I believe you’re right about the outdated tactics of unions. That may partly explain why union membership has declined over the decades. That, and Democrat-introduced legislation that reduced the need for some union interventions. However, shifting the responsibility for humane treatment in the workplace to individual workers is like fig…
I believe you’re right about the outdated tactics of unions. That may partly explain why union membership has declined over the decades. That, and Democrat-introduced legislation that reduced the need for some union interventions. However, shifting the responsibility for humane treatment in the workplace to individual workers is like fighting a forest fire with a plastic beer cup. It takes organization - labor and political - to protect workers from the natural course of capitalism. Capitalism is good, but it needs guardrails to make it work for everyone. And it should work for everyone.
The Reagan Revolution turned the American public against unions and organizing, along with adopting the selfish, short-sighted thinking that making money was the only virtue, the rich being justified in anything they do, the rise of wealthy televangelists and the prosperity doctrine, the willingness to let lobbyists write our legislation (cemented by policies of Congress during Gingrich's tenure), and much more. We don't really have to look further than that. Democrats adopted that thinking because it was popular with the voting public, pretty much continued it through the Obama Administration, basically until Biden threw on the brakes.
Then how do you explain the millions of people who work without collective bargaining to good effect. Here’s the thing … the relationship between labor and management is symbiotic… to neglect this is done at the business peril.
We have seen massive business growth and consolidation. Industries now focus more on stock buybacks and dividends than they do in investing in innovation. Big Tech turned on Biden because under him the government, correctly, was pursuing anti-trust against them. The goal of businesses now is market capture and competitive prevention, which is why they pushed for things like preventing China from having access to the best chip technology. And what did China do? They innovated, funded a bunch of small start-ups, and built a far more energy-efficient AI. Big companies have been telling a fairy tale that American strength is these giant corporations. The ten largest companies in the DJIA now occupy a record high of 37% of the total market value. Nearly every single one of those companies is connected to AI, and the "value" in all of these companies is seen as accumulating more profit down the road by not having to pay human beings. Tesla, from the beginning, has been seen as a company that will one day eliminate the most common job for American men: driver. Tesla produces a miniscule proportion of cars, but is worth more than the entire rest of the auto industry COMBINED. Business peril? IT'S ALL SPECULATIVE BULL SHIT.
And because the AI technology has not focused on the material problem, the energy cost, all of these tech companies are now building power plants. Instead of increasing efficiency and lowering our energy usage so we don't have to mine as heavily and destroy the environment, they have all reversed course on lowering their carbon footprints. Ultimately, the cost and externalities of that will be born by all of us. Just so that people who aren't capable of efficiently and cogently writing their own thoughts can do so, or so that people can pretend to be artists while using models that are built on the stolen creative output of people with actual talent.
What is your take on DOGE? And interestingly, I agree with your take on AI...but for better or (most likely) worse...it is not going away. And yes I agree that those in the arts are going to suffer the most.
My take is that it's dumb man's idea of a smart man's solution, that it's the kind of thing you'd do if your goal was to maximize harm and distract from more giveaways to corporate America, and that Putin can't stop smiling with joy at bringing us low.
The entire federal salary chunk of the budget is ~4%. If you cut the employees you risk harming how that other 96% is used. Even if you cut 50% of the employees, which obviously can't happen, the effect on the budget is basically rounding error. When cutting costs you have to consider the harms of doing so. The cuts "DOGE" has made seemed to designed to maximize harm. It will directly increase unemployment, it harms families, and it targets the services that average people most need. The entire pool of money they are targeting is $300 billion annually, so let's say you shave 10% off and save $30 billion a year, and let's completely ignore the harms of doing so.
The Air Force has estimated that the B-21 bomber will cost taxpayers $200 billion. That's cumulatively over the years of use of the bomber, and knowing the military, probably even an underestimate. One jet, $10-20 billion a year.
Which is the easier to problem to tackle, without harming the country? Keep in mind the context that many analysts feel the U.S. has been left behind in drone technology (on the commercial side, one Chinese company now makes 75% of drones, and even when they don't, the manufactured components are usually Chinese), and that the future of war is drones and not bombers in the first place. Even if you think modern bombers are incrementally better, our "competition" in that space is still largely relying on older technology in the first place, so who are we competing with, exactly?
There are hundreds of examples like this in the military alone, and thousands across the government. There are corporate giveaways left and right, tax breaks and loopholes, and all of these actually move the needle. Cutting some park rangers and assistants at the VA doesn't impact the budget in a measurable way. It just makes life more miserable for Americans.
