French Workers Refuse to be “Kleenex”

Was it only three years ago that some of our puffed up patriots were denouncing the French as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” too fattened on Camembert to stub out their Galois’s and get down with the war on Iraq? Well, take another look at the folks who invented the word liberté. For more than a week now they’ve been marching, rioting, and burning up cars to preserve a right Americans can only dream of: the right not to be fired at an employer’s whim.

The French government’s rationale for its new labor law was economically impeccable, as economic reasoning goes these days: Make it easier for employers to fire people and they will be more eager to hire people, thus reducing France’s appalling unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. Furthermore, the law will apply only to people under 26, and the terminations can occur only during the first two years of employment. So why is Paris burning?

Maybe the rioters sense a logical fallacy in the government’s proposal: Fire more people so more people can be hired? What corporations call “flexibility” – the right to dispose of workers at will – is what workers experience as disposability, not to mention insecurity and poverty. The French students who are tossing Molotov cocktails don’t want to become what they call “a Kleenex generation” – used and tossed away when the employer decides he needs a fresh one.

You may recognize in the French government’s reasoning the same arguments Americans hear whenever we raise a timid plea for a higher minimum wage or a halt to the steady erosion of pensions and health benefits: What? – scream the economists who flack for the employing class – if you do anything, anything at all, to offend or discomfit the employers they will respond by churlishly failing to employ you! Unemployment will rise, and you – lacking of course the health care and other benefits provided by the French welfare state – will quickly spiral down into starvation.

French youth aren’t buying this kind of argument, probably because they know where the “Anglo-Saxon model,” as they call it, leads. If you have to give up job security to get a job, what next? Will the pampered employers be inspired to demand a suspension of health and safety regulations? Will they start requiring their workers to polish their shoes while hand-feeding them hot-buttered croissants? Non to all that, the French kids are saying. We only have to look to America – or for that matter, China -- to see where that leads.

Of course the French aren’t entirely fair in calling their nemesis the “Anglo-Saxon model.” It’s the specifically American model they have to fear. Last week I was in England, ancestral home of the Anglo-Saxon race, talking about Bait and Switch, when a fellow in the audience asked me how people could be fired without “due process.” For a moment I thought I had misheard or been misled by one of those incomprehensibly quaint English regional dialects. But no, in the U.K. a person who feels she has been wrongfully dismissed can turn to an Employment Appeals Tribunal and, beyond that, to the courts. I had to explain that in the U.S., you can be fired for just about anything: Having a “bad attitude,” which can mean having a funny look on your face. Or just turning out to be “not a good fit.”

Years ago, there was a theory on the American left which someone– maybe it was me – termed Worsism: the worse things get, the more likely people will be to rise up and demand their rights. But in America at least, it doesn’t seem to work that way. The worse things get, the harder it becomes to even imagine any kind of resistance. The fact that you can be fired “at will” – the will of the employer, that is – freezes employees into terrified obedience. Add to that the fact that job loss is accompanied by a loss of access to health care, and you get a kind of captive mentality bordering on the kinkily masochistic: Beat me, insult me, double my workload, but please don’t set me free!

Far be it from me, as a responsible blogger, to advocate the burning of cars and smashing of store windows. But why are American students sucking their thumbs while the Bush administration proposes a $12.7 billion cut in student loans? Where is the outrage over the massive lay-offs at Ford, Hewlett Packard, and dozens of other major companies? And is the poverty-stricken quarter of the population too stressed by their mounting bills and multiple jobs to protest cuts in Medicaid and already pathetic housing subsidies?

Compared to those “surrender monkeys,” we’re looking like a lot of soggy used Kleenex.

Comments

[Victoria]

I have a few questions that may make one question the supposed inethicality of firing...

If a company wants to lay off workers in order to increase efficiency, but does not do so, either because such an action would be against the law or because the company feels an obligation to the workers, won't the cost of inefficiency simply be passed on to consumers? Now, let us suppose that this particular company in question is an American company, and it faces two choices: either increase efficiency(supposing layoffs are not against the law) by laying off these workers, or loose out to foreign competition, consequentially threatening the job security of even more workers at that company, as the company may have to close or outsource their labor(you seem to treat outsourcing as criminally as you do layoffs, so this presents a prickly dilemma. Would you consider it incorrect to lay those workers off, understanding that by doing so, the jobs of many more workers may be saved? Wouldn't all the workers in this situation suffer more if there was a blanket policy employed to prevent all layoffs...

Also, I'd like to know how exactly you suggest America handles terminations. Do you suggest we create an Employment Board, so that unjust terminations may be reconciled? Do employers have any say in this process(the creation of the board), or are they excluded from a role in deciding the fate of their businessess? Are employees permitted to take a case to such a board without producing evidence of their unjust termination beforehand, or can an employee drag his or her empoyer into the courtoom, having accused the employer of unjust termination, thus causing the employer to loose valueble time needed to run his or her business? Certainly, such a system does present disincentives to hiring; if it becomes virtually impossible to fire a worker, as such a process requires red tape and time, employers will be much more wary of and hesitant towards hiring, as they will not be able to terminate even a bad worker with alacrity. Or, say the firing was necessary simply because an economic condition required the employer to cut down production. The employer decides to terminate the most recently hired employee, as he's the most inexperienced. Couldn't this employee simply petition the board and skew the case, thus arguing he was fired for his lack of seniority?

How exactly do the current French labor laws work? Are any terminations allowed to occur? Perhaps it is difficult to accurately convey the magnitude of change without first establishing the conditions that exist beforehand.

[dearkitty]

More on the mass actions in France, with 28 March as big strike day, at http://dearkitty.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=814498

[John]

It seems to me that if an employee has the right to terminate his or her employment 'at will' then an employer should have the same right.
The problem in America (and France apparently) is the lack of quality job opportunities. If jobs were plentiful, the shoe were on the other foot as it were, there would be no notion toward a 'due process' to govern or regulate an employer.
The French are frustrated with their state of affairs and are reacting consistent with their philosophy, which is a measure more rebellious than ours in America.
America is experiencing a down time with respect to employment which is further exacerbated by increasing diversity in pay levels, health care costs, and fighting a war that has lost its moral legitimacy.
Practical solutions include raising the minimum wage, employment insurance reform, a universal health care program, and of course, developing a more effective foreign policy.
These are not new ideas. Some, the universal health care program for instance, have been visited before and rejected. However, the problem of escalating health care costs has not gone away either.
Americans, in my view, can be most activist by joining the debate. Blog, write your representative, send a letter to your local newspaper, carry a sign in the street, or whatever makes sense.
But do not resort to anarchy. Burning cars and smashing windows will not solve problems. Progressive reforms in key areas of government will and are very achievable with political pressure.

[high5]

Victoria. People can be fired in France and in other countries with superior than US labor protection laws. That is, if there is a valid reason for the layoff. One such valid reason is that there isn't enough work, a situation which might have occured due to investments in more efficient processes. You're putting up a strawman.
What the protests in France is about is that the proposed new law will give employers the right to fire anyone without reason.

[Hattie]

Too many Americans still believe that somehow, some way, they are going to get a chance at the big prizes, that they are going to be capitalists just like Donald Trump.We are taught to look up to people with lots of money and to want to be like them. As long as this is the case, we'll let ourselves be jerked around in the job market.
The French know better. Unlike us, they have a viable working class and the mentality that goes with that. They do not make common cause with capitalists but rightly consider them to be exploiters of resources and labor.
Here's a little everyday story: my husband just lost another job so we have been hustling around getting medical coverage. This should not be happening to us. We have paid into an insurance plan for several years and now they're just yanking it. That means a profit for them and nothing for us. That stinks.
By the way, my husband is not a bum but rather a Ph.D research scientist with a substantial repution. Makes no difference to Joe Bottom Line Capitalist who does not want to pay for our medical coverage. As far as J.C. is concerned, my husband is just another superflous employee. Luckily, my husband has used his brain power to get enough return on the wealth he has created for others so that we can live decently if not opulently even without the job. But that's only because he's insisted on getting a share of his intellectual property, with the help of lawyers. Otherwise we could just struggle in our old age, and Joe Capitalist would not give a rip.
Hey, the French are smart.

[Sharon]

Hattie, isn't he eligible for COBRA? I was laid off last year, but found another job within a couple of months. Trouble was, it was 70+ miles from home. I quit in Novemeber and am now working part-time and going to graduate school. My COBRA costs over $500/mo. If I hadn't taken the last job, my COBRA would be about $300. But it would have run out by now. It's a crappy system.

[Victoria]

I'm sorry; I really wasn't trying to pose a straw man, but when I was exploring the issues of hiring and firing, I came across some hypothetical quesitons that I thought perhaps needed attention.

Also, Hattie, do you really hold 'capitalists' to be exploiters of resources and labor? I mean, don't these capitalists provide employment,as well as making needed things available to consumers, rich and poor alike?

[Hattie]

Sharon: he was not eligible for Cobra. Not enough employees in the firm. Doesn't sound like much of a loss from what you say, though.
Any of you out there think Medicare's free? Think again.When my husband was employed, I had part A Medicare and my husband's insurance covering Part B. Now I have Kaiser (whoop-de-doo) covering everything for a mere $200.00 a month. My husband, a little younger than I, has adequate but not good Kaiser coverage, also for $200.00. That's $400.00 a month for us,not bad, actually. We have no health problems (yet) which is why we got it so cheap, I guess. But who knows what our premiums might be in the future? We have no control over what we're charged. I once vowed I would never go to Kaiser, but it's all I can get. It's that or do without medical care altogether. So we have no "choice" about coverage
Victoria: I think it's very kind of people to think that capitalists exist to make life good for the rest of us. Progress is our most important product. You're in good hands with Allstate. Better things for better living through chemistry. Entrepreneurs have made this country the economic powerhouse it is today. Small business people are like unto gods, whereas teachers are just people who can't really do things. Them as can, can. Them as can't teach.Helping others is fine, but serious people are into making money. I've heard it all so often. It's the mantra that has replaced any kind of social consciousness in the U.S.
But workers are the ones who create wealth, and the capitalists use up resources and bleed off the profits. Profits are what they are about. Period. If we peons get anything, it's to keep us from tearing down the place.
Of course the big money maker is "defense." That's what our tax money gets spent on, mostly. And it's been this way for years.

[Victoria]

A specter is haunting these posts - the specter of outdated Marxian theory...

Doesn't it take the initiative of say, a person or a group of persons in order to create the conditions in order to produce something ('bleed the workers'). It doesn't seem as if clusters of production merely crystallize, poof, from thin air. Sure, the workers might be doing a lot of the work that is required of production, but something must be said for the initiative and inventiveness that allowed for production to occur in the first place. I work at a small business and of course I COULD make the argument that my employer is draining my labor for her wealth, as she's sitting behind a desk most of the time and reaping the benefits while I do the very hard labor. However, she started her business on her own, without a single employee; her business grew because it was successful, and now she needs to employ people. Sure, I COULD argue that I don't benefit from the profits as much as she does(although the more successful her business is, the more hours I'm able to work, hence, the more money I'm able to make...), but it seems like an egregious error, as her seemingly 'cleaner' (I work in the animal care sector, which, quite obviously, is messy...) managerial position requires her to work twice as many hours, with twice as much mental focus. I think it'd be wrong if she didn't earn more than I.

[Hattie]

I hope your employer provides you with medical coverage, Victoria.

[suezboo]

South Africa is a Third World country, with an official unemployment rate of over 30%.Yet, we have a similar Labour Court which handles unfair dismissals and we have a Public Health service. We suffer from masses of poverty, inequality and various terrible problems. But, if our workers can have those basic rights, one would surely expect a First World country could offer the same.Could it be that we have a very active Union movement, as do Britain and France?

[high5]

John, your belief that "It seems to me that if an employee has the right to terminate his or her employment 'at will' then an employer should have the same right." Where did you get that from? I don't know exactly how it's done in the US but in my country, Sweden, when entering an employee-employer relationship you sign a contract. (Such a specter of outdated Marxian theory, right Victoria?) Such a contract usually says the employee has to give notification of his desire to quit working for the company. Depending on the company and your position that notification has to be done a certain time before you can actually leave the company. This can hardly be described as an employee terminating 'at will', as you put it.
As the employer has his/her responsibilities toward the employee, the employee has his/her responsibilities toward the employer.

[Barbara E]

Victoria -- You're right, it DOES take someone to organize "clusters of production." But there are alternatives to both private companies and the (communist) state -- eg, cooperative, group-based, businesses, where all workers have a voice. Why don't we have more of them here in the US?
Also, you are far too modest about your contribution to the company you work for. Workers (including white collar folks) don't just do "a lot of the work" -- the do the work, period. Maybe we need a little more self-esteem!

[Tina]

Hattie, I am really enjoying what you have to say! I can really identify with your piece about all the arguments that the real, serious people are making money, and the do-gooders are something less than respectable, and are those that can't DO! Yet, sadly, some part of me has also internalized these arguments, perhaps partly because I can't think of many good rebuttals. But thanks for helping me see that I'm not alone!!!

[brynn]

Frequently, the only factor separating capitalist employer from worker is dumb luck. GW Bush and his father had the luck to be born into wealth, hence, they enjoyed Ivy League educations, abundant seed capital, and connections—not only to form businesses but to save their asses if (as did GW miserably and more than once) they failed. My father, on the other hand, was born to off-the-boat Irish immigrants: never could afford college, served as an enlisted man in WWII, and toiled in low-paying jobs his whole working-life with no one to pick up the pieces if he failed.

Way more than half the wealth he generated with his labour went to his already-rich employers, simply because 1) they had the luck to possess money or assets in the first place; 2) with a surplus of workers, they could pit one worker against another to keep wages low; and 3) the force of the state ensured the unfair system would be maintained.

