and dissuade them with substance on why they are mistaken. Oh, wait, I forgot! You don't have to answer questions because you're just here to call people names and run away without ever having to address anything.
If you have something to say, be constructive about it or don't be surprised when you don't get much in response.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
there is no evidence whatsoever that shows we will be able to foster long term growth anywhere and a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression.
Do a little experiment. Use google to search out the first ten, or twenty, or fifty long-term economic forecasts by credible sources (academics, governments, NGOs, whatever). Anybody want to place a wager as to how many predict "long term growth anywhere" as opposed to "contraction and depression"? My personal over/under is going to be 'all of them'.
there is no evidence whatsoever that shows we will be able to foster long term growth anywhere and a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression.
Do a little experiment. Use google to search out the first ten, or twenty, or fifty long-term economic forecasts by credible sources (academics, governments, NGOs, whatever). Anybody want to place a wager as to how many predict "long term growth anywhere" as opposed to "contraction and depression"? My personal over/under is going to be 'all of them'.
Increases in GDP or the stock market mean very little if you're someone unable to find a job that pays well enough to afford rent, food, etc. Does it really matter if the top 1% and large corporations continue to rake in profits which "create growth" while the remainder of the people in the economy suffer? That's a lot like how the ISDA can declare something "totally not a default" like they did with MF Global and like they're trying to do with Greece's situation right now.
For the rest of us there's little effective difference except the speed with which we all move into abject poverty.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
there is no evidence whatsoever that shows we will be able to foster long term growth anywhere and a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression.
Do a little experiment. Use google to search out the first ten, or twenty, or fifty long-term economic forecasts by credible sources (academics, governments, NGOs, whatever). Anybody want to place a wager as to how many predict "long term growth anywhere" as opposed to "contraction and depression"? My personal over/under is going to be 'all of them'.
Increases in GDP or the stock market mean very little if you're unable to find a job that pays well enough to afford rent, food, etc. Does it really matter if the top 1% and large corporations continue to rake in profits which "create growth" while the remainder of the people in the economy suffer?
Without granting any of these new assertions, is it safe to say then that you're walking back your earlier claims?
Posts
1. As long as they can afford to get by, I have a hard time imagining a problem. People adjusted to having lots of credit card debt to get by, and I imagine they will adapt to whatever else comes along, as long as their living conditions don't suffer greatly. If it does reach the point where a lot of America cannot maintain something close to its rerecession standard of living, then I agree action may result, but without many unions, it seems hard to imagine a general strike.
2. So let's say things get much worse than I think they will, and there actually is an attempt at rebellion. How could it win? I literally can't see a path to victory for a violent rebellion in America, since it is just too large to take over, and our military and police forces would have the people outgunned so badly.
This is basically true. When poor, badly educated people get shat on badly enough, you get riots. When previously well off, well educated, articulate people with organisational skills get shat on badly enough, you get revolutions.
Incidentally, historically speak, revolutions are generally fairly peaceful, bar a riot or two. It's the counter-revolutions that usually follow that are spectacularly bloody.
The revolution that occurred in East Germany was remarkable because it wasn't followed by a counter-revolution. But the revolution itself was peaceful. Revolutions happen when enough people not only think "well fuck this shit" but realise enough people around them are thinking it too. That's not an inherently violent situation in and of itself.
An example that occurrs to me of the way a middle class revolution could possibly happen in the US would be if a large number of people decided that they simply weren't going to pay their taxes until "the 1%" pay theirs at the same rate. If one guy does this, then obviously IRS will screw him and no-one will even notice. If a hundred guys do it, the IRS take on a couple of extra staff and screw the hundred guys, and maybe there's a local news story. If 20 or 30 or 40 million people all decide not to pay their taxes, then the IRS and by extension the federal government is going to have a serious problem. No violence need be involved, but it would take a lot of organisational and persuasive ability, the expertise to anticipate and block countermeasures (eg: "withdraw all your savings into cash so the government can't seize your bank accounts", etc) and the articulacy to get their message out over the media to prevent the state from controlling the discourse. Exactly the sort of campaign you would expect the middle classes to excell at.
A campaign like that would frighten the government far more than any number of riots possibly could, because riots have no political legitimacy, and they can be simply countered by force, in which the government has a massive advantage. You can easily go tell national guardsmen to go shoot rioters; it's infinitely harder to order them to go shoot their neighbors for not paying their income tax.
You're exactly right. It's just a wet dream of stupid people on the far-right and far-left.
Just like every other revolution. It's why they never happen.