Interesting points...what I find amazing is the lack of auditing where our money goes (from Ft Knox to losing $4.7T), many of the silly programs funded both domestically and internationally (TG surgery in Africa? Really?) - to government fraud. I'm not too sure I buy your argument that the 4% will impact the 96% as I have a feeling these folks will not be missed and they will find other work. I do agree that the weapon systems that we employ are significantly dated and should be re-examined. The B-21 bomber still has some utility but I do agree that drones are more cutting edge. Actually, the next war (God Forbid) will be fought in space. With regards to a US technological deficit .... not too sure I agree with you here either. DARPA's mission is to be 30+ years ahead of the curve...and thus far they are close. Nonetheless, we have farmed out too much production to China. Coming full circle, you haven't suggest a better plan...I think all can agree that waste isn't good and that we have the ability to correct the problem.
There is no lack of auditing. Congress audits every agency. The GAO releases scathing reports all the time. Look at their website right now: https://www.gao.gov/
Congress choose not to make cuts - except to taxes for the rich. That's why we are in this situation. The Pentagon continues to fail audits, and absolutely nothing is done about it, because almost no one in Congress has the testicular fortitude to challenge Defense spending, and they're completely owned by the defense contractors and Trump-supporting tech bros like Thiel that build surveillance tools.
Also, you don't seem to understand what I meant by 4% impacting the 96%. The 4% are the employees of the government. They managed that 96%. Without them, we're just rife for more mismanagement of the same.
The point, ultimately, is the intent is NOT to cut spending, because it won't materially do that. The point is to maximize suffering, and, increasing, I think, to throw the economy into the recession so that the rich have another buying opportunity.
It doesn’t have to be so dramatic. But yes, the solution is massive civil insubordination that shows the ruling class of psycho-oligarchs we see through them and won’t stand it.
And you with your cheap sophistry are working directly against that.
Revolutions don’t have to be violent. But they have to be massive and relentless. If by some miracle 30% of the work force - the 30% we value the least - poured into the streets tomorrow and declared they’re not going back to work until things change, they wouldn’t even have to hold out a week. Stop everything and reset the motherfucker, it’s the only way.
That of course would be far more feasible with a genuine opposition leader. Of which we are in short supply atm.
I believe you’re right about the outdated tactics of unions. That may partly explain why union membership has declined over the decades. That, and Democrat-introduced legislation that reduced the need for some union interventions. However, shifting the responsibility for humane treatment in the workplace to individual workers is like fighting a forest fire with a plastic beer cup. It takes organization - labor and political - to protect workers from the natural course of capitalism. Capitalism is good, but it needs guardrails to make it work for everyone. And it should work for everyone.
The Reagan Revolution turned the American public against unions and organizing, along with adopting the selfish, short-sighted thinking that making money was the only virtue, the rich being justified in anything they do, the rise of wealthy televangelists and the prosperity doctrine, the willingness to let lobbyists write our legislation (cemented by policies of Congress during Gingrich's tenure), and much more. We don't really have to look further than that. Democrats adopted that thinking because it was popular with the voting public, pretty much continued it through the Obama Administration, basically until Biden threw on the brakes.
Then how do you explain the millions of people who work without collective bargaining to good effect. Here’s the thing … the relationship between labor and management is symbiotic… to neglect this is done at the business peril.
We have seen massive business growth and consolidation. Industries now focus more on stock buybacks and dividends than they do in investing in innovation. Big Tech turned on Biden because under him the government, correctly, was pursuing anti-trust against them. The goal of businesses now is market capture and competitive prevention, which is why they pushed for things like preventing China from having access to the best chip technology. And what did China do? They innovated, funded a bunch of small start-ups, and built a far more energy-efficient AI. Big companies have been telling a fairy tale that American strength is these giant corporations. The ten largest companies in the DJIA now occupy a record high of 37% of the total market value. Nearly every single one of those companies is connected to AI, and the "value" in all of these companies is seen as accumulating more profit down the road by not having to pay human beings. Tesla, from the beginning, has been seen as a company that will one day eliminate the most common job for American men: driver. Tesla produces a miniscule proportion of cars, but is worth more than the entire rest of the auto industry COMBINED. Business peril? IT'S ALL SPECULATIVE BULL SHIT.
And because the AI technology has not focused on the material problem, the energy cost, all of these tech companies are now building power plants. Instead of increasing efficiency and lowering our energy usage so we don't have to mine as heavily and destroy the environment, they have all reversed course on lowering their carbon footprints. Ultimately, the cost and externalities of that will be born by all of us. Just so that people who aren't capable of efficiently and cogently writing their own thoughts can do so, or so that people can pretend to be artists while using models that are built on the stolen creative output of people with actual talent.