That my father is not now destitute is due to several factors, among them: 1) dumb luck he was labouring in the post-WWII economic boom, when lack of a college education was not an automatic sentence to poverty; 2) FDR’s social spending and taxation programs, including the GI Bill that allowed my dad to purchase his first home; 3) dumb luck (again!) that he purchased that first home in California and then profited from the insane real estate boom that allowed him to trade up several times and eventually purchase income property. He now lives modestly in his retirement.

Neocons have dismantled most of FDR’s programs; they’re itching to destroy Social Security, which contrary to propaganda, is one of the few government programs running a surplus. Since Reagan, they have achieved a monumental reversal of social spending and taxation that now re-distributes America’s vast wealth upwards, as it did in the era prior to FDR’s reforms. Upward class mobility in the US, always exaggerated, is now for all intents and purposes defunct.

And this is considered the best system people can devise?!

Americans have been brainwashed into worshiping the wealthy and despising the poor. It’s time they woke up and realised that the wealth of the ruling classes is utterly dependent on labour’s complicity.

[John]

High 5, in the U.S. it is common to work in an 'at will' arrangement. Yes, there can be contracts set up which stipulate terms of termination, and they may specify a period of notice, but these are not as common if not rare. Most work arrangements are a simple employer offer letter with signed acceptance by the employee. The 'at will' nature may be mentioned, or may not. Here in Colorado, I am told it is codified in a state statute. This means that the employee has no recourse in the courts.
I am originally from Canada and the convention was different there. Again, the actual employment contract was verbal or in letter form. However, the statute governing it set out that an employer needed to provide compensation for the period of time the employee would reasonably be expected to take to obtain a similar position elsewhere (which varies for just about everybody), unless the firing was for cause. The statute goes further in that it tries to then define 'cause'. This is the stuff lawyers live for. In most cases, unless the employee did something egregious, like theft and it could be easily proven, employers simply made an offer to settle. Interestingly, employees are not held to a similar arrangement, and could simply terminate and go. In cases where this would cause the employer significant hardship they could, of course, offer a contract which sets out the termination arrangement.

[Victoria]

What constitutes self-esteem? Would it be asking my employer to pay me more than the market value of my wage(realizing that there are a plethora of eligible applicants, as my job doesn't require training)? Or, would it be asking her to give me health insurance, when I realize it would be impossible to do so, if she herself were to have a "living wage"?

[A3K]

What a load of ignorance masquerading as concern for employee rights.

Barb, if an employer is concerned that it will be extremely costly to terminate an employee, then the decision to hire will never be made lightly.

You ignore the economic consequences of the French law which de Villepin is attempting to revise.

And to glorify the appalling behavior of those French students and communists... There's not enough contempt to pour on you for that.

[A3K]

Victoria,

There are no such things as markets. There's only justice, defined as a constantly moving target occupying a small place in the small minds of individuals for whom enough is never enough and not enough ought to be illegal.

Ask someone what the minimum wage should be. Hilarity will definitely ensue. No matter what number they come up with, someone will deem that insufficient as a "living wage".

BTW, the correct response to what the minimum wage should be is "More."

[Robin]

The current Vichy Republican dictatorship (no, they were NOT elected; they OWN the voting machines!) is the result of nearly half a century's dumbing-down of education. Fantasy-based curricula, stealth "Christian" fundamentalist blackballing and recruiting, and carte blanche (that's French!) for the corporate "privatizion" of any and every activity that would bring the government under criminal investigation has brought us to this point. We are three or four generations into a nation of mouton (That's French for sheep).

Dual citizenship looks better and better under our nation's current "as-long-as-I-benefit-right-away- who-cares" scenario.

Ce n'est pas une démocratie. (That's French for New Orleans.)

[Robin]

Forgive the typo: "privatization." Merci!

[Hattie]

BTW, the correct response to what the minimum wage should be is "More."
Well, A3K, for once you're right. I'd say maybe $10.00 an hour? According to my calculations, that would be $20,000. If the employer threw in medical coverage, I guess a family of four with two wages like that could get by.

[Ted]

A3K: "And to glorify the appalling behavior of those French students and communists... There's not enough contempt to pour on you for that."

The ignorance is yours, and my contempt is for you. The overwhelming majority merely demonstrated peacefully. A very small minority, some possibly not students, got a bit violent and, of course the media focus on them because they make more dramatic images. Idiots like you then take them to represent all the students demonstrating.

What you also ignore is that if employers can "lightly" decide to employ people they can also lightly decide to fire them and will, and hire a new cheap lot every two years.

[Ted]

I feel sorry for Victoria, she is a classic example of Chomsky's point about the main function of the education system is to get people to conform to the system and believe its myths. She should actually read Barbara's books and try to learn from them. Sadly it is usually only when reality hits people over the head that they really start asking questions (as happened to many young men in Vietnam, sometimes too late). Hattie, for example, has had the reality of the system revealed to her in a way which has freed her from its myths.

[A3K]

"BTW, the correct response to what the minimum wage should be is "More."
Well, A3K, for once you're right. I'd say maybe $10.00 an hour? According to my calculations, that would be $20,000. If the employer threw in medical coverage, I guess a family of four with two wages like that could get by."

Bull. You think a family of four could buy a home in New York on $40,000? You're insane. Where is your heart? $10/hr is inadequate.

[A3K]

"Idiots like you then take them to represent all the students demonstrating."

Ted, it's idiots like you incapable of reading who make dialogue impossible. I expressed contempt for Barbara for supporting the nature of the French demonstrations, which she herself pointed out included car burnings and vandalism. So sod off, idiot.

"What you also ignore is that if employers can "lightly" decide to employ people they can also lightly decide to fire them and will, and hire a new cheap lot every two years."

Shows how bright you are, Ted. A huge cost for employers is training, including that initial period where a worker is essentially worthless, yet draws full salary as they are taught how to do their job. That you suppose employers are so dumb as to lightly incur that cost over and over again just shows your level of comprehension of the entire economics of labor.

But don't feel badly. Most of the writers on this site are at least as ignorant as you.

[A3K]

Robin,

Please put your tinfoil hat back on.

[A3K]

BTW, Ted, reread the first paragraph of Barb's article. And feel free to apologize.

[Robin]

Ze level of ze discourse, A3K, she is seenkeeng, honh-honh-honh-honh!

[Barbara E]

Victoria -- yes, self-esteem would be demanding a wage you can live on plus the benefits you need. If your employer can't provide those things, maybe she shouldn't be in business.

A3K: Did I say to burn cars and smash windows? NON.

[A3K]

"A3K: Did I say to burn cars and smash windows? NON."

Did I say you did? Non.

What I said you did was to glorify their behavior. Reread your own first paragraph, Barbara, where you attempt to refute the notion that the French are weak by claiming they have more backbone than Americans. The examples of their strength specifically were those acts of violence.

So while you didn't technically advocate the burning of cars nor the smashing of windows, the entirety of your piece served to glorify the actions of the folks doing just that while simultaneously lamenting the lack of such moxie here in America.

All in all, Barbara, this piece of yours is contemptible. And I haven't even addressed the fallacies you present in arguing against the new French law.

Is it that you don't know better, or are you simply being dishonest with your readers? I'd honestly like to understand.

[Kurt]

A3K:

While there have been the occasional car-burnings and molotov cocktails, the vast majority of the demonstrations and protests have been peaceful. I think what Barbara is "glorifying" is the fact that the French are willing to speak out against their government when they perceive it as screwing them over.

[Peter Shaw]

It's typical rightwing economic "logic" the French government employs to say that making the destruction of jobs easier will create employment. The government here in Australia has taken the same line verbatim. Some other gems they have sprouted: recent legislation that makes it illegal to fire someone on the basis of race, sex, political beliefs etc. while at the same time making it legal to fire someone for no reason at all; and my personal favourite, the claim that abolishing minimum wage rates will among other things lead to an increase in wages.

[Victoria]

"I feel sorry for Victoria, she is a classic example of Chomsky's point about the main function of the education system is to get people to conform to the system and believe its myths. She should actually read Barbara's books and try to learn from them."

Two things -
I was as far left as one could possibly imagine before having read Nickel and Dimed; after having the jargon stuffed down my throat as truth(pretty contrarily to Chomsky's concept of the conservative educational system, I might add) I revulsed, seeing its many flaws. It's funny - the only thing that the educational system has strived to teach me is that compulsory community service equates to virtue, ambition equates to evil, and that objective truth or cultural critique equates to bigotry.

Luckily, I don't buy into that, nor do I buy into the many forms of ad hominem attacks waged against me for thinking. Also, A3K, I must disagree that justice is " a constantly moving target occupying a small place in the small minds of individuals for whom enough is never enough and not enough ought to be illegal". Not to sound imbecilic, but may I ask you to clarify what that means. I'm not advocating the 'will to power', if that's what you had in mind. On the contrary, my main qualm is with a government or an angry mob having the power to tell one when one has enough, if that makes any sense at all. But then again, it might just be my brainwashing talking...

[Steve Marquis]

This blog started out on a higher plane and has degenerated to name-calling. Give it a rest folks. Personally I have never know from one year to the next whether a bonus or a pink slip would be my end reward. I accept that in the capitalists system market forces determine much of that outcome. But the proof is in the pudding as they say. Our standard of living is generally much higher and our unemployment much lower than the rest of the world. Based on that alone a wise French student should be rallying for the American way. To those on this blog thread that seem to be showing contempt for America and yearn for communist/socialized control over every aspect of your lives, I suggest to explore what Russian or Chinese or…(fill in the Communist blank) peasants learned the hard way. Desiring control over outcome is rooted in insecurity and arrogance. Insecurity - by those who pine to have their survival guaranteed by those around them and Arrogance - by those who think that an immensely complex system can be dictated by some committee.

[Don]

Funny, Steve...I thought the immensely complex system was dictated by some committee...the corporate boards of directors, right?

[Steve Marquis]

I work for one of those and they screw up all the time. What makes capitalism work and socialism/communism fail is the competition. If my committee/board of directors make stupid decisions, market forces will work their magic against us - kind of like how natural selection may work in nature. Already we are seeing the effect of too little competition in the oil industry due to too many mergers. A healthy market needs many competitors. This is what I referred to as Arrogance when some elitist thinks a central authority (themselves) can govern the “on the street” detail of something like hiring and firing with a simple set of rules.
Right now the only real rule that affects my kind of employment is there better be provable cause for firing or prepare for a lawsuit and for small market driven layoffs, a pattern of age/sex/race discrimination should not be evident. I think that about covers it fine.

[Robin]

We are dealing in false dichotomies when we speak of capitalism versus communism/socialism.

Both economic systems are rife with abuse due to their ultimately centralized control structures.

Better to compare the two, I think, and to consider whether there are other ways in which to conduct our necessary transactions.

Do I have any idea what those alternatives might be? No. I am not an economist. However, the rhetorical stances of those who champion one system over another smack of "having all the answers" when, clearly, proponenets of either system conveniently cherry-pick its isolated advantages from amid the respective wreckage.

Isn't it time to reexamine these 19th-century constructs in light of the major changes in global communication, finite energy resources, the fall of the Soviet Bloc, and outsourced/migrant labor?

[Steve Marquis]

Robin,
To have a conversation, we have to at least speak the same language. The very definition of Capitalism embodies decentralized market forces and is the absolute opposite of Communist, Fascist/Socialists schemes; various names which each share elements of dictatorship as the means for control. Recall that the anti-trust laws were put in place to break up monopolies and centralized market forces. You couldn’t have gotten that central point more wrong. One cannot sweep them all together with the simplistic observation that “all have problems therefore they all must be the same”

In your note, you offered no alternatives, filled up two more paragraphs with I don’t know, and we should examine. – I’d love to hear from you again but do 1st examine. Come up with an alternative 2nd– then write.

You might 1st start by separating the subjects of social structures from economic ones. For example, unemployment insurance, social security and health care may have economic ties but are largely social subjects, whereas wages, job security, business regulation, taxation, business ownership and management are economic. This particular thread started out focusing on the latter topic. Lets stay the course.

[Ted]

A3K:'"Idiots like you then take them to represent all the students demonstrating."

'Ted, it's idiots like you incapable of reading who make dialogue impossible. I expressed contempt for Barbara for supporting the nature of the French demonstrations, which she herself pointed out included car burnings and vandalism. So sod off, idiot.'

The reading problem is yours. She was not "glorifying" the burning of cars, simply making a dramatic contrast between large demonstrations which also included some violence with earlier claims that the French are "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". I pointed out the obvious fact that the car-burning was done by a very small minority, who are probably not students anyway, but that it gets a lot of media attention, making it seem more widespread than it is. She explicitly says she not advocating burning cars etc, at the end:

"Far be it from me, as a responsible blogger, to advocate the burning of cars and smashing of store windows. But why are American students sucking their thumbs while the Bush administration proposes a $12.7 billion cut in student loans? Where is the outrage over the massive lay-offs at Ford, Hewlett Packard, and dozens of other major companies? And is the poverty-stricken quarter of the population too stressed by their mounting bills and multiple jobs to protest cuts in Medicaid and already pathetic housing subsidies?"

She's just regretting that there isn't even any peaceful protest in the US. Try reading the whole article next time, with a little intelligence - idiot.

'[Ted]"What you also ignore is that if employers can "lightly" decide to employ people they can also lightly decide to fire them and will, and hire a new cheap lot every two years."

Shows how bright you are, Ted. A huge cost for employers is training, including that initial period where a worker is essentially worthless, yet draws full salary as they are taught how to do their job. That you suppose employers are so dumb as to lightly incur that cost over and over again just shows your level of comprehension of the entire economics of labor.'