Is this really a revolution though? There would be no change in the sitting government, and the changes would only occur if the sitting government could agree to make them. This seems more like winning change through civil disobedience, which is a valid tactic, but not a revolution. Also, we don't need to shoot our neighbors for not paying their taxes, just arrest them and throw them in federal prison. I wonder if the protest could survive its leaders and other random members being incarcerated over it.
Edit: Also, its REALLY hard to not pay your taxes when it is your employer that withholds for you. The government could actually nullify your whole protest by increasing required withholdings. If it was only 1099 taxpayers who were refusing to pay, then you have a much smaller protester base.
Do you really think a violent revolution that overthrows the government is possible in modern America? If so, how could it succeed? I am genuinely interested to hear any ideas, no matter how fantastic about how it could happen, because the resources of our police and armed forces are just so vast, and can be swiftly brought to bear in many locations at once. We have about 3 million soldiers, when you combine active duty and reserve personnel.
This isn't Libya or Tunisia. Best case, you get an Egypt situation where the military abandons the government (hint: this won't happen for a left-wing movement) and takes over.
Define "revolution". If those changes are radical enough, then we have an " effective revolution", even if it's not a revolution in the sense of a discontinuity in governmental legitimacy.
Re: withholding etc. Yes, point taken. I wasn't advocating tax strikes as the best method of effecting a revolution, I just wanted to give an example of the kind of action that can cause one when the middle class get sufficiently pissed off.
PS What happens when the company accountants are in on it too?
I'd actually suspect local separatist movements to gain hold in states, violent reaction from the federal government and a steady disintegration of the national government. As for those 3 million soldiers, the usual way that a revolution happens is when the rank and file and lower officers say "fuck you" and refuse to follow orders.
You do realize that people are talking about revolution as a bad thing. People remember the 20th century, so no one is expecting the Glorious Revolution.
It would only ever be taken up by a fringe, the real revolution would come from voters who lean one way or the other
The electorate has much more power than they think they have if they're properly riled up
Traditionally, large empires would guard against violent revolt by garrisoning province A with soldiers from far-away province B. Those B-ian soldiers wouldn't care much about the A-ite inhabitants and wouldn't have too many problems with orders to violently suppress any armed dissent. In fact China still does exactly this.
I'm not sure that the same situation would apply in the US. I'm sure American soldiers would have no problem taking down "a few dozen crazies", but asking them to use deadly force against a widescale civilian revolt, Gadaffi-style using AA guns on crowds of American protestors, etc? Maybe not so much. Do you know any members of the US armed forces? Why don't you ask them how they'd feel about doing that? Sure, they could, but I'm not 100% certain that they would.
Obviously it's a small scale, but I think that event has a lot to tell about this hypothetical revolution. Both for and against.
For larger scale, the Civil War perhaps?
I mean, shit, we have done this before you know.
There are reasons that violent rebellion are a last resort. And a long ways off.
So you'd be cool with getting fired next week and starting a new job at Wal Mart*? I do not think so.
You're forgetting the mercenaries employed by the wealthy. The richest individuals have private armies with compounds to match. They're already protected from violent reprisals from the labor force. They've learnt well from the French Revolution.
* not a management position either
Yes, absolutely. There is absolutely no chance of a violent revolution in the US in the foreseeable future, and it definitely isn't something OWS is advocating, so I'm not even sure how it came up in this thread :P
It started with a discussion of how OWS was just kind of making this shit up, people disagreed and talked about it being about real structural issues and things went on from there.
Our military? No I don't see them doing that. However, based on previous actions it's not something I would put past our police force.
I really don't think we're anywhere near a revolution though. As bad as things are, the majority of people in this country are still pretty comfortable, and definitely not anywhere near the widespread poverty that typically is the catalyst for a violent unprising.
We're not. But a couple more generations of the same policies in the same direction...
Next election is really important.
1. No, but I also would not try to overthrow the government over it. That said, I literally can't wrap my head around the idea of being reduced to work like that, since every lawyer I know who lost their job got a job that was around as good as the one they lost within 6 months or so (longer than in the past) so maybe if I was in this crazy situation where all I could do was work at walmart, I would react differently than I think. Are there really people taking that huge of a step down in terms of employment?
2. This just supports the idea that a violent revolution can't work. When the workers strike, have the private army break them. When they fight back, call in the military to subdue a hostile crowd. No need to have soldiers shooting their neighbors for protesting. . .
I don't think the US is anywhere near a violent uprising either. If certain economic/political trends continue for another decade or so though, I wouldn't be very surprised to see people starting talking one in terms of probabilites rather than possibilities. But I think we'd see a "middle class" revolution in the US before a "redneck revolution". In that event though, I'd be deeply fearful of a redneck counter-revolution.
