Occupy Atlanta (ref: Wall Street protests here) (Washington, Boston: layoffs, car)

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Will the less government conservatives please stop trying to use the civil-rights movement and all the ideas and personalities behind it that they never supported nor cared for in the first place, as a cloak to hide their disgust for young people who realize the corruption that corporations have unleashed on this country?

Am I one of the thinly veiled "less gov't conservatives?"

You have no idea what I've supported or what I've done in my life. You'd be surprised that I don't fit your stereotyped prejudices. Your comment is offensive, and it's another example of one way tolerance practiced by liberals. I would make the argument that the Democrat welfare plantation does much more to undermine civil rights and upward mobility than any perceived corporation's actions.

[AcidSnake]

So in other words, you felt like you was obligated to say something.

The reality that there are inherent risks in a protest/civil disobediance movement goes without saying.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Just what I said -- that demonstrating, especially if you take it to the point of getting arrested, has significant consequences. I read your post to mean that we'd now find out whether these protesters really had the courage of their convictions, or whether they were just hollering in the park. I'm simply pointing out that taking civil disobedience to the next level is not without considerable risk.

That's not a criticism of you and if you took it that way I apologize.

[AcidSnake]

To equate the "Occupy Atlanta" protestors' desires as that of a "collection of spoiled, tantrum throwing rabble" I find equally as offensive and quite disturbing.

Where was this fire & brimstone venom when the Tea Party "movement" first came on the scene, eh? But that so-called "movement" was okay by you, huh?

Where was that same tolerance that you accused me of lacking for the Occupy Atlanta folks? I guess you're not familiar with that timely old idiom "People who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones."

And using this language of "Democratic welfare plantation"? Are you really saying that? What does the Democratic party have to do with this situation?

Originally Posted by neil0311

Am I one of the thinly veiled "less gov't conservatives?"

You have no idea what I've supported or what I've done in my life. You'd be surprised that I don't fit your stereotyped prejudices. Your comment is offensive, and it's another example of one way tolerance practiced by liberals. I would make the argument that the Democrat welfare plantation does much more to undermine civil rights and upward mobility than any perceived corporation's actions.

[brent6969]

This country is on the verge of chaos, I say bring it on, people are sick and tired of what is happening, me included.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by neil0311

My company owes me nothing more than the salary and benefits they've agreed to provide me in return for me meeting my annual commitments to the business [...]

"Owe" is tricky. For most positions below the executive level (or C level for some companies), it's not true in a legal sense. In practice, the company can fire you, cut your salary, or reduce/eliminate benefits whether or not you've met or exceeded your annual commitments. You could argue, I suppose, that the company "owes" you these things in some ethical or moral sense, but that's not likely to get you very far.

But so what if the company doesn't really "owe" you. You can compete for salary, benefits, and job security in a free labor market based on your own skills, abilities, and value to the company. Right?

* unless your ability to negotiate wages, benefits, and job security depends on the ability to bargain collectively, in which case your position has been dramatically undermined by thirty years of union busting.

* unless there is someone in East or South Asia that's willing and able to do your job at a level of salary and benefits you can't compete with...or aren't even given an opportunity by the company to compete with.

* unless technological innovation dramatically reduces the demand for your skills (or renders them completely obsolete) more quickly than you can update them.

* unless you have no leverage to negotiate salary and benefits with your corporation because monetary policy over the past 30 years has favored low inflation and a loose labor market, so there's six people waiting behind you to do your job for less if you insist on something as impudent as a modest merit increase following a year of record corporate profits.

* unless executives hop from position to position often enough that they care far more about quarterly profits -- and the massive bonuses they bring -- than the long-term strength of their corporation, and they find that mass-firings (downsizing, right-sizing, restructuring) are a much quicker and easier way to reduce short-term costs (and therefore increase short-term profits) than actually improving the product or service and growing the business.

* unless shareholders offer no constraint on these "best practices" since share prices in the short run respond to the same drivers as executive bonuses.

* unless the global market dominance of increasingly massive corporations makes it next to impossible for you to launch and sustain a small business.

* unless the political power of corporate money means that you're not only facing off against a huge corporation for your livelihood, you're playing the game according to rules that the government has kindly written for their corporate masters.

...and on, and on, and on. All of which is why middle-class income has been stagnant for 30 years while the rich got richer and why anything like middle-class job security isn't just a thing of the past but a cruel joke.

And all of which is why the Occupy message, as inchoate as it seems at times, amounts to "This ****ing game is rigged."

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

So in other words, you felt like you was obligated to say something.

The reality that there are inherent risks in a protest/civil disobediance movement goes without saying.

Er, this is a discussion board where people frequently add to, disagree with, endorse and otherwise comment on what others say. I've apologized to you if you took my post as some sort of criticism. It's not and wasn't intended as such.

But yeah, as I've explained before, I read your post to mean that we'd now find out whether these protesters really had the courage of their convictions. I'm simply pointing out that taking civil disobedience to the next level is not without considerable risk.

That's pretty innocuous and in my opinion it's a logical follow up to your statement. If that gets under your skin somehow, I can only suggest that you dial back the prickliness a notch or two.

[AcidSnake]

No problems. The Prickliness meter is being dialed down even as we speak.

But you do tend to be a bit "tricky" with your comments from time to time. My spider senses tend to be on a heightened alert status around you, man.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Er, this is a discussion board where people frequently add to, disagree with, endorse and otherwise comment on what others say. I've apologized to you if you took my post as some sort of criticism. It's not and wasn't intended as such.

But yeah, as I've explained before, I read your post to mean that we'd now find out whether these protesters really had the courage of their convictions. I'm simply pointing out that taking civil disobedience to the next level is not without considerable risk.

That's pretty innocuous and in my opinion it's a logical follow up to your statement. If that gets under your skin somehow, I can only suggest that you dial back the prickliness a notch or two.

[arjay57]

Gap between U.S. rich, poor is widest in Atlanta

Well, we've topped one list.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

What is your point?

Are you criticising me or is it just that you feel obligated to find some downside in my commentary just to even out the downside that you replied to on previous commentary that was decidely on the other side of this "Occupy-Atlanta" issue?

...

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So then you would be perfectly happy if they laid you off, citing "the economy", then proceeded to announce record profits for that quarter/year, right?

Originally Posted by arjay57

What corporation is going to do that?! Corporations are people too, and they need to love and be loved just like anyone else. When you help a corporation you are helping not only yourself but your fellow corporate personhoods as well.

You aren't serious, are you?

Companies Wringing Huge Profits From Job Cuts - NYTimes.com
Corporate Profits At All-Time High As Recovery Stumbles
Fox Business - Latest News - WSJ: Wireless Jobs Evaporate Even As Industry Expands
MinnPost - Boston Scientific declares quarterly profit, cuts 1,400 jobs
IBM Layoffs 2010: Employees Expect Job Cuts | NowPublic News Coverage
FedEx Earnings More than Double, Plans 1,700 Layoffs - DailyFinance

Is that enough for you? If we can't count on record profits to create jobs, what CAN we count on?