Shows how bright you are, to generalize like this. First, employers are increasingly unwilling to do training, and there is more pressure on students to do more practically oriented courses and to do unpaid work experience during such courses where they get such training at no cost to the employer. Also there are already schemes in France to take on students on very low-paid apprentice-type contracts, and one French guy wrote in another forum that he had worked in a company where about 80% of the workforce was made up of such staff, a clear flouting of the spirit of that law by the employer. Also not all jobs are rocket-science, and don't require long periods of training of intelligent graduates. I know because some of my ex-students have told me how quickly they got bored with the work they had to do, which they felt hardly stretched them at all. These were students working in the media, often with rapidly changing technology, which doesn't take that long to master, especially if they've used similar but less advanced technology during their courses. So much for your "level of comprehension of the entire economics of labour."

[Ted]

Steve Marquis:

"Our standard of living is generally much higher and our unemployment much lower than the rest of the world. Based on that alone a wise French student should be rallying for the American way."

I'm sure you really believe this - bizarre as it would seem to most French students who are aware of the kind of third world poverty which exists alongside an increasingly rich small elite in the US. Katrina revealed things about US society which made some Americans less prone to complacency about America. Cf.:

Center for Economic and Policy Research, October 18, 2005

The facts on the U.S. economy and the jobs it generates:

Over 500,000 Americans have dropped out of the labor market because they have given up on job searches
20% of currently unemployed people have been out of a job for over 6 months. This is double the historical average in periods with similar unemployment rates.
Percentage of eligible workers participating in the labor force is at 66%. This is a fifteen year low.
Median family income has declined since 2000. Median hourly wages are the same as they were in November 2001 when the recovery began.
60% of small businesses are forced to attempt to constrain health-care costs, most by raising co-payments. 14% offer incentives for employees to decline health care.
1.33 jobs are posted on-line for every 100 job seekers posting resumes on-line.
In 2004, 3.6 million workers ran through all their unemployment benefits without finding a new job.
Between 2001 and 2004, 44% of the unemployed were white collar workers.

I think many French people would not regard this as something to aspire to - understandably.

"To those on this blog thread that seem to be showing contempt for America and yearn for communist/socialized control over every aspect of your lives, I suggest to explore what Russian or Chinese or…(fill in the Communist blank) peasants learned the hard way."

What a straw man argument - who is demanding "control over every aspect of your lives" ? As to the Darwinian competition you see as the basis of capitalism, this is the theory, Chomsky points out the reality:

"The Cold War is supposedly over, but military spending remains at approximately Cold War levels. A huge proportion of our tax dollars are spent preparing for a high-tech World War III. While questions of drug lords, deterrence, "rogue states" and so forth can be debated, there are other aspects to military spending that aren't so debatable. In his talk on "the subsidy called security," Chomsky argues that the Pentagon, along with NASA, parts of the Department of Energy, and several other government institutions, were developed and are maintained at least in part to support large transnational corporations. He points to the enormous profits that corporations have made from "dual use technology," technologies that are developed with public funds under the military and space exploration system, and then handed over to corporations to be patented and sold back to the public that financed their development in the first place. Chomsky states that over fifty percent of all research and development conducted in the electronics, computer, aeronautics, metallurgy, laser and telecommunications industries has been done with the public's money. He points towards the satellites used by AT&T and the airplanes sold by Boeing as obvious examples of pieces of technology that were largely developed with taxpayers' money and are now used for private profit."

http://www.radiofreemaine.com/rfm/chomrev03.html

[Steve Marquis]

Goodness Ted, Chomsky said this Chomsky said that. Have you ever heard of Logical Fallacies like "Appeal to Authority?" Sounds like you've set this guys and his "I hate America" negativity up as an icon to worship.
You spent your wad in your last Post focusing on some negative statistics. You must be in the gloomy dumps, so let me blow some sunshine your way. Unemployment is plenty low - well under 5% despite 911 and the sustained military effort overseas Heh, how about this one -Black home ownership is at a record high and rising –Spare me the statistics. Statistical Wizards Wars are stupid. As an exercise for the student try looking up stats for the opposite point of view. Certainly I’m well aware that a quick internet search will find you lots of fellow doom and gloom whiners - "heh, but the whites are doing better, bla bla." You know I don’t care. Good for them. The fact that blacks are improving as a statistical group is great too.

If you want to point to some government structural impendent to success then – heh – lay it on the table, but if you don’t have something specific to fix and a proposed solution–Maybe just put your pen down. Why write such amorphous complaints?

The real irony of your comments is your implicit hatred of America is so clear. You chaff over corporations and their employees and shareholders benefiting from government seed money but I’ll bet you wouldn’t mind direct payments to your favorite cause. Please correct me if I got this wrong! Do you like the trick of stealing money from my pocket to pay off people in exchange for their vote? This appears to be the only way elitists can get their power fix. See Unions 101.

I will readily grant that it was not always so, but the deep root of poverty as a class in the US at this point in time is entirely social in nature and it is almost entirely the result of sin. Oh no here comes the PC police. Tough. The sin of pre and extra-marital sex and selfish divorce is tearing at the fabric of society and is almost entirely responsible for families and children in poverty. It’s even worse in AIDS-riddled Africa, and the root cause is the same – When a society abandons the Laws of God for the Law of “what ever feels good” they pay a price. That is the law of the jungle Ted. It’s a law.

Now if you want to improve the economic well being of a people, you primarily need to give them opportunity and stem the drain of resources. Since divorce and unwed mothers are the primary source of resources drain to a family, lets start there. That’s where the leak is. Trying to have communist like control over prices, salaries, hiring/layoff conditions will work about as well here as it had in the Ukraine. Ted, Is that what you want? If you don’t like the free market, tell us Ted - What do you want?

[Ted]

Steve, it's nice of you to provide us with some light relief:

First you don't understand the fallacy of appeal to authority; such an appeal isn't wrong per se, otherwise most scholarship would have to be junked, it's mainly a fallacy when the authority is not an authority in the subject being discussed. But anyway, I presented Chomsky's argument and evidence and it's for you to show where he's wrong. But you didn't and you can't, because there is massive evidence for what he says about corporate welfare.

"Chomsky's... "I hate America" negativity".

This is just pitiful ignorance; abroad Chomsky is the most highly respected American. Basically he tries to get the country to live up to its supposed ideals. If he hated it, why would he regularly tour the country, to packed halls, to discuss his views with fellow Americans ? Inform yourself, read something, e.g. "Understanding Power", which is based on transcripts of such talks with his responses to questions from the audiences.

"but the deep root of poverty as a class in the US at this point in time is entirely social in nature and it is almost entirely the result of sin"

Hilarious - if it wasn't the fact that a lot of Americans actually believe junk like this. Only about 10% of Brits are religious.

But then you can also be very yawn-making:

"your implicit hatred of America is so clear". Oh dear not that old accusation again. No, like much of the rest of the world, there are many things I like in American culture: jazz, movies, etc. I've been there many times, have friends there. Do TRY to understand this - I don't like the US government, nor many big corporations and the tiny minority which controls them. For all your talk of "sin" it's quite obvious that you assume that everyone is just unscrupulous: "I’ll bet you wouldn’t mind direct payments to your favorite cause"

No, I wouldn't want the money if it made me feel very guilty about how this money was made. Try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", e.g.: "I admitted to her and myself that all the money, adventure and glamour no longer justified the turmoil guilt and stress." p. 129.

No, I don't want communist control of everything, but the kind of social democracy which they have in Scandanavia would vastly improve the US's horrendously unequal and exploitative society.

[Hattie]

Steve says: Robin,
To have a conversation, we have to at least speak the same language.

Don't we all speak English here? And so much of it, too.

[Steve Marquis]

Ted I get the fallacy part just fine. You think that because someone speaks to packed halls and sells some books that that makes him an authority. Bunk. The Beatles played to wildly enthusiastic audiences but that didn’t make them right nor wise. Your arguments claiming his authority based on his popularity in lecture halls and (now I'm impressed) in Europe in fact fit the fallacy mold perfectly. Anyway my point that you struggled and failed to grasp was simply that statistics can be molded to show about anything and unfortunately Chomsky makes a living out of twisting and preaching gloom from them. To your “sky is falling” list I gave you a simple Ace of spade trump card response. Unemployment is lower than almost any time in my life. The Democrats here are constantly trying to preach how bad our economy is and the Republicans use their own statistics to prove otherwise. There are so many factors seriously affecting our economy with sweeping globalization of workforces and corporations that to have our economy so flat out outstanding as it is is a phenomenal testament to our system.

I have a son in Peru and another who served in Iraq. They have experience people in poverty. When someone talks about poverty in America, I laugh. They don’t know the meaning of the word. I have never ever seen a malnourished American. If it exists at all it is infinitesimal. My folks lived through some of that and I tell you that you are NOT speaking the same language to make some big deal about so called “poverty.”

Where poverty exists, it is not because DARPA funded the Internet. You seem to be bitter about corporations benefiting by the technology they developed. So what? I’m glad. That means more jobs. My 1st job was 1 of 25,000 engineers working for a defense contractor. (yes I understand statistic quite well) That government dollar was multiplied many times over and our work kept America safe; one of the few truly constitutionally mandated federal expenditures. I’d much rather see that than $ funneled off to special interest entitlement programs where votes become a commodity purchased by robbing my pocket.

Maybe Comsky failed to mention with his honed statistics that better than 60% of GDP is produce in America by small business and than those government contracts are mandated to be re-spread by the Lockheed’s to other small businesses. Oh and you get brownie points by subletting to minority owned businesses; inst that sweet.
You seem hung up about many corporations, but America and its so-called corporate welfare is responsible for almost all the worlds prosperity and freedom. We paid for your ingratitude with corporate money and personal blood. You can thank the fact that we had large corporations capable of building war machines that your current dialog is in English, not being censored and coincidently taking place on the American designed Internet.

I said you had a “I hate America (IHA)“ complex. You admitted you “don’t like the US government but appreciate our Jazz” That’s about like saying “you stink but great shoes, Steve.”
Groups lobby all the time to take money from one person’s pocket to either place it in their own or someone else’s that they have an interest in and they don’t feel the least bit unscrupulous in the process. When you were whining about government money and corporations I assumed you were complaining because you’d rather spend my capital on your own favorite cause. I haven’t dialoged with a single I HA fella that didn’t but I could be wrong – You could be a first! Could it be that you agree with Bush’s give the money back to the people policy?

Freedom to associate is a fundamental Constitutional right and that extends in large part to hiring and firing and to the extent that laws infringe on that right we inch closer to communism. Taking resources from one group and selectively distributing them is another hallmark of communism. Just because you vote for your tyrants does not make you a free people.

You laugh that the vast majority of Americans are religious and still have a moral compass that not spinning about by latest opinion. How sad that (90% you say) Brits have no underpinnings of their eternal importance. If that were so and all we were were electro-chemical reactions then how sad how pointless and meaningless your life must be. You might want to consider the ultimate implications of such a bankrupt philosophy. If all we are are rocks interacting in pre-coded ways then there isn’t even a who to care if the whole deal went up in one big nuclear conflagration much less worrying about this complicated discussion.

I lived in Norway and saw the exploitive crushing burden the Government places on entrepreneurship. The only reason they are doing half good at all is their windfall in energy sales has propped up their welfare state.

This is another example of where government economic policy intersects with social. To show mercy to unwed mothers they began paying them significant stipends – so much so that in one generation that Marriage penalty virtually destroyed marriage as an institution. Lack of marriage begets poverty and if the oil ran out, their society would collapse. Scandinavia as a model? Nei Takk.

Now Ill ask you again. Do you have anything specific you’d like to address – including your specific solution? No broad brush IHAs and boohoos. Lets talk specifics. This thread started talking about Hiring and firing policy. Do you have anything concrete to add?

[Robin]

Steve, you defined capitalism in economic terms and socialism (too often interchangeable with communism) in political terms.

You also wrote, "You might 1st start by separating the subjects of social structures from economic ones. For example, unemployment insurance, social security and health care may have economic ties but are largely social subjects, whereas wages, job security, business regulation, taxation, business ownership and management are economic."

Of necessity these matters overlap, but our working definitions of capitalism (codeword democracy) and socialism (codeword communism) should not.

I'm not trying to pick nits with you here, but you can't talk about hiring and firing and "pure" capitalism and "free" markets while denying the military-industrial complex that is the engine running our economy.

This creates two problems with a discussion of hiring and firing: are such decisions based solely on the bottom line (it's so much cheaper to exploit workers in Mexico, India, and China), and do they have anything to do with non-job-related factors that don't impact performance (holding an unpopular political opinion, race, lack of fashion sense)?

If "wages, job security, business regulation, taxation, business ownership and management" have not now moved out of the neat category of "economic" issues and into the realm of social issues, I think you've missed an important paradigm shift. Business is no longer something that "happens to" employees in this country.

I really didn't take this to be a human resources seminar. Let's get to the REAL issues here: what drives hiring and firing, and which rationales are acceptable in a business model.

[Diana]

Steve, Victoria: Thank you for introducing some sanity into this conversation. I agree: the opposite side should propose concrete evidence-based solutions instead of vaguely decrying the 'evils of capitalism'. If we control hiring/firing practices to the point that businesses are handicapped against remaining competitive how can we expect future prosperity to ensue? It seems the opposite side is thinking of short term benefits rather than long term benefits. In the short term, it would be lovely for an individual to have guaranteed employment--even in the face of poor job performance or being a burden to the company in terms of inefficiency. Yet, in the long term, our economy would nose-dive into mediocrity. Such policies jeapordize ALL Americans in the long term. How can one advocate such a policy? Wisdom lies in the long-term vision.

[Ted]

Diana:
"If we control hiring/firing practices to the point that businesses are handicapped against remaining competitive how can we expect future prosperity to ensue?"