What is your take on DOGE? And interestingly, I agree with your take on AI...but for better or (most likely) worse...it is not going away. And yes I agree that those in the arts are going to suffer the most.
My take is that it's dumb man's idea of a smart man's solution, that it's the kind of thing you'd do if your goal was to maximize harm and distract from more giveaways to corporate America, and that Putin can't stop smiling with joy at bringing us low.
Begs the question - what would be a smart man's solution?
The entire federal salary chunk of the budget is ~4%. If you cut the employees you risk harming how that other 96% is used. Even if you cut 50% of the employees, which obviously can't happen, the effect on the budget is basically rounding error. When cutting costs you have to consider the harms of doing so. The cuts "DOGE" has made seemed to designed to maximize harm. It will directly increase unemployment, it harms families, and it targets the services that average people most need. The entire pool of money they are targeting is $300 billion annually, so let's say you shave 10% off and save $30 billion a year, and let's completely ignore the harms of doing so.
The Air Force has estimated that the B-21 bomber will cost taxpayers $200 billion. That's cumulatively over the years of use of the bomber, and knowing the military, probably even an underestimate. One jet, $10-20 billion a year.
Which is the easier to problem to tackle, without harming the country? Keep in mind the context that many analysts feel the U.S. has been left behind in drone technology (on the commercial side, one Chinese company now makes 75% of drones, and even when they don't, the manufactured components are usually Chinese), and that the future of war is drones and not bombers in the first place. Even if you think modern bombers are incrementally better, our "competition" in that space is still largely relying on older technology in the first place, so who are we competing with, exactly?
There are hundreds of examples like this in the military alone, and thousands across the government. There are corporate giveaways left and right, tax breaks and loopholes, and all of these actually move the needle. Cutting some park rangers and assistants at the VA doesn't impact the budget in a measurable way. It just makes life more miserable for Americans.
Interesting points...what I find amazing is the lack of auditing where our money goes (from Ft Knox to losing $4.7T), many of the silly programs funded both domestically and internationally (TG surgery in Africa? Really?) - to government fraud. I'm not too sure I buy your argument that the 4% will impact the 96% as I have a feeling these folks will not be missed and they will find other work. I do agree that the weapon systems that we employ are significantly dated and should be re-examined. The B-21 bomber still has some utility but I do agree that drones are more cutting edge. Actually, the next war (God Forbid) will be fought in space. With regards to a US technological deficit .... not too sure I agree with you here either. DARPA's mission is to be 30+ years ahead of the curve...and thus far they are close. Nonetheless, we have farmed out too much production to China. Coming full circle, you haven't suggest a better plan...I think all can agree that waste isn't good and that we have the ability to correct the problem.
There is no lack of auditing. Congress audits every agency. The GAO releases scathing reports all the time. Look at their website right now: https://www.gao.gov/
It was Obama who established usaspending.gov, the cost tracking website that the DOGEbags keep citing as if they "dug it up" by themselves: https://www.usaspending.gov/
Congress choose not to make cuts - except to taxes for the rich. That's why we are in this situation. The Pentagon continues to fail audits, and absolutely nothing is done about it, because almost no one in Congress has the testicular fortitude to challenge Defense spending, and they're completely owned by the defense contractors and Trump-supporting tech bros like Thiel that build surveillance tools.
Also, you don't seem to understand what I meant by 4% impacting the 96%. The 4% are the employees of the government. They managed that 96%. Without them, we're just rife for more mismanagement of the same.
The point, ultimately, is the intent is NOT to cut spending, because it won't materially do that. The point is to maximize suffering, and, increasing, I think, to throw the economy into the recession so that the rich have another buying opportunity.
https://billionaireconspiracy.com/
So what is the solution besides killing the rich and taking all of their wealth? LOL
That is actually the solution.
It doesn’t have to be so dramatic. But yes, the solution is massive civil insubordination that shows the ruling class of psycho-oligarchs we see through them and won’t stand it.
And you with your cheap sophistry are working directly against that.
Revolutions don’t have to be violent. But they have to be massive and relentless. If by some miracle 30% of the work force - the 30% we value the least - poured into the streets tomorrow and declared they’re not going back to work until things change, they wouldn’t even have to hold out a week. Stop everything and reset the motherfucker, it’s the only way.
That of course would be far more feasible with a genuine opposition leader. Of which we are in short supply atm.