Yes.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/unemployed-and-struggling-lawyers-seek-solace/
Overabundance of experienced attorneys plus industry-wide cutbacks and business practice restructuring means that layoffs could be coming to a firm near you. And, if that happens enough, some of the ballers will also be left out in the cold.
And the engineering and software development fields abound with stories of people who went from 6-figure salaries to years of unemployment to the service industry. Trying to maintain that lifestyle because "the call is going to come any day now" often ends with people draining their savings.
spacekungfuman was suggesting the distinct possibility the economy will open up enough walmart and target jobs that people will magically accept and spell the complete end of Occupy. I was suggesting that it's far more likely for a successful violent uprising to occur in America than for the American people to accept Walmart/target jobs at minimum wage while the wealthy get incredibly wealthier and rig the system to their favor.
I am very familiar with the layoffs that article is talking about, since I know lots of people who were let go from their firms. It took them a while in some cases, but people found jobs that were reasonable replacements. None of my friends or friends of friends did not land on their feet, but I know some first years became almost unemployable because they were let go before they had any skills, and firms only hire entry level lawyers straight out of law school. Not saying this is universal or even applies outside my field and city. If people are really going from 6 figures to walmart, and that continues to happen, it probably is unsustainable.
No, I said jobs that let people maintain their lives more or less. If all that appears is Walmart jobs, then that will not settle down the country, but I'm not sure recovery + nothing but Walmart jobs is possible.
Well so far we've only been generating those sorts of jobs. So I guess the point is a bit moot. ;p
Aside from the regular expansion of the tech sector I haven't seen any real increase in sustainable jobs elsewhere. So I'm pretty sure any employment we add is all going to be min-wage service sector jobs.
Which is why we hope for recovery, and more chairs for the people who lost to sit in. The questions now seems to be (1) will there be enough chairs and (2) will they be at the right class of tables.
Hi. How you doing. I worked for one of the top telecommunication companies in the US. I got paid a decent salary, worked 40-48 hours a week, got full medical benefits, almost 3 weeks vacation a year (once you factored in personal days and shopping days and things). It was a great job and a great company to work for. And then they sold the state, and my job disappeared. My Union helped me with severance. I went to another telecommunications company after that. Applied for the job there. Even better benefits and pay and hours. I got 3 interviews, so I signed a lease for an apartment near the office. Then they got clamped on by upper management. No need to hire new bodies when the old bodies were doing the work just fine. No matter that they were working on average 50-60 hours a week. They were handling it, so why did the company need new people?
No job. No degree. And rent to pay. And the only place to get a job was walmart. So, I went to work for Walmart. And in the meantime of trying to pay my bills and feed myself and my boyfriend ($50/fortnight is not a lot of food for 2 adults), and not get kicked out of the apartment, I racked up debt. credit card debt until nobody would give me any credit. negative balance in my bank account that only ever got smaller. i lost my car insurance because i couldn't pay for it. so I lost my driver's license. my car went unregistered and uninspected for almost two years. I lived in constant fear of the police. I met the sheriff five times, when he came to deliver the eviction papers because i couldn't pay my rent. But I made too much money at walmart to qualify for any state aid, or even city aid. I owned my car because my grandmother had died and I'd used most of my inheritance to pay off the loan on it, or that would have been repossessed.
I got out of the situation, though. But $20,000 in debt. That's payed off though, I got myself out of that hole with the help of my parents and a stable place to live. But the psychological factors? I'm still anxious as hell when I drive, getting behind a wheel is almost paralyzing for me due to remembered fear and anxiety about police, or getting to an accident, or speeding, or anything. The psychological damage of knowing that even after 3 interviews I still wasn't able to get a good job. And right now, I'm still not. I've got my degree now, finished that up finally. Lot of good it does me. I'm still floundering and drowning in a sea of self-loathing and self-hate that was not necessarily caused by, but certainly agitated by living on credit to the point of disaster.
So.... to your first statement, and I say this with all respect that I can muster, Go jump into a lake. I hope you never have to go through that, I truly do. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. But you have no idea what you're talking about.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
No offense, but wishing for the status quo to recover when there is no evidence whatsoever that shows we will be able to foster long term growth anywhere and a metric fuckton of evidence for contraction and depression...it's really got to take the cake for some of the biggest acts of magical thinking I've encountered. You're a lawyer, you should know better! ;p
Things don't just magic better, they get better because people do things to make them better and yet no one can point to any factors that will come together to return solvency to our economy. Meanwhile Athens is burning and threatening to start a Eurozone domino effect which could crater the entire world economy. Even if it doesn't, I just can't fathom how you can arrive at the idea that things will improve from all of that.
That's an awfully bold claim. I don't suppose you'd like to back any part of that up? Preferably with links that don't include lizard people or BUY GOLD in large flashing letters?