That's hardly a danger in the US is it? Where workers' rights have been greatly reduced. The discussion started about the CPE in France, which allows employers to fire employees with no reason in the first TWO years. Even Chirac, trying to save his boy Villepin's face has suggested reducing it to one year. Latest polls in France now show about 80% of the French are against it. Are they all insane?

[Ted]

Steve,

do try to read and understand before replying; you will save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

"Ted I get the fallacy part just fine."

You don't. In fact what I was arguing was that your claim that Chomsky hates America (one which, wisely in this case, you seem to have dropped) is evidently false given his willigness do do so many popular talks/discussion sessions throughout America. These were NOT presented as evidence of his expertise. Got it now? I went on to say that I did not merely say Chomsky agrees with me and he's an authority, I presented some of his arguments and evidence about the issues. It wouldn't have mattered if these had come from a ten-year old, the point is the validity of the arguments and the accuracy of the evidence. You passed over that.

"Anyway my point that you struggled and failed to grasp was simply that statistics can be molded to show about anything and unfortunately Chomsky makes a living out of twisting and preaching gloom from them."

This old line about being able to "prove anything with statistics" is just an excuse for refusing to accept any evidence which inconveniently shows one's views to be mistaken. A moment's thought shows that it's silly; no amount of statistics will prove that the population of the US is ten million, nor that the average wage is $100 an hour, etc., etc., cite your own obvious examples. You use this is myth to avoid the problem of having to show where Chomsky is actually wrong, if he is, and instead merely make stupid, general accusations. Thus he doesn't "preach gloom" he continually urges people to work for the positive changes they'd like to see, while refusing to tell them exactly what they should do - people's circumstances vary and they know about these better than he does - i.e. he's inspiring to many but not arrogant.

"To your “sky is falling” list I gave you a simple Ace of spade trump card response. Unemployment is lower than almost any time in my life."

Sigh, your "Ace of spades" - don't make me laugh; are you really naive or just disingenuous ? Oh and aren't you citing a statistic ? Why comment here if you haven't even read Barbara's books ? At issue is not just employment levels, but the kind of jobs people are doing and how they relate to their qualifications - see B's latest book and her interview with Louis Uchitelle in this blog:

"There isn’t a skills shortage. The number of jobs requiring education and skill fall short of the number of qualified people seeking them.... The men and women portrayed in the book often ended up in jobs beneath their skills and at wages well below their lost pay.

...

"I estimate at least 30 million full-time workers since the early 1980's [were laid off], just on the basis of the worker displacement surveys conducted biennially by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 30 million works out to roughly 4 percent of the nation's full-time workers, on average, in any given year. The bureau's survey does not catch most of the disguised layoffs, however. Add those in and the percentage rises to 7 or 8. That's a lot."

"... When someone talks about poverty in America, I laugh. They don’t know the meaning of the word. I have never ever seen a malnourished American. If it exists at all it is infinitesimal..."

The true voice of Christian compassion; the point, Steve, try hard to follow, is that America is not supposed to be a Third world country, but the richest nation on earth, but it is one which is grossly unequal, with quite unnecessary levels of poverty - by the Gov's own criteria:

"80,000,000 live on incomes estimated by the U.S. Department of Labor as below a "comfortable adequacy"; 35,000,000 of these live below the poverty level.

12,000,000 of those at poverty's rock bottom suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition. The majority of the people living at or below the poverty level experience hunger during some portion of the year.
2,000,000 or more are homeless, forced to live on the streets or in makeshift shelters."

http://www.michaelparenti.org/HiddenHolocaust.html

It's quite pointless arguing with you about corporations, you ignore evidence which contradicts your views and what is obvious to anyone with their eyes open in the US. Enron mean anything to you ? I'd just recommend anyone who hasn't already done so to read Barbara's interview with Uchitelle, see above and more at:

http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2006/03/the_disposable_.html

Moreover once again you missed the main point, which wasn't whether corporations are evil or not, but that even the US isn't the bastion of free-market capitalism it's made out to be, and that many of its corporations owe much of their success to state welfare.

"You laugh that the vast majority of Americans are religious and still have a moral compass that not spinning about by latest opinion. How sad that (90% you say) Brits have no underpinnings of their eternal importance. If that were so and all we were were electro-chemical reactions then how sad how pointless and meaningless your life must be..."

Typical of the naivety and arrogance of so many "Christians" - who believe that one's life doesn't have any meaning unless there is a big daddy up there threatening eternal damnation should you prove to be the imperfect being he supposedly created. People acted morally long before Christianity or even Judaism came along, arguably co-operation is in our genes - it favours our survival. Doing good because you fear punishment is not moral.

"I lived in Norway and ...."

and all you have to say about it is just prejudiced junk. Like most developed, affluent countries, the decline of marriage has been gradual and most still get married if they have kids. Any sensible person of average means would far rather bring up kids in Scandanavia than in the US.

"Now Ill ask you again. Do you have anything specific you’d like to address – including your specific solution? No broad brush IHAs and boohoos. Lets talk specifics. This thread started talking about Hiring and firing policy. Do you have anything concrete to add?"

Of course you'd like the argument to be reduced to tinkering with the US version of dog-eat-dog capitalism, when it should be junked - in favour of something more like the Scandanavian model. If most Americans were given the chance to experience the latter they'd jump at the chance to institute it at home, and polls, e.g. about a public health service, regularly show that's what most Americans would like - despite the barrage of brain-washing they get from most of the US media. Cf:

"The distribution of income in Sweden may not be as egalitarian as it once was, yet it remains among the most egalitarian in the world. This contrasts starkly with the last thirty years in the United States in which wealth distribution has reverted to Gatsby-era levels. Swedish equality is evident in everyday life, not just in economic data."

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=307

"Finns have one of the world's most generous systems of state-funded educational, medical and welfare services, from pregnancy to the end of life. They pay nothing for education at any level, including medical school or law school. Their medical care, which contributes to an infant mortality rate that is half of ours and a life expectancy greater than ours, costs relatively little. (Finns devote 7 percent of gross domestic product to health care; we spend 15 percent.) Finnish senior citizens are well cared for. Unemployment benefits are good and last, in one form or another, indefinitely."

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/finlanddiary/

[Diana]

Dear Ted,

No, the French are not insane. They are accustomed to the old employment policies that have been in place for years--and they naturally have difficulty letting go to their entitlements. Americans are reacting the same way to proposed changes in Social Security, etc.

However, widespread opposition does not prove that the old way of employment practices in France are good for the country. I respectfully ask that you provide positive evidence in support of the rejection of CPE.

Let's consider the facts. The economy in France is suffering in part because businesses are constrained by hiring/firing policies. It is very difficult for businesses to fire employees. The consequences of this are probably obvious to you, but I will number them to be clear.

1) Companies have more employees than they need but they cannot lay off the excess. The financial burden of paying unnecessary employees reduces the ability of French businesses to be competitive, thus weakening the French economy and the present and future prosperity of ALL French citizens.

2) Fear of over-hiring or hiring someone with poor job performance makes companies more reluctant to hire. Thus, the job market for young people is rather stagnant, and civil unrest ensues.

Do you agree with this? If not, could you please provide a counter argument?

According to these facts, changes must be made to the hiring/firing policies of France to improve France's economy, and to improve the quality of life for French citizens.

The proposed CPE is a step in the right direction. The ability to lay off workers is needed in order for a company to stay healthy and competitive. Stifling this ability is like introducing cancerous growths to the French economy.

Or, one might propose an alternative to CPE. Do you have one? What solution would you suggest to remedy the consequences of France's hiring/firing practices?

[Steve Marquis]

Excellent observation Robin,
I often do lump socialism with communism and the context may make that appropriate; my phase “Voting for your tyrants,” case in point. Our founding Fathers similarly wrote about “Tyranny of the majority.” China is another crossover example where they now have a heavy dose of capitalism but are governed by a most oppressive communist form of dictatorship. I try to keep the context right.

I might have bought the good generals warning to keep an eye on the “military-industrial complex” back in the 1950’s but to call it the engine that runs our economy now is an over reach; maybe one cylinder but hardly THE engine. Keep in mind, though, that military expenditures are constitutionally mandated but these days most federal money is actually spent on social welfare – a task for which they have no constitutional authority whatsoever.

Ted, let your arguments, if you have any good ones, attempt to embarrass my positions – not your lame epitaphs. You plainly argued your sources must be the true Gods of economics; an accepted authority based on his enthusiastic audiences. That is hardly evidence.

Statistics aren’t direct evidence and me pointing out an honest to God statistic about exceptional, world enviably low unemployment was only met by your schoolyard sarcasm and then “yes but” That’s is why your number game is so boorish. I like to boil these arguments down to something non-debatable. Then and only then are statistics really useful. If you have to quote some reporter talking from some left wing IHA book as your evidence for poverty then your arguments are the joke. Does the saying, “habeas corpus” mean anything to you, Ted? (Show me the body!) If you know anything at all about American politics, you can be assured the Democrats would have that malnourished or starving child before the evening news.

12 million below the poverty line – What line? Who specifies that line? 30 million unemployed? We can have so much fun with them – for example if women decide to leave the workforce after being laid off and just stay home and actually raise her kids, that would make a significant skew in any of your sacred numbers. Say that should make a long line at the soup kitchens Ted. I looked. Sorry Ted No long lines in my town. I repeat Ted – Show me the body otherwise stats are not compelling.

I thought I was plain, but your you – let me spell it out. I don’t care about your so called corporate welfare. GOOD FOR THEM – More jobs. That’s how we got satellites, nuclear power, the internet…. It’s great to commercialize and why not reward the teams that created the gizmo in the 1st place. (BTW they always have to buy the patent rights back) So Ted, the longer your list the better I feel. I am not even arguing with your stats Ted. I am arguing with their relevance. Now do you get it?

Help me out with your motivations. I’m guessing that the reason we Americans tolerate the full force of the “live or die by your own wits” free marketplace and you are afraid of it is cultural. It seems that serf mentality is still alive and well in Europe. You expect to work and give 60%-100% of your work to the community overlord and in turn you expect to work his land forever, be protected and nursed on the governments sugar tit. Not for this cowboy.

You did after all place Scandinavia as your model society. Their taxes are so high, that the feminist’s option to work is now a mandate. Therefore nearly all kids are being raised by day care and daddy has been replaced by Erik or perhaps Jon. Marriage with a Mom and Dad is rare. In the case of Norway, they are financing their wealth redistribution with loans against North Sea Oil. I lived there for quite a while and I know 1st hand what I am talking about. Government economic and social policy has destroyed the family and I’d hate to be there when the oil runs out. In any case what I call pretty poor inner city projects is standard fare. I don’t have to give up 60% of my income for that. Nah I could quit my job as an engineer and work for McDonalds and get along as well in our own gov. supported housing. Hardly an upgrade. No thanks. You like links. Try this one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3660&R

Quoting there from by Stanley Kurtz, “Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.”

Oh BTW, I checked two of your links and got nothing but IHA opinion pages; no direct sources - hardly the pages of scholarly research. That’s why I hate wasting my keyboard on 3rd hand Internet statistics.

I understand that this thread was basically about economic policy, but it was you that laughed with derision about faith being a meaningful part of my and my fellow countryman’s lives. I never said you could not lead a moral life without faith in the eternal soul and God. What I did say was that your life would be logically meaningless. Repeating “If that were so and all we were were electro-chemical reactions then how sad how pointless and meaningless your life must be.”
So Ted I ask you, outside the context of an eternal soul, can you give me one reason why it is meaningful for you, a bag of rocks, to be alive? Think carefully.You might be the 1st atheist to come up with a reason for existing.

[Steve Marquis]

Sorry a significant typo
"In any case what I call pretty poor inner city projects is standard fare." should read, "In any case, what I call pretty poor inner city projects here is standard fare for most people there."

[Matthew]

I have to ad it some of the ideas presented here have been riduclous. A company can lay off people in case of an economic down turn but can't do it for no reason. Europe is booming many predictions put it well ahead of the US by 2030 so it is hard to see how helping the poor is such a bad thing. I am an athesist and accept that it makes my life no more than chemical interactions. Is it really worth deluding myself just to have a reason to exist. Also the internet was invented at CERN a joint European venture. IT IS NOT AN AMERICAN INVENTION nor was it the result of business.

[Laure Miller]

Wow, so someone can get fired "just because" in France? Welcome to the real world, France. Anyone anywhere can get fired for no reason. That is why all clever workers spend no more than they absolutely have to, that is why putting your money in a jar and burying it in the backyard isn't all that bad an idea.

I guess I have a bad attitude - I don't need this job, this job needs ME. I can always find another if this one doesn't suit me.

[Diana]

In reply to:

"I have to ad it some of the ideas presented here have been riduclous. A company can lay off people in case of an economic down turn but can't do it for no reason."

Dear Matthew,

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this. Your comment does not seem relevant to the debate because of the following:

Companies do not fire their employees without reason. Hiring/firing is motivated by productivity, quality, and economic incentive.

Perhaps at the individual management level, some very irresponsible person is firing/hiring in discriminatory ways--I agree with everyone here that this is an outrageous practice. There should of course be anti-discriminatory laws in France (which they do not have because they attempt to blind themselves to race--this has backfired tremendously).

A real-world example of a company firing employees for 'no reason' would perhaps help me gain perspective on your comment. I cannot think of one, but I am very open-minded.

Does anyone think that the CPE law will motivate companies to fire their employees without reason? Perhaps these companies will not disclose their reasons (this is something I disagree with--they should at least disclose the reason) but it is certain that there will always be a monetary reason behind firing. As I argued before, the ability to lay off workers when employment is beyond capacity is an essential mechanism for improving France's economy. This is not a war of 'who's better?' between France and the US as many people have sculpted this argument. Why don't we just think about what is best for France? In the long term, CPE will do much more to improve the quality of life for French people than any of the old hiring/firing regulations that have stifled competitiveness in France for so long.

