BusinessWeek Online: Working...and Poor

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

Easily, one of the single most infuriating pieces I have read in a month of Sundays. A damning indictment of this country and its leaders. All its leaders. Every last one of them should be ashamed and fear the consequences of this.

http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm

History is clear: If something is not done to reverse this trend and it continues to deteriorate, we WILL face massive and violent civil unrest. The lid will come off.

Consider that a warning. It is hardly something I want to see.

[mhr]

1. Many Have Been Predicting This For Years - Better Tell Frodo Fast

He may need to update his charts to reflect reality instead of fantasy.

Two college degrees here, been unemployed for 4 years.

Some of us know all to well how bad things truly are.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

10. He is out of touch with reality

My state has lost 220,000 jobs in three years-the white collar variety in the technical and financial industries, as well as in manufacturing. The reason our unemployment rate dropped in Mass is because many people relocated because of lack of employment and high cost of living.

Frodo is living in some analytical ivory castle. Statistics can be manipulated very easily. And I doubt we're getting any true measure of the economy these days for fear of retribution from the administration.

[mhr]

11. Right On Rational Rose!

eom

[rfranklin]

2. Walmart shoppers create their own low wages....

By shopping at Walmart, the same low wage earners mentioned in the article are destroying union jobs, robbing themselves of benefits, and enriching the owners of Walmart who are doing everything in their power to accelerate this rush into Third World-ism.

If a nationwide boycott of Walmart could be organized and honored, we could reverse the tide and take control. But, human nature being what it is, it is more important to save two cents on another unneeded gadget made by slave labor in China--it's irresistible.

[QC]

9. I agree that WalMart is evil, but....

where else can people who make $7 an hour shop? When you're not even getting by as it is, saving eight or ten bucks on the week's groceries is irresistible.

I agree that a boycott of WalMart is needed, but it's not only poor people who shop there. Drive around the parking lot and you'll find that the prosperous also love the place. They're the ones who can most easily bear the small price of a boycott, so why absolve them of responsibility?

[salin]

3. Just printed it up for closer read... curious as to your take

on any significance of this story appearing prominently in this publication.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. BusinessWeek...

Has had a curiously Cassandra-like slant of late. Recently, they did a story, in their print edition that stated that 1.5% of the population controls 98% of the wealth here. They were not complimentary.

[salin]

7. Perhaps figuring out

that economic expansion can not continue when US consumers fuel much of global trade (hence our huge trade deficits) - but that the expansion is greatly limited when it relies on only the wealthiest to fuel it? That perhaps the economic conditions prior to the big crash - in which consumption and production was based on selling luxury goods to the wealthiest - doesn't provide for a strong infrastructure? A bit slow on figuring this out - so not quite as Cassandra-esque as say... Bernie Sanders... but glad that some in the business class are realizing that their short term gains are unsustainable and that they need to get the word out to the broader business community.

[drdigi420]

4. typical rich selfish pricks

cant drive a 5 series beemer instead of a 7 series beemer just so their employees can feed their families.

[AP]

6. People should be more upset about this than they are about Iraq.

Iraq is a subset of the problem created by this bigger problem: the concentration of political, cultural and economic power in the hands of a few people at the very top of a very steep pyramid.

[Deja Q]

8. That magazine sucks. They've been hyping up a great economy AND how

to outsource and deal with it effectively. x(

Which is why I'm surprised by this article. Businessweek clearly shovels interest in favor of businesses, and these days it's clear they don't give a fuck (er, "Freedom"), about people. It's all about their CEO's bottom line profit for himself. x(

Don't forget, the poverty line indicators have remained the same #s for decades. $18,800 barely allows ONE PERSON to survive (and not prosper), let alone a whole freedom family of four!!!

And given that workers have twice the workload compared to the 1970s, I'm appalled they don't get twice the pay. Indeed, in the 1970s, CEOs made 40x that of workers. In 2004, it's 512x or more. Actually, it's 1024x when you consider workers are doing TWICE the work at no comparable increase in pay.

Not to forget how many corporations (60% of them between the 1996-2000 boom) found enough ways to ditch paying a freedoming (er, fucking) PENNY in taxes - Tyco being a more noteworthy example of this anti-american act.

In the 1970s (pre-79), minimum wage was only slightly less than a liveable wage. In 2004, one needs TWO minimum wage jobs to survive. And the repukes want to do away with minimum wage.

One day, if corporate america keeps doing what its doing, people will start to revolt. And I bet that's when Patriot II will kick in... Remember, the only freedom republicans like is freedom of greed.

Who are the traitors again? Corporate america is full of them as is their supporters (repukes and certain Democrats.)

[QC]

12. Kick for an excellent thread!

:kick:

[reprobate]

13. Nothing is forever, especially corporatism. Look at russia and france.

Any time the nobility and the commoners wealth get that far apart you get a revolution. The masses want only to raise their families, keep a roof over their heads, and food on the table. When even this minimum becomes impossible there is a stress build up not only in the individual but also in the society.

Some things can help relieve this stress, like 'safety nets' of welfare, food stamps, etc. In geology when you have stress build up along a fault line, at some point the fault line will 'snap' and you get an earthquake. Just as in geology, in societal politics when the pressure reaches the breaking point, you get a reaction that seeks to even the pressure. In this case it's called a 'revolution'.

I believe that the corporate power structure in charge of our society today is only smart enough to maximize their profits, with globalization being the current modus du joure.

I do NOT believe that they are able to look at the inevitable reactions to their policies. This will be their downfall.

Gore Vidal was asked what he saw for the future of america and western society. He predicted that the people will 'take to the streets'. I don't believe he was talking about protest rallies. I think he meant exactly what is happening now, and the breaking point is fast approaching.

It seems to me that there are two possible alternatives ahead of us.

a. There can be a true revolution, that creates a new paragym for our society in which the people become more important than the corporations, and corporate personhood is outlawed.

or,

b. The poor, struggleing to make ends meed and unable to fight corporatism succesfully anymore, turn to less lawfull means to feed their families. Corporate police will be faced with overwhelming pressures and greater force will be used to 'put the ungrates in their place'. This will lead to a degenerating society and chaos.

In my opinion, the only thing that separates the two is how involve those who can forsee the possibilities become. That means you and me. We will be the leaders behind the scenes, or there will be chaos.

It's up to us.