I'm sincerely sorry for what you have been through, and hope things go well from here on out. But, after everything you have been through, would you support or participate in a violent overthrow of the government?
no.
But OWS is not violent overthrow.
One of the favorite lines from West wing: "It's really amazing that every 4 years we get to overthrow the government"-Amy Gardiner
Voting, involvement, all of that 'junk' is part of a government overthrow.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I see nothing wrong with using the system to enact change. That is what the system is for. FO2Man is saying that a violent revolution is one of three potential outcomes of the current situations. But let's not get carried away with rhetoric. If the people vote different types of candidates into office, and the outgoing politicians hand over power peacefully, there is no "overthrow" just democracy in action.
Violent revolution is always a potential outcome. Not probable, but potential. Same as the Status Quo and incremental change.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
What sort of "evidence" do you want in particular? I posted a boatload of general claims in the last page regarding general trends that could herald an eventual cratering of the economy. Including the Eurozone problem. Would you like some charts on how wages have stagnated since the 70s, or how consumer debt, Student loan debt is at record highs, savings are down? How about a rousing Elizabeth Warren talk regarding the growth of uncontrollable costs that may destroy the middle class? If you want me to cite sources I need to know which claim you want sourced. ;p
In general, the middle class is dying by every measurable stat I've seen, and nobody can point to anything that will turn this around. "Hoping it will turn around really hard" does not make it do so. As well, job booms do not appear to affect any of the above statistics either. So even if we have a "jobs recovery" that says nothing of purchasing power of the median family nor their ability to continue fighting rising prices/inflation.
P.S. Lizard people are so yesterday, It's all about the Toad-People now! Yes, they're out to seduce you with their alluring croaks-which-sound-conveniently-like-speech and their evil sticky-tongues of doom from which there is no escape! ;D
edit:
To clarify I said violent overthrow would be likely if police in every major city were massing and racking up body counts of unarmed protesters. Basically 1800s labor era tactics, shoot all the "strikers" or "blockaders" and use any force necessary to disperse the protesters. I think a coordinated national campaign of police terrorism WOULD spark a violent revolution.
I never said that we were likely to ever arrive at that scenario. It's basically the worst case scenario regarding Occupy.
Exactly none of those offer more than weakly-tangential support for the absurd claim you made. You haven't the background or knowledge to make the kind of inferences you're making.
Stop being the "No you !!" guy.
So the Eurozone isn't in a potential debt crisis? The Derivatives market isn't currently under a federally insured BoFA subsidiary that Uncle Sam could not afford to cover if it goes sour? Contagion couldn't possibly link the two? The fact that Boeing, GE and other major manufacturers are pulling out of the USA and hollowing our industrial base means nothing? Corporations aren't sitting on huge piles of cash instead of investing? They're not holding off hiring on new workers to squeeze more productivity out of existing ones? That we're turning into an entirely consumer goods/services economy within the USA while also having a shrinking middle class less able to afford to support said economy causes no possible worry? The situation in Iran has no potential to create price-shocks on oil? Are you ever going to give a response of any substance or do you insist on snidely calling people stupid without ever managing to say much else? Do you need me to rephrase all of this, add extra detail and format it in a college term paper for it to count? Do you think I like using the Cavuto this much? ;p
I'm not saying we're going to go into a depression RIGHT NOW but that if no policy changes are made in Washington then where the hell are jobs or for that matter any real increases in worker compensation going to come from in the next ten years? Even if we just don't grow, or grow very slowly that still leaves us one disaster away from recession or depression depending on scale. (Of which, we have a few contenders already thanks to Europe and Iran.) If someone thinks the USA's economy is headed for a long term plunge you could try and dissuade them with substance on why they are mistaken. Oh, wait, I forgot! You don't have to answer questions because you're just here to call people names and run away without ever having to address anything.
If you have something to say, be constructive about it or don't be surprised when you don't get much in response.
Do a little experiment. Use google to search out the first ten, or twenty, or fifty long-term economic forecasts by credible sources (academics, governments, NGOs, whatever). Anybody want to place a wager as to how many predict "long term growth anywhere" as opposed to "contraction and depression"? My personal over/under is going to be 'all of them'.
Increases in GDP or the stock market mean very little if you're someone unable to find a job that pays well enough to afford rent, food, etc. Does it really matter if the top 1% and large corporations continue to rake in profits which "create growth" while the remainder of the people in the economy suffer? That's a lot like how the ISDA can declare something "totally not a default" like they did with MF Global and like they're trying to do with Greece's situation right now.
For the rest of us there's little effective difference except the speed with which we all move into abject poverty.
Without granting any of these new assertions, is it safe to say then that you're walking back your earlier claims?