[Steve Marquis]

Mathew
CERNs contribution came much later and made the outstanding contribution of HTML and the WEB browser. These are just applications and protocols running on the Internet. I was using the Internet for simulations on distant supercomputers long before WEB became a reality. Here are two WEB sites with some good research pointers.
http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventedweb.html
http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html

My point is that governments US or EU often were the fundamental funding source and businesses are quick to take advantage as they should. Look how business has benefited from CERNs input!

In the US there is a concept of a probationary period for new hires that often extends 3 months or so where one can be fired for no reason given. Then if one is fired for cause, companies must be very careful in documenting why the person failed in the job as it is considered a disparaging act for which the company can be sued. That is the real tangible and effective check in US corporate life.

Broad Layoffs for economic reasons usually come with golden parachutes tempting the souls so disposed of to agree not to sue in exchange for such consideration as provided - such as more weeks of severance pay.

It's still a tough deal- I have been laid off once as a result of a merger, so I do understand. I just haven’t heard, in any of this long thread (my fault too), one solitary concrete suggestion for an alternative – No, instead I have only heard vagaries. We have a saying "Where's the beef"

Mathew, Thanks for your intellectual honesty regarding your lack of faith. “I am an atheist and accept that it makes my life no more than chemical interactions. Is it really worth deluding myself just to have a reason to exist.” I agree – not worth deluding yourself – but definitely worth seeking because if there is a real reason to exist, then it makes all the difference. Some people like this Blog’s Barbara, ( I was her flight companion for a few hours last month which introduced me to this site) seek to do good and resolve the worlds problems, but know not where that feeling of empathy and concern comes from. They live kind and thoughtful lives.
But there are too many who have a distorted view or no view whatsoever as to the true value of mankind and blow themselves up, blast up a school or simply pass by the other side and withhold the helping hand. If all people could see what I see, they would have the most charitable view to those in need. Ted doesn’t know me from Adam, but I have spent my whole life reaching out with my time, talents and all the resources at my disposal to help those in need; the unemployed, the divorced and fatherless. Knowing who I am and why my fellow man are of any value whatsoever has made that critical difference. I’m not sharing this personal anecdote to say something about me who am a small cog, but only to point out that a person can care and work hard in others behalf without believing in a system of dependent welfare.

[A3K]

"Europe is booming many predictions put it well ahead of the US by 2030"

Excuse me while I dust myself off after falling on the floor and laughing at the above comment.

And thanks to Steve and Diana for bringing some welcome sanity to this site. For a bit I assumed I was alone here.

[Matthew]

Well laugh if you must. Look at the countries queing up to join the EU and the potential markets it will bring. Especially considering it is starting to tie in with the commonwealth. This will bring a very large force together which unlike America is not burdened by an ever increasing debt. The most poweful countries throughout history has always been the ones with the most people migrating to them. The EU zone is I believe already ahead of the USA so it is only a matter of time. Plus a united Europe will be undeniably power even with a relativly small armed forces.

"Companies do not fire their employees without reason. "

Companies do however fire people for reasons such as whistleblowing on illegal activities for not agreeing to work hours other than those contracually required or in some bad cases firing women for becoming pregnant, wanting I assume to avoid the costs involved in maternity leave. By preventing companies behaving like this a greater job security and satfiaction is guarenteed. Yes Europe has bigger taxes but some countries can therefore afford health care free at the point of need an unarguably good thing.

[A3K]

Matthew,

Your ignorance is stunning.

Countries are attempting to join the EU mainly to avoid being left out of the common market with it's reduced barriers to trade, something the US has been working towards in the Western Hemisphere (against the objections of the Left) for two decades.

It is only because of a higher population of the assembled countries that the eurozone rivals the US. On a per capita basis, they wish they were at our level.

And as for your comments about "crushing debt", the deficit and debt of the French is actually higher as a share of GDP than that of the US. I don't have figures for the entire eurozone, but since you're so fond of that economy, I presume you have a link backing your claim that they lack the same "crushing debt" the US has.

That and the crushing social safety net obligations make the eurozone a questionable investment.

Of course, there's always the threat that OPEC could start to use the euro...

Bwahahahahahahaha!

[Matthew]

The main difference between US and EU debt is how it is held. Whilst America owns $1.2*10^12 to China and further sums to Saudi and other countries a far higher percentage of EU debt is held by the public in those countries. EU countries have debts ranging from 5% GDP to around 100% but in all cases this is nearly entirly in goverenment bonds with <1% being held overseas.
This of course means that if the dollar weakens the debt becomes larger.

The main question I have is why do you think the poor do not deserve health care?

[Diana]

Dear Matthew,

It seems that we both agree then that businesses do not fire their employees without reason.

You go on to list examples in which employees are fired for the wrong reasons (such as pregnancy, whistle blowing on illegal activities, etc.). It seems obvious that just as one argues for anti-discriminatory laws (as I have argued in a previous post), one should also argue the same for protections in these situations. This is quite reasonable, don't you think?

However, I do not think your objections (although quite legitimate) negate the need for CPE. You are confusing the issue at hand with a long list of injustices that should be addressed separately. I think CPE can COEXIST with regulations that protect employees against unlawful discrimination.

The fundamental question that CPE provokes people to answer is whether businesses have a right to fire/hire their employees according to competitive free-market forces. I believe that answer is 'yes'.

A little more on discrimination in France.... (this is just my understanding of the issue but correct me if I am wrong).

An interesting thing to point out about France is that its government does not recognize race. The initial motivation was laudable: they hoped that by not acknowledging race, all French citizens would be treated as equals. However, this backfired terribly. The reason for this is that French employers continue to practice racial discrimination AND the French government is having huge difficulty documenting this phenomenon because they cannot collect race data! Therefore, it's hard to compare the percentage of qualified Muslims who apply to jobs and are turned away versus the percentage of qualified ethnic French who aply to jobs and are turned away. But this is a seperate issue entirely from CPE. CPE can coexist with regulations that protect against racial (and other forms of) discrimination.

Ignoring race is like ignoring the symptoms of a disease. If we cannot document/witness the symptoms, then we cannot determine the problem and fix it. In the same way, France has a racial discrimination problem but its government cannot identify/assess it. Thus, they are not able to provide a remedy. What do you guys think?

[Steve Marquis]

Diane,
Your salient cool-headed arguments are compelling. Thanks for the needed focus. Can you point to the source of your comment, "this backfired terribly. The reason for this is that French employers continue to practice racial discrimination AND the French government is having huge difficulty documenting this phenomenon because they cannot collect race data!"

It seems obvious that there would be discrimination and stupid of the French to assume otherwise, but lacking government tracking, is there a "body" to prove or at least demonstrate the problem?

[Matthew]

The problem with allowing firing without reason but then saying but you can't fire someone for whistleblowing is that all that happens is when soemone wants to fire someone for whistleblowing they don't give a reason for firing the person. Basically the right not to be fired without good reason is the fundemental one on which all other employee rights rely without that one there cannot be a fair situtation and empolyers have all hte power.

[Diana]

In reply to:

"The problem with allowing firing without reason but then saying but you can't fire someone for whistleblowing is that all that happens is when soemone wants to fire someone for whistleblowing they don't give a reason for firing the person."

Hi Matthew,

I think many people bring up your point. However, the burden of proof is on the employee to show that he/she has been discriminated against. This should be done through the courts. Otherwise, one would have to revert to the ridiculous alternative of trusting the French government to make hiring/firing decisions for the businesses. As I have argued before, this decision-making power is best left to French businesses (with anti-discriminatory regulations and large penalties on the side for those companies that violate the laws).

One could also bring up the point that many low income people do not have the resources or education to pursue legal action when their rights have been violated. Again, this is an issue apart from CPE that clearly must be addressed both in France and the States. This does not negate the need for CPE in France.

Steve:
France Must See Immigrants' Future -- by Audrey Singer, Immigration Fellow of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/20051120_frenchriots.htm

"Some criticize the limited choices the [US] Census Bureau offers. Others lament that the census allows people to promote their racial or ethnic identity at the expense of their American one. But the risk of collecting the data on these categories has been worth it if one considers how it has been used to allocate federal contracts, guide public spending on education and programs aimed at increasing economic mobility, including among racial minorities and immigrants.

Contrast this with France, where officials barely gather data on racial, ethnic and religious origins of French citizens. With little tracking of how these factors affect people's economic welfare, France has chosen to act as if saying all citizens are French actually provides equality. The failure of French leaders to realize that race, religion and ethnicity do matter provided the dry underbrush for the fires that have raged in recent weeks."

Not to say that France is doing a poor job in all areas of fighting discrimination. But they could certainly improve...

You could probably get a much more detailed discussion of this issue in an academic journal.

[Matthew]

"I think many people bring up your point. However, the burden of proof is on the employee to show that he/she has been discriminated against."

This is the case in France anyway. The only thing different is that proving that it is the case is easier than it would otherwise be.Sucessful unfair dissimissal cases whilst not uncommon are not something that causes major problems to companies except in cases of discrimination or failure to observe reasonable procedures such as a meeting should be held with the employee to explain why rather than just getting rid of them.

[A3K]

"The main question I have is why do you think the poor do not deserve health care?"

I guess my main question is why you resort to straw man arguments?

Shall I follow your model and ask why you think poor people shouldn't be able to buy toys for their children?

[matthew]

Because health care is a neccessity if all your econemy can do is make the rich richer what real achievment is that if you can't look after th poor. Helath care should be free at the point of need. Noone in a developed country and really noone in todays world should have to fear getting ill because they won't be able to afford treatment

[A3K]

"Because health care is a neccessity if all your econemy can do is make the rich richer what real achievment is that if you can't look after th poor."

So that's why you ask me a stupid question unrelated to anything I've said? Do you just like giving your little speech to everyone you come across?

"Helath care should be free at the point of need."

Really? With no limitations? You've very generous, especially since you don't propose to pay for that yourself.

"Noone in a developed country and really noone in todays world should have to fear getting ill because they won't be able to afford treatment"

So we should probably start in the developing world first, since the need is greatest there, right? Lay out your proposal for making sure nobody in Zambia need fear getting ill. I'll have to see some specifics before I decide whether I'm fer or agin it.

Get to work, Mattie.

[Matthew]

The funding needed for the developing world would have to come from the richer countries and I accept that this is not realistically going to happen.
This I see as a pity.

However in the richer country why can't a complete health service be paid for through taxes. This is directly linked to what you said becuase you seem to believe that taxing should be minimized. Saying things like the EU has too great a tax burden I was pointing out what some countries use this tax for.
SO yes I am saying that I pay for the health care along with anyone else.

Obviously some limitations because I said at the point of need so someone who wants plastic surgerory can pay for that but someone who needs surgerory, medication etc. shouldn't be paying for that. Not then anyway if they earn more than most they may well have already paid for it through taxation.

I know many champion the free market but it is not always the best way to go. For example I can not think of any media institution less biased than the beeb. Which is of course paid for thorugh the liscence fee and as a result carries no adverts.

[A3K]

"The funding needed for the developing world would have to come from the richer countries and I accept that this is not realistically going to happen. This I see as a pity."

I'm sure the folks dying of preventable diseases like malaria care about your pity.

"However in the richer country why can't a complete health service be paid for through taxes. This is directly linked to what you said becuase you seem to believe that taxing should be minimized."

So do you believe taxation should be maximized?

"Saying things like the EU has too great a tax burden I was pointing out what some countries use this tax for. SO yes I am saying that I pay for the health care along with anyone else."

What's your personal marginal rate? And what was your total tax bill for '05? I'd like to see what sort of contributions you're making now. And if you wouldn't mind sharing what marginal rate you'd personally be willing to pay for all the social goods you consider a right, that'd be nice too.

"Obviously some limitations because I said at the point of need so someone who wants plastic surgerory can pay for that but someone who needs surgerory, medication etc. shouldn't be paying for that."

You've gone to the ridiculous extreme. There is non-emergency care that is not as frivolous as elective plastic surgery.

Do you propose to be able to pay for all of it? If not, where do you place the limitations on access?

"Not then anyway if they earn more than most they may well have already paid for it through taxation."

Actually, they've paid for the other goods and services currently demanded by the population. And at that only a part, since we still have a deficit. So what's the rate that you personally and we as a country should pay to achieve your goal?

"I know many champion the free market but it is not always the best way to go."

Well, there's a difference between being not the entire solution and being none of the solution, as you seem to want it to be.

BTW, could you answer whether food is a more vital good than healthcare? If so, should we allow the free market to determine who eats?

"For example I can not think of any media institution less biased than the beeb. Which is of course paid for thorugh the liscence fee and as a result carries no adverts."

You think the Beeb is unbiased? I guess that means they say what you want them to say.

[Matthew Hodgson]

So do you believe taxation should be maximized?

No but lowering taxation should not be a major aim.

My tax has been low recently I will admit but that is because I am studying for a degree when I graduate I expect to be paying a substanial proportion of my wages as tax then. This will not change my views. Maybe you won't believe that we will have to wait and see.

I would say that the NHS has got the balance of care right. I think there is no reason for there not to be a private health care system as well but the national one should be able to cope.

May I ask where the bias in the BBC comes from then. After all it has funding guarenteed only if it remains impartial on political issues. It certainly can't be seen as a goverenment mouthpiece otherwise the Hutton Inquiry would not have been necessary.

Of course food is more vital which is why I take it for granted that there will be some support for those who cannot find work for whatever reasons.

[A3K]

"May I ask where the bias in the BBC comes from then."

The BBC has a strong left-wing bias. If you deny that then you're not living in this reality (meaning the real one).

"After all it has funding guarenteed only if it remains impartial on political issues."

That's hilarious.

"It certainly can't be seen as a goverenment mouthpiece otherwise the Hutton Inquiry would not have been necessary."

No, it's not a government mouthpiece. It's essentially a left-wing operation.

[A3K]

"No but lowering taxation should not be a major aim."

According to your political view.

I prefer the government to remain in a regulatory/rule setting and enforcing role rather than in a service delivery role.

I consider the provision of my retirement security to be my responsibility. Ergo, I'd prefer that if the government is going to mandate a savings rate, that's fine. If I want to partake in a government provided Ponzi scheme, then I guess I'll do that. But if instead I prefer to invest my money in productive uses in accounts that are in my name and inheritable by my heirs, I'd like to be able to do that.

Somehow folks like Barbara and the majority here don't believe I should have that freedom of choice. I take it you are in that fascist pack as well.

[Matthew]

I really find it hard to credit that you think the BBC is left wing. Then again American poltics is so more right wing than European ones I suppose I can understand why you believe that. Read the BBC's charter it clearly states it most be independant. What makes you think the image it portrays is left wing. It does not advocate the left wing policies any more than the right wing ones. What it does is present all idelogies in mainstream politics (mainstream UK politics that is) on an equall footing aiming to educate people about the policies whatand the critics think of them. There it ends if it was left wing wouldn't you expect comments suporting left wing ideas. The only time when it does not show both sides is in science. For example it gives no meanigful time to theories that global warming isn't happening etc. which is because those ideas have no scientific basis. It even gives a fair comment on the value of the liscence fee.

Can you really accuse me of being both left wing and facist.
All I would like to see is the poor having a fair chance something that is closer to happening in Europe than it is in America. With the notable exception here of the monarcy and House of Lords both of which have no real say as both can be ignored by the commons.

[Ted]

It's amusing how some of the right-wingers here seek to reassure each other, but rather pathetic that it's suggested that those who don't agree with them are insane, I thought "Communists" did that:

Diana: "Steve, Victoria: Thank you for introducing some sanity into this conversation."

Steve: "Diane,[it's Diana] Your salient cool-headed arguments are compelling. Thanks for the needed focus."

A3k thinks those who disagree with him, including Barbara, are part of a "fascist pack".

Yes Mike, he does think that includes left-wingers; the usual right-wing line is that Hitler included the word "socialist" in his party's name - using that approach would make some other dictatorial regimes "democratic" because they use that word.

[Ted]

Steve: "Ted, let your arguments, if you have any good ones, attempt to embarrass my positions – not your lame epitaphs."

"Epitaphs" ? ! Steve is good for a laugh as usual. But now you move from the realm of embarrassment to the realm shame - not that you're capable of recognising this, any more than you can argue rationally.

"You plainly argued your sources must be the true Gods of economics; an accepted authority based on his enthusiastic audiences. That is hardly evidence."

I've already clarified what should have been obvious; the first time you misrepresented this your stupidity could have been an excuse, the second time this is just willful misrepresentation, lying in fact. If anybody checks back they will see that in my first post I simply said: "Chomsky points out" and quoted someone presenting his views, hence the Chomsky saids, it was a useful summary of Chomsky's views and some evidence. There was no claim about his authority. When you first misunderstood this I pointed out that the reference to his willingness to give talk and his popularity was presented, NOT as evidence of his authority, but as evidence that he was not anti-American - as is clear from this in my earlier post:

(Steve):"Chomsky's... "I hate America" negativity".

(Ted): This is just pitiful ignorance; abroad Chomsky is the most highly respected American. Basically he tries to get the country to live up to its supposed ideals. If he hated it, why would he regularly tour the country, to packed halls, to discuss his views with fellow Americans ?

This is not presented as having anything to do with his "authority" - try once just to admit you got it wrong. Indeed I'd hardly be likely to appeal to his authority (rather than his evidence and arguments) because he often explicitly rejects this, encouraging people to question what he says too, and to check the evidence for themselves.

But it's obvious that it's pretty hopeless trying to have a rational argument with you; you'll blatantly distort what others says, refuse to accept evidence which contradicts your views, using any poor excuse: "you can prove anything with statistics", "I don't like your sources", etc.

"Statistics aren’t direct evidence "

Of course they aren't, they are generlazations based on direct evidence, which we need when we are talking about general issues and not specific cases, and some generalizations are more valid than others - and statistics has been developed to try to ensure we get more accurate generlazations more often.

" and me pointing out an honest to God statistic about exceptional, world enviably low unemployment was only met by your schoolyard sarcasm and then “yes but” That’s is why your number game is so boorish.

I like to boil these arguments down to something non-debatable."

Talk about "schoolyard", it's quite obvious that you think what you say is non-debateable, and get annoyed when anybody rejects any of it. There's nothing "schoolyard" in saying that the issue of employment is more complex than the simple numbers of unemployed (though in fact those figures are very debatable anyway; governments use all kinds of means to try to make them seem low). Thus it's not MY weird idea that one ought to take into account the KIND of jobs and the levels of pay in considering the state of employment, *I* didn't make up the term "Macjobs" and Barbara's books are all about levels of pay, conditions of employment, and not just getting a job or not, see also the interview with Uchitelle.

"Then and only then are statistics really useful. If you have to quote some reporter talking from some left wing IHA book as your evidence for poverty then your arguments are the joke."

No, you are the clown, because he wasn't just stating his opinion, but also quoting some evidence to support it, so it's no use you merely referring to his political views, you have to show that the evidence he cites is wrong - typically you don't do this - and that evidence comes from the US Dept of Labor.

"12 million below the poverty line – What line? Who specifies that line?..."

Yes, as a compassionate "Christian", it's obvious that the only proof of poverty you'd accept is the body of someone who'd starved to death. The poverty line, as with most countries, is decided by the US Gov. - not exactly known for being full of left-wingers. Of course poverty is relative; Americans would be rightly ashamed if they accepted a level of poverty which was found in the poorest Third World countries. This still makes it deplorable that there is so much poverty in such a rich country as the US, so many without health care. Morgan Spurlock (director of "Supersize Me") and his girl-friend recently tried living on minimum wages for just 30 days. They found it to be a very humbling, chastening experience, and the normally rather ebullient Spurlock was very sober at the end and said it had made him a LOT more understanding - and they were glad they only had to do it for 30 days.

"I thought I was plain, but your you – let me spell it out. I don’t care about your so called corporate welfare. GOOD FOR THEM – More jobs. ...I am not even arguing with your stats Ted. I am arguing with their relevance. Now do you get it?"

Yet again you're just lying. You can't be THAT stupid, because last time I explained - as if for a 5 year old - that the relevance of this evidence about corporate welfare is that it undermines claims that it is pure capitalism which accounts for economic development in the US. Remember this claim of yours: "What makes capitalism work and socialism/communism fail is the competition." So, if you're "not arguing with your stats" - admit you were wrong.

" It seems that serf mentality is still alive and well in Europe..<

Quite the reverse, you have the serf mentality - and in case you've forgotten, Barbara's post was about the relative apathy in the US as opposed to the French who fight for employee rights. You've bought the big business propaganda about the supposed evils of "big government" - which, for example, provide the civilised public health systems in Europe and Canada, which the majority of Americans would like to have. But you keep tipping your hat to the big bosses and buy their line that the erosion of workers' rights is necessary and "big government" an evil. When Michael Moore went to Newt Gingrich's territory he couldn't find anyone there who wanted to give up ANY of the federal grants and programmes - i.e. from "big government" which benefitted the area - Newt didn't want to talk about it.

"You did after all place Scandinavia as your model society. ... You like links. Try this one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3660&R

I might have guessed you'd use Kurtz, who, bizarrely, tries to argue that allowing gay marriage will mean the end of heterosexual marriage. He and you are just plain wrong:

"NEW YORK, July 13 (AScribe Newswire) ... Same-sex marriage has not undermined heterosexual marriage where it has been adopted and is unlikely do so in the United States...

In a briefing paper prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian
Strategic Studies, Professor Badgett presents evidence from Scandinavia and the Netherlands to make her case. Since the passage of partner recognition laws, and contrary to widely-quoted claims:

Heterosexual marriage rates in Denmark actually increased after adoption of same-sex marriage. They are now
the highest they have been since the early 1970s. In other countries that adopted same-sex partnerships, marriage rates remained the same or increased slightly.

Divorce rates have remained the same.

The majority of families with children in Scandinavia and the Netherlands are still headed by married parents. In
fact, in Norway, 77 percent of couples with children are married. And 75 percent of Dutch families with children
include married couples. By comparison, 72 percent of U.S. families with children are headed by married couples."

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=pressReleases&ext=july13

"... So Ted I ask you, outside the context of an eternal soul, can you give me one reason why it is meaningful for you, a bag of rocks, to be alive? Think carefully.You might be the 1st atheist to come up with a reason for existing. <

I've got bad news for you, belief in a god is an act of faith (i.e. unwarranted belief) - it is not logical. There is no "logical" meaning, meaning is not a matter of logic, it's something which we humans attribute to actions, lives, etc. I'm happy if other PEOPLE feel that my life has meaning; fortunately I know that many do from the emails I have got from ex-students. Unlike you I don't need some big daddy in the sky to give my life meaning, WE give our lives meaning by the choices we make - like charitably trying to get you to see the error of your ways - the triumph of hope over experience - as Dr. Johnson said of second marriages.

[donk]

Pure socialists make me chuckle. They are so gullible as to believe that every person will do the right thing if only given the chance. Business entreprenuers make more money because they assume more risk. The socialist assumes that if you hire the workers and treat them well then sales will come rolling in. It is a competitive world and people act in their own self interest. Businesses are not any different. They will hire illegal immigrants at half the going rate because it is in their self interest. Workers are the same. Many will do the absolute minimum productivity to get paid. This is particularly true if there are no consequenses(large share of government workers). Supply and demand for labor should dictate the value of that labor. Illegal immigrants, although productive, drive down wages because they increase the supply of labor. Punish businesses that hire illegals and wages will rise in good times and fall in bad times. My single daughter with minimum tax deductions makes an average income and has a marginal tax rate of nearly 40% when you include social security, state taxes and federal income tax. Fairly socialistic wouldn't you agree? Don't tell me that if you are not born rich you cannot make it in America. There are plenty of people not born into wealth that are wealthy now. My father was an enlisted man in the military. Back then military people were borderline poor. After retiring he went to school on the GI Bill and got a degree in accounting and retired well. I worked my way through school and am a business analyst with an MBA. My brother is a CFO for a very large private company. You don't have to be born rich to make it. It gives you a different starting point and maybe you don't have to work as hard to get to the finish line but most people if they work hard enough can make it. Just ask the governor of california. Ten years ago the guy that installed my cable TV started his own business installing fiber optic cable and now he is worth a couple of million dollars. Risk should be rewarded. Taking a risk creates productivity and we all share in the benefits through economic activity, taxes and quality of life. Some socialism is required just how much is needed before it becomes a drain on productivity can be debated but at some point it is a drain. As for the business arrangement between employee and employer unless a contract is specific it should be at will. I know of a guy that went to a very expensive private university for a masters degree paid for by his company. He left the company six months after completing his degree. Is that fair, no but he had the right to do it. The employee doesn't have to worry about making enough sales to cover the payroll or if some ambulance chasing trial lawyer will be suing him next week. The business owner does and should be rewarded for taking the risk. Most Americans see employment as a business arrangement whereas the French see business as a conduit for wealth redistribution. America's unemployment rate is under 5% and the French rate is nearly twice that because hiring in France is not worth the risk of taking on additional workers. I will take lower unemployment over job security anytime. So socialist promoters if you think running a business is so easy go out and start one and hire your employees for life even if they show up for work late every day and take every other friday off. Good luck.

[Morgan]

Couldn't get beyond the line, "Well, take another look at the folks who invented the word liberté".

LATIN: Libertas

[R]

"Too many Americans still believe that somehow, some way, they are going to get a chance at the big prizes, that they are going to be capitalists just like Donald Trump."

Bingo, Hattie. I loved Barbara's article and came to find a way to tell her and also mention that this magical-thinking of "hitting it big" on no merits of their own is the reason the idiot drones meekly accept layoffs and jobs going overseas and extra work loads for less money, all the while the CEOs live like kings even when their companies' performance stinks.

btw, I've been loving how you (Hattie) deftly handle Victor's hash (his dress doesn't fool me). They had to bring AK-2 in and he pretty much shot this thread to hell. And before he accuses me of having a "tin foil" hat, too, go to any right wing blog and try to find even ONE comment, let alone as many as there are at every progressive blog. Meanwhile, at every progressive blog there are always these trolls trying to derail the conversation and when the topic really hits a nerve, they bring in the personal attackers.

It's not much different from the thugs DeLay hired to shut down the vote count in Florida and more recently, hired to rough up old ladies in Texas for supporting the Dem who's going to replace the Exterminator.

Pretty sad for them that there exists a place like the internet where they can't control the message (tv) or shut us down physically. And that their ideas obviously hit no chord on their own little blogs. Good work, Barbara! You really rankled them with this one!

Oh, and machine-gun, AK2, or whatever your nym is...Barbara did say she doesn't advocate car-burning, etc. So quit trotting that out as an excuse. Besides, decrying the act of property destruction as a path to freedom is to diss our forefathers who threw the tea into Boston Harbor. Why do you hate America?! It is far more repulsive that a sizable number of Orwellian Americans are sitting around waiting to "win the lottery." They'd be better served to read Barbara's books and take to the streets.

And as far as peaceful rallies go, how many even know that over a million women took to the streets in Washington D.C. last year for women's rights? Our free press doesn't cover things like that...it doesn't fit in the narrative.

[Diana]

preach it Brother Donk! :)

[Steve Marquis]

Mathew
Regarding your response April 05, 2006 at 01:17 PM, “Can you really accuse me of being both left wing and fascist. All I would like to see is the poor having a fair chance something that is closer to happening in Europe than it is in America. “

A fair chance is one thing – that’s what America is famous for; “The land of opportunity,” but what you may be asking for is not a fair chance but a guaranteed outcome. “fascist,” implying a dictator, is clearly the wrong label, but “Communist” might be a better fit. I know communist as a label comes with a lot of baggage but consider that when you get government into the business of regulating and deciding the hiring and firing of individuals with their committees and panels then from my textbook that is frankly a hallmark of communism.

Whether you vote for these tyrants or not does not change the definition of communism. Communism, government control over the details of production, has a very poor track record for sustaining a population because it leverages the worst of human emotions – fear.

Now, someone might counter better fear than capitalistic greed, but self-interest does not equate to indifference. For a fiercely independent and definitely capitalist nation, as a people we have in the past and continue to spend our blood defending others and our personal capital to rebuild our former enemies. This is not based on greed but compassion; and no I don’t care if someone else spends this or that. It will not change my point.

Many of us have spent countless hours and money helping the poor almost us. The volunteer nature of this real and tangible safety net is a hallmark of American generosity. It is real. It is personal and it is ongoing and we don’t need to depend entirely on a government Robin Hood to take care of every need. For some, like Ted with his animus for Christianity, they insist we must place a gun to the head of donors, where we touch their hearts and they give voluntarily. You might find it interesting to note that in Left leaning states their charitable giving is less that in Right wing dominant states.
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005
Now don’t try and beat me up with Rooney’s analysis. He does so many slight of hand statistical gymnastics that to try and prove the point one way or another is just another battle of the wizards. I mention this well-bandied assertion because it makes common logical sense. The right leaning states are more religious as a whole and their faith teaches that man is inherently valuable because he is eternal. Left leaning states are dominated by folks that have no clue as to why man is of any importance at all and in any case are more likely to expect the government to handle that “charity thing.”

To demonstrate this, I have challenged in this blog to explain otherwise. All Ted could come up with is a very hollow response; “WE give our lives meaning by the choices we make.“ My computer makes trillions of choices every day and the meaning is???

If you cannot come up with a reason why you shouldn’t blow your whole island up, or the world for that matter, then why should I expect you to find a logical reason to give to the poor? Why not just put them out of misery - - even misery is just electro-chemical reactions – Right?

I can imagine folks might struggle with this one; Why care so much about the esoterics of French or American economics with no logical basis for “care”.

BTW regarding an earlier post mentioning universal health care. I agree it is a laudable goal, but the Canadian/EU model is a lousy one that nearly killed my father and left him permanently speech impaired. The advanced techniques and medications common in the US were not part of the approved rationed care available there. I am in the medical electronics business and I am quite aware that many Canadians and Brits come to America for heart surgery. I can appreciate why that is. Hmmm.

[Steve Marquis]

“R” writes:
“Meanwhile, at every progressive blog there are always these trolls trying to derail the conversation and when the topic really hits a nerve, they bring in the personal attackers.”

Goodness, R, personal attacks are unfortunately occasioned in any debate on both sides, but just peruse this one thread and do a little observation and see who masters the art. My vote for master of the ad hominem abusive attack is “left wing” - Ted but amazingly even in your assertion you call your opposition “Trolls.” This is what I referred to in my response to Ted’s “schoolyard dialog”

Let me give you a sampling and perhaps to Ted a lesson in civilized dialog. These phases are all quotes from “Left wing” Ted in this thread alone:

“The ignorance is yours, and my contempt is for you.”
“Idiots like you”
“I feel sorry for…”
“Try reading the whole article next time, with a little intelligence - idiot.”
“Shows how bright you are,…”
“So much for your "level of comprehension”
“Steve, it's nice of you to provide us with some light relief:”
“This is just pitiful ignorance;”
“Hilarious - if it wasn't the fact that a lot of Americans actually believe junk like this. “
“But then you can also be very yawn-making:”
“do try to read and understand before replying; you will save yourself a lot of embarrassment.”
“don't make me laugh; are you really naive or just disingenuous”
“The true voice of Christian compassion; the point, Steve, try hard to follow,”
"Epitaphs" ? ! Steve is good for a laugh as usual.
“your stupidity could have been an excuse,”
“No, you are the clown,”
“Yet again you're just lying. You can't be THAT stupid, because last time I explained - as if for a 5 year old”

These kind of rants undermine an opponents credibility indicating juvenile desperation – If ones arguments are conclusive then they alone with do the embarrassing not the schoolyard taunts.

[Steve Marquis]

I am an engineer by trade and am very well aware of how hard it is to tease meaningful data from demographic stats and Ted’s reliance on published intervenes with a reporter who read a book written by someone with an agenda is not persuasive. For example, you can’t even get the AMA to agree from year to year whether estrogen replacement is good or bad.

There are many professors and bloggers that fill the ether and lecture halls with doom. Ted asserts that such really love America and just want to improve her. I suppose that is possible, but it is more consistent with my experience to say they hate what America is and only love their personal vision of what they think it should be. They have called us terrorists, warmongers, indifferent – add you list… We call them IHAs and I think the suit fits many of these speakers quite well.

The real issue, though, is not whether Ted’s stats or Barbara’s assertions about American under-employment are correct. They may be - AND?– but to then to somehow make a fantastic leap that somehow the government must intervene and micro-manage the hiring and firing of workers to fix that is astounding; it’s…by definition communist. I have instead entirely sidestepped Ted’s doomsday stat parade and declared them irrelevant to the debate.

I beg any of you left wing writers to show these readers any example of how some alternate hiring/firing scheme would work. Just saying, “life is good in Finland” doesn’t cut it. If you are going to be persuasive, site a particular economic issue and then explain in particular the proposed solution.

[Steve Marquis]

Ted, my emphasis in the weekly standard article http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3660&R was the economic impact of encouraging poverty though misplaced government charity – In this case encouraging unwed motherhood. I had previously quoted the salient excerpt. This must be a hot button as you went off on the homosexual angle and completely missed my point. This thread was focused on economic policies and I have only deviated to defend against your occasional personal attacks. I was in the position to intervue thousands of households and personally saw in Norway many many examples of couple single and otherwise postponing or permanently avoiding marriage due to government policy. In the US we have had a minor Marriage tax penalty as well, but the worst effect has been on the black family due to guaranteeing indefinite welfare to single mothers. Sometimes what looks like charity is a chain to a new kind of insidious slavery.

[Ted]

Steve: "I have instead entirely sidestepped Ted’s doomsday stat parade and declared them irrelevant to the debate."

How wise (add that to your list of ad hominems) - why let the facts get in the way of your prejudices - just declare the facts irrelevant.

"Ted, my emphasis in the weekly standard article http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3660&R was the economic impact of encouraging poverty though misplaced government charity – In this case encouraging unwed motherhood. I had previously quoted the salient excerpt. This must be a hot button as you went off on the homosexual angle and completely missed my point."

No, I merely referred in passing to the fact that the writer had that anti-gay agenda, but the facts cited in the article I quoted showed that your claims about marriage in Scanadanavia were just false. But once more you just close your eyes to any evidence that contradicts your views.

Anyway, the CPE is now history in France and the French government has had to consult with students and unions and is proposing much more limited and reasonable measures. A triumph for democracy. The best commentary on the general issue from an American was from William Pfaff:

"Actually, French youth unemployment is not what it is usually made out to be, since free baccalaureate- and university-level education keeps young people out of the job market much longer than in most countries. As a result, as The Financial Times reported last weekend, the official figures are misleading. The newspaper calculates that 7.8 percent of French under-25s are actually out of work, as compared with 7.4 percent in Britain and 6.5 percent in Germany.

Similarly, it seems to me that the current unrest in France signals wider popular resistance in Europe to the most important element in the new model of market economics, its undermining of the place of the employee in the corporate order, deliberately rendering the life of the employee precarious.

The model's principal characteristic in the United States has been the transfer of wealth to stockholders and managers, and away from public interests (by tax cuts) and employees (through wage-depression and elimination of employee benefits).

In this perspective, what in France seems to be a sterile defense of an obsolete social and economic order might be interpreted as a premonitory appeal for a new but humane model to replace it. It could be Europe's opportunity. "

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/03/22/news/edpfaff.php

[Steve Marquis]

The problem with many of your arguments is 1) using stats that have no bearing on the discussion and 2) that your incorrect application of stats is often derived and filtered by hired guns culling them to support their private agenda or “prejudice” as you like to term. For example your honed stats on the effects of Gay Marriage were prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. Whether true numbers or not they had nothing to say for or against my contention that real poverty was largely a result of unwed motherhood and divorce and that government policies that support or encourage the same were counterproductive to eliminating that sorry condition.
So restrain the knee jerk to claim Fallacy of Reverse Appeal to Authority – hear me Ted, My principle complaint about your assertions from the beginning have been that your arguments were irrelevant. Before I would want to spend one more moment of my day researching the validity of someone’s obviously biased bag of stats, Id first want to think they had something to do with today’s discussion which was the right to hiring and firing or in this last case government promoted poverty.
The other ancillary topic of poverty in general I introduced because I contended that unemployment and underemployment (at least in the US) was a much smaller component of poverty and more worthy our efforts than to throw out capitalism for communist control or hiring and firing.
Consider the case made by David Wood, researching for the journal Pediatrics, who notes that "the majority of single-parent, female-headed families live in poverty, regardless of whether the mother works." He continues: "fifty-five percent of children who live in single-parent, mother-only families are poor, compared with only 10% of children in two-parent families." Thus, "almost one-third of children who are poor are poor because they live in a family headed by a single mother." Additionally, "sixty-five percent of children who are poor versus 25% of children who are not poor live in households that do not include their biological father." http://www.divorcereform.org/pov.html
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082800.cfm
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/B239.html
It passes two tests. One it makes common sense and two it is backed up by research by many many un-biased sources not making their livings on the speaking circuits. The last article I quoted is from some extreme feminist point of view that also acknowledges my point. When even your political opponents agree with your stats then you are probably on solid ground.

Note that that last source would argue for an even more socialist/communist solution, where I would argue that the solution lies in focusing on improving the family. In my sociality, which is heavily dominated by my religion, serious poverty is non-existent. (I did say non-existent) Divorce is far below the national scandal.
I do believe in a safety net, for economic trials, but Government long-term dependency and government’s intimate and forced meddling in the details of economic decisions are a hallmark of communism that has been demonstrated a dismal failure. This is well known. It is common sense. It is before everyone’s eyes in the collapse of every last communist nation. I am just flabbergasted that anyone could STILL be trying to advocate government intermingling in such details of business life. We are not talking hear about whether government injects capital here or there, we are talking about micromanaging the nitty gritty details of the engine itself – not the throttle peddle.

[Steve Marquis]

BTW; sorry about the typos in that last post. I hope it didn't get in the way.

[A3K]

"A3k thinks those who disagree with him, including Barbara, are part of a "fascist pack"."

Actually, Ted, that's a lie. I don't mind that people disagree with me. It's people who would fight to prevent me from having the freedom to make choices for myself whom I consider to be fascists.

And I make little distinction between right wing and left wing statists. Communist, socialist, fascist. The uniforms are different but the game's the same.

"Yes Mike, he does think that includes left-wingers; the usual right-wing line is that Hitler included the word "socialist" in his party's name - using that approach would make some other dictatorial regimes "democratic" because they use that word."

I wish you were half as bright as you apparently think you are, Ted. Your little bit of self-satisfaction has nothing to do with the comment I made.

In the future instead of presuming to tell other people what I think, perhaps you could have the common decency to ask me what I think. But then, that's not as effective a rhetorical device, is it?

Didn't you claim to have debating skills?

Posted by: Ted | April 06, 2006 at 07:12 AM

[A3K]

"btw, I've been loving how you (Hattie) deftly handle Victor's hash (his dress doesn't fool me). They had to bring AK-2 in and he pretty much shot this thread to hell."

A) Nobody "brought" me in. I explained how I came to this blog several weeks back. It didn't involve anyone asking me to be here and I don't know any of the other participants from any other venues. So in the future, refrain from repeating that lie.

"And before he accuses me of having a "tin foil" hat, too, go to any right wing blog and try to find even ONE comment, let alone as many as there are at every progressive blog."

Shall I point you to several dozen "right-wing" blogs whose comments section would dwarf Barbara's or would you prefer to remain blissfully ignorant?

"Meanwhile, at every progressive blog there are always these trolls trying to derail the conversation and when the topic really hits a nerve, they bring in the personal attackers."

If you wish to portray me as a troll (aka one who disagrees with the general bent of the group) then fine. Your opinion is of no more consequence than anyone else's.

"hired to rough up old ladies in Texas for supporting the Dem who's going to replace the Exterminator."

I was deleting that part then decided to comment. Did you forget to mention the documented vandalism conducted by Democratic operatives in Wisconsin and elsewhere? Does that illustrate your behavior?

"Pretty sad for them that there exists a place like the internet where they can't control the message (tv) or shut us down physically. And that their ideas obviously hit no chord on their own little blogs. Good work, Barbara! You really rankled them with this one!"

You're clearly delerious. I'd love to see some of you folks offer defenses of Barbara's positions. Instead what we see is more and more fear and loathing and whining.

"Oh, and machine-gun, AK2, or whatever your nym is...Barbara did say she doesn't advocate car-burning, etc."

I was clear in what I criticized. None of you, especially Barbara, have addressed directly what it was that I criticized. So hang on your technicality if you like and ignore the point.

"So quit trotting that out as an excuse. Besides, decrying the act of property destruction as a path to freedom is to diss our forefathers who threw the tea into Boston Harbor. Why do you hate America?! It is far more repulsive that a sizable number of Orwellian Americans are sitting around waiting to "win the lottery." They'd be better served to read Barbara's books and take to the streets."

Barbara's books serve to paralyze people who are at a weak moment in their lives. She supposes to lure them in with a promise of a socialist utopia, while infusing them with an overriding belief that the rules of the game are fixed and they can only lose.

That attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now feel free to distort what I've written and otherwise behave cluelessly.

BTW, I usually only accuse folks of wearing tinfoil hats when they demonstrate paranoid behavior.

[Jacqueline]

This post is in response to some very narrow-minded and blind views posted by Steve Marquis on this thread on his March 29, 2006 post. I will re-quote what he has said here:

"When a society abandons the Law of God for the Law of Whatever Feels Good, they pay a price. That is the law of the jungle, ted. It's a law......Now if you want to improve the economic well-being of a people, you primarily need to give them opportunity and stem the drain of resourcea. Since divorce and unwed mothers are the primary source of resource drain to a family, let's start there."

Okay Steve, let us discuss the Law of God. Apparently you have selectively discarded the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, my myopic friend. I will do a re-cap of what the Law of God has to say:

"Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy brother." ~ Leviticus 19:16

"If there is a needy one among thou,...., thou shalt not harden thy heart nor thy your hand from thy needy brother." ~ Deuteronomy 15:7-8

"....and thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." ~ Leviticus 19:18

"Thou shall open wide thy hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, which his poverty requires". ~ Deuteronomy 15:8

Now you don't need a doctorate in philosophy to understand what that means.

You blame the masses suffering in poverty on immoral sexual behavior, out-of-wedlock children and divorce claiming they all discarded the Law of God, and thus deserve to be poor, suffer and die prematurely as a result of the lack of access to basic human needs (like healthcare)that poverty brings. How about the pro-"free market" chanting rich capitalists who have for the past 30 years, observed the "Law of Whatever Feels Good" by insidiously striving - and finally succeeding - in eviscerating the legal rights of their workers, engaging in criminal accounting and stock-option exercizing schemes bankrupting their companies leaving the poor workers without jobs AND retirement monies? How about the rich capitalists robbing the workers' pensions in the name of the "Law of Whatever Feels Good" just so they can get more, more, more while everybody else gets less, less, less? What about the rich capitalists off-shoring all our jobs to nations where they hire little kids to work for a nickel an hour, no health benefits, and no rights while shipping those same slave-made products back to the US at a mark-up of about 1000% all in the name of greed because that is the "Law of Whatever Feels Good". Voting for political leaders who continue to coddle these greedy behemoths that are responsible from sucking up all the wealth and resources in the world in hopes of getting a crumb or two from their riches-laden tables while telling the masses that they too can become rich, successful capitalists is not the "Law of God" nor is it providing everyone a fair and equal opportunity to at least be able to live. The primary reason for divorce in this country is money problems - or lack of money and the problems and strife that it brings. That is why the men who have succeeded in getting and keeping good jobs in this day and age are afraid to give women the benefit of a committment because if they decide to be a no-good wife-beating, lying, cheating louse, they might have to part with some of their toys and their paychecks in the form of support. As for the rest of the men and women who are unlucky, jobless and poor, poverty and lack of opportunity poses a barrier to fostering healthy, stable families.

Even if no women had children out of wedlock or got stuck holding the bag after the men who helped make those babies abandoned them through a "no fault" divorce, there is still more women of marriage-able age than men. Assuming all marriage-able men to be straight, there still isn't enough of them so that every single woman is ensured of a husband and women have had to support themselves throughout history, and thus needed and deserved the opportunities that would provide them a living wage to do it with - whether they had kids or not. The bottom line is that in order to give the people in any given society a real opportunity and stem the drain of resources, it is necessary to 1) have enough good jobs to go around for everyone able to work without discriminating against anyone due to race, age, sex, disability,etc and; 2)stem the drain of resources by enacting laws that favor the needs of the people - not the wants of greedy, soulless corporations who know no justice, fairness,loyalty or national patriotism in their global race to the bottom.

That is my pathetic, pro-wealth redistribution opinion on the matter, Mr. Marquis.

[Jacqueline]

* typo on previous post should read:

""If there is a needy one among thou,...., thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother." ~ Deuteronomy 15:7-8

[Jacqueline]

The last part of Barbara's article which I will re-quote here deserves some extra probing for discussion:

"Far be it from me, as a responsible blogger, to advocate the burning of cars and smashing of store windows. But why are American students sucking their thumbs while the Bush administration proposes a $12.7 billion cut in student loans? Where is the outrage over the massive lay-offs at Ford, Hewlett Packard, and dozens of other major companies? And is the poverty-stricken quarter of the population too stressed by their mounting bills and multiple jobs to protest cuts in Medicaid and already pathetic housing subsidies?"

I believe that the poor and downwardly-mobile-formerly-middle-class ARE too stressed with just trying to survive because of cuts in Medicaid and the fact that those fortunate enough to have any jobs at all are just struggling trying to live.

There is also the fact that for the past 20-25 years, we have had the "socialism is bad, greed is good" theme rammed down our throats ad nauseum. The poor have been repeatedly demonized and villified to the point where eviscerating safety nets like welfare, Medicaid, LIHEAP and Food Stamps - just to name a few, became acceptable because society has been brainwashed these past 20-25 years into seeing the poor as sub-humans, as undeserving, as life unworthy of life or as the Nazis would say: the Untermentchen (sub-humans).

When you no longer see any certain given group of people as human beings, it is easier on the conscience to kill them off, which is what the Nazis did en masse in their notorious death camps. Thus 13+ million homosexuals, gypsies, Poles, Jews and the disabled met their demises and were burned into oblivion in the crematoria at Auschwitz, Mathausen, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Sobibor, Belzic, Treblinka and Majdanek before the Allied Forces succeeded in conquering the Nazi war machine.

The Holocaust against the poor and downwardly mobile today 60 years after the liberation of Auschwitz is more insidious and frightening. Instead of carting off the unwanted of scoiety in barbed-wired cattle cars on trains at gunpoint and shipping them to death camps, a more socially acceptable way of killing the unwanted has emerged. In cutting social programs like welfare, Medicaid, Section 8 and other forms of subsidized housing, Food Stamps, LIHEAP, social security, JTPA (the Job Training and Partnership Act -job training and job placement in subsidized jobs for the disadvantaged), we have poor people (both the working and non-working poor)being denied jobs due to their age and bad credit(which arose as a result of being without an income from being without adequate jobs) who are becoming sicker and dying for lack of access to health and dental care.

Every year approximately 18,500 Americans die for lack of access to healthcare. What begins as minor cavities that the poor cannot get treated for lack of health insurance and money gets worse until those teeth abscess, sending toxins and anti-biotic resistant infections straight to the heart and kidneys resulting in countless deaths each year. The same goes for lack of ability for poor heart patients and poor diabetics to get their medicines and afford the healthy nutritious foods that won't exacerbate their conditions. Every year countless poor seniors and poor income-less middle-aged people freeze to death in their homes or apartments because of being unable to afford skyrocketing natural gas and electric bills. Many more end up destitute and out on the streets and die there from exposure to the elements. Many have tried - to no avail - to make themselves "worthy" of good jobs - or any jobs at all - only to be repeatedly denied a chance for a job while having no safety net on which to fall back on to ensure their most minimal, basic human needs are met. Many have, in the interim before hitting rock bottom, written letters to elected officials about their plight to no avail. Instead of voting for better social policies, these politicians merely tell the unlucky poor to "just keep trying....pull yourself up by your bootstraps", irregardless of the fact that you still need to be able to live while you "just keep trying" and you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots.

Meanwhile, the selfish, unsympathetic "haves" and "have-mores" look on and justify the Holocaust of the poor with tripe like, "the losers in society don't deserve to be supported on our tax dollars......the poor are to blame for their own lots in life because they didn't try hard enough to get anywhere.....they created their own problems".

People who became poor due to becoming disabled are to blame for becoming disabled. Middle-aged job-seekers who have been shoved out of their jobs due to off-shoring and age discrimination are to blame for being the discarded unwanted losers without jobs on which to support themselves. The poor who are missing teeth which jeopardizes their health as well as holds them back from even being able to get low-paying jobs as retail clerks and cashiers are told that their poverty and suffering is their own fault because they would't have lost their teeth had they simply brushed and flossed - the fact that lack of access to dental care and a safety net is of course denied and ignored.

The predominently black poor left to die at the Superdome were blamed for their suffering and misery for failing to get out of the way of a devastating Category 5 hurricane - even though they had no cars, no money to afford a bus ticket, no bus service running even if they had bus tickets, and no means of securing temporary shelter, food and medicines elsewhere. These hurricane victims were not only intentionally left to die by the government's failure to include them in any sort of safety/evacuation plan, they were prevented at gunpoint by the military and local law enforcement officers from escaping on foot from the Superdome, shot at for trying to get food, clothing and medicines from nearby stores (all which would claim their inventories as losses on their insurance policies anyway).

Meanwhile, the rest of America - the middle-class, the "haves" and "have-mores" justified the victims' suffering and being victimized by armed troops with dismissing statements like, "well if they were looting, they deserved to be shot.....it's their own fault they were stuck there, they should have planned better......our tax dollars shouldn't have to go to helping people too stupid to help themselves....etc". My favorite stupid, heartless quote came from Bill O'Reilly who said on his talk show regarding the plight of the Hurricane Katrina victims, "If you fail to get an education and try hard enough in life, and you fail to work hard in life, this is what will happen to you. You have to take personal responsibility for your life".
I wonder how Bill O'Reilly reconciles that snippy remark with the fact that many of this nation's poor ARE those who struggled - often against nearly insurmountable odds - to earn college degrees and better themselves - but still ended up poor, bereft of the ability to get their basic human needs met.

Having been told personally from countless greedy self-serving twits that if I am poor because of being disabled, being disabled is somehow my fault and makes me "undeserving", we can safely assume that the "haves" and "have mores" blame the poor for choosing to become disabled, and even choosing to be born to "the wrong parents" in the first place.

Sylvia Brown (aka Jacqueline Stallone, mother of Sylvester Stallone), famous psychic cult icon actually made that assertion that the less fortunate - including those with disabilities - are to blame for their suffering and lots in life because they failed to choose the right parents before birth. The scary thing is that there are so many people with means in this country who buy into that falsehood as a means of justifying greed, of justifying "playing the game" (actually, cheating in the game is more like it) in order to get what one wants regardless of who they have to destroy along the way.

Therefore, what we have is a significant percentage of the population who is poor and suffering terribly, and who has given up on speaking out and demonstrating because the message we have gotten for the past 20-25 years from everybody else is that we don't count, our problems are nobody else's fault but our own, and that nobody in position to change things cares about us and wants to hear it. If we are unemployed, we are discarded losers who deserved what we got. We simply haven't tried hard enough. Our lawmakers have ignored us and left us to perish in the Holocaust of the poor. Premature death by combat since the military is the only "career option" for the children of the poor, lack of access to medical care, food, housing, jobs and safety nets - that is how the Untermentchen of today are being intentionally and systematically eliminated while nobody cares or listens - just like how nobody cared or did anything 65 years ago when the Nazis killed of the Untermentchen of yesteryear. Who are the Untermentchen of today? Women, minorities, middle-aged unemployed job seekers of both sexes and all races from all levels of education achievement, the disabled, and senior citizens.

Propoganda is a powerful thing. It certainly worked for Goebbels, Himmler and Hitler. It is working today for Newt Gingrich, George Bush, Bill Frist, and countless others today who wish to brainwash the people into accepting the Holocaust of the poor.

[JP Merzetti]

If we could somehow all develop instant total amnesia and not be able to remember anything previous to the turn of the millenium, perhaps we'd be a bit more accepting of current conditions.

I think the point is missed - buried - mucked up in the rhetoric of left/right squabbles.
Meanwhile - the point is that we're in deep doodoo, and getting deeper by the minute, and we're basically whistling past the graveyard, like Finn and Sawyer, folks - only this ain't the movies.

I don't happen to be left, right, up, down, rich, poor...or occupant of any other significant demographic category.
Bless'd be the misfit, entirely!

It doesn't take any particular genius to recognize the fact that things are slipping - like a bad transmission.
This furious debate over the why of it just wastes a whole lot of precious time, I think.

However, a whole host of pretty smart men and women (many of them authors) have been
putting in some hard work for some time now, providing all the grunt labor that should prove invaluable to lowly laypersons such as ourselves - the stats are in, people, and they do not look good. It's a bit silly getting all hepped and hyped over whether they might be absolutely true or not, so help us all.

The human animal often gravitates toward whatever argumental points serve their own agenda - a common trait.
However, all this particular stuff does not exist inside its own vacuum.
It is inextricably married, death do it part, to a host of variable items way down yonder along memory lane.

One fine day when everyone looks up - way up - and notices the middle class as we know it (and knew it - an entirely 20th century phenomenon) has disappeared...well then, maybe that will make the unbelievers find cause for pause.

As I said, the stats are in.
That should be enough reason to get ruffled. (One could start by checking their own wallet.)
I think it is entirely reasonable for people to want to question just how and why it is that life gets harder, instead of easier, as time goes by.
The best of all possible worlds we've created is a rather poor excuse for all the best efforts we've been able to muster lately.

To the well-educated 20-something who serves me up my Starbucks - offer them up for solace some dithering post-op about a Darwinian macro-drama, and I'll tell you - we might as well have scrapped the constitution, the bill of rights, and just about every other thing we managed to dream up that ever inspired anyone to conspire toward a higher state of social order than the lowly carpenter ant.

To put it mildly, the few are gobbling up the many, a penny to the pound.
That's a fact.
And I ain't whistlin' past the graveyard.

You're just as robbed with a fountain pen
as with a gun, son.

[Robert]

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

[Sandos]

Best health related coupons and offers at Couponalbum.com, visit and enjoy!