PDA

View Full Version : The Strikes In France


Love As Arson
10/21/10, 10:46 AM
Strikes and demonstrations are rocking France as union federations join with students and left-wing activists for mass protests against a planned "reform" of the country' pension system championed by President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Last week saw the two more national days of action honored by all the country's main unions. On one of the days, October 12, more than 3 million joined a one-day general strike call. However, some groups of workers are continuing their actions between days of action, deciding day by day whether they will keep striking.

The strikes are hitting hard across the whole economy, but the biggest threat right now are the oil workers, one of the best-paid section of the French working class, whose actions at port facilities and the country's 12 refineries are causing shortages of gas and diesel fuel. Charles de Gaulle International Airport will run out of fuel early this week if the strike keeps up, grounding planes at the country's main airport.

The protests are targeting an overhaul of the country's pension system that would raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. The pension proposal is the brainchild of Sarkozy and is expected to come up for a final vote in France's parliament by midweek. Another day of action has been called for Tuesday to exert maximum pressure on lawmakers.

John Mullen, an activist in the New Anti-Capitalist Party in the Paris region, wrote the following commentary on how the struggle has developed and what lies ahead.


Workers and students march through Paris during a day of action against pension "reform" in mid-October (philippe grangeaud)
CLASS STRUGGLE is hitting France in a big way. Tuesday, October 12, and Saturday October 16 were the seventh and eighth days of action to defend retirement pensions.

Demonstrators in their thousands ran down the Paris boulevards on Saturday, chanting "All together, general strike!" On both days, there were more than 200 demonstrations in cities across France, along with mass strikes in transportation, electricity, oil, airports, telecoms, education and the civil service.

The unions say there were 3.5 million demonstrators on Tuesday. The government says a million and a quarter, but even one of the police staff associations said the government was fiddling the figures.

For the first time, students joined the pensions struggle in large numbers, concerned both about their parents, and that later retirement for older workers will mean fewer jobs for the young. According to polls, 84 percent of 18 to 24 year olds think the strikers are right. "Sarkozy, you're screwed, the youth is on the street," was the chant in Toulouse, a city in the southwest of the country. Two days later, the number of high schools involved in the strike had risen from 200 to 700.

As young people moved into action, government ministers squealed that 15-year-olds were too young to be demonstrating and striking, and that they must be being manipulated. This from a government whose justice minister recently proposed to lower to 12 years old the age at which a young person can be imprisoned for committing a crime!

The movement is not just a series of one-day strikes controlled by union leaders. Since last Wednesday, daily meetings in the most active sectors vote each day on continuing the strike for 24 hours more. Already, all of the 12 oil refineries in France have taken up these "renewable strikes," half of the country's trains are not running, and some libraries and school cafeterias are closed, while in other sectors, hundreds of mass meetings are being held to decide on next steps.

Truck drivers have started blocking industrial zones in solidarity with the movement, despite the fact that they themselves can retire at 55 under a special law. One of the leaders of the drivers pointed out that drivers care about what happens to the support and administrative workers in transport firms--these workers are mostly women and don't get early retirement like the drivers do.

Dockers in Marseilles have walked out, too, and another national day of strikes and demonstrations for everyone is planned for Tuesday, October 19.

Union members make up under 10 percent of French workers, though many millions more vote for union representatives as staff representatives on works committees, and in polls, 53 percent of the population and 60 percent of manual workers say they trust unions. The result of low union density is that most workplaces are only partly unionized, so regular meetings where everyone can express themselves and vote on the strike are essential. Such meetings can also make it harder for union leaders to sell out strikes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PUBLIC OPINION is absolutely on our side. Fully 71 percent of the population opposes Sarkozy's "reform," and that support for the movement rises to 87 percent among manual workers and routine office workers. A poll last week even reckoned that two-thirds of the population thought the strike movement needed to get tougher on the government, while 53 percent of the population and 70 percent of manual workers wanted a general strike! This support needs to be transformed into active confidence to strike in those sectors not yet mobilized.

In France, 13 percent of retired people are living in poverty, according to a recent Eurostat survey, as against 17 per cent in Germany, and 30 percent in Britain, where neoliberal "reforms" have gone much further. French workers are determined not to catch up to other countries in the poverty stakes.

But over the last 20 years, pensions have gradually come under attack. The official retirement age is still 60, but a few years back, despite being slowed by strikes, the government managed to force through an increase in the number of years needed to get a full pension. In 1990, 37.5 years was enough; by 2012, you will need 41 years. If you have less than this, they cut a bit off your pension for each "missing" year, unless you retire at 65, in which case you get a full pension.

Sarkozy's new law adds two years to both the official retirement age (making it 62) and to the age needed to guarantee full pension (making it 67).

Sarkozy, who has been weakened by disgusting corruption scandals involving his ministers (including Eric Woerth, the head of pension reform) over the summer, is desperately looking for his "Thatcher moment" of beating the unions--a moment that has eluded recent right-wing governments in France.

In 1995, a month of strikes fought off a drastic attack on pensions. And most famously, in 2006, the "First Employment Contract," voted though by a right-wing government to impose inferior working conditions on young adults under 26 years old, was an unmitigated disaster for the government. After the law had been voted through, a massive student movement backed up by the unions forced the government into a humiliating retreat.

This happening again is Sarkozy's nightmare. He has been quoted recently as saying in private: "As long as the young people don't get involved, I can handle the movement against my pension reform." Traditionally, presidents allow their prime ministers to take the main responsibility for unpopular reforms, and they sack them if the movement in opposition gets too strong. But this time, Sarkozy has put himself in the forefront, a move we hope to make him regret.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU MIGHT think that with such levels of public support, union leaders would pull out all the stops for a general strike, but professional negotiators don't think like that. The main trade union confederations have so far been united about the need for one-day mass strikes, which has made impossible the standard government tactic of luring one confederation to their side with minor concessions, and using this fact in propaganda to reduce public support for the strikers.

But union leaders aren't pushing for renewable strikes and are calling for negotiations, not for the simple defeat of Sarkozy's pension law. The union leaders' banner at the head of Saturday's demonstration read "Pensions, jobs and wages are important to society" when it should have read "General strike to beat Sarkozy." So it will be up to the rank and file to build up to a general strike, though some regional leaders are supporting the idea.

The plummeting support for Sarkozy in the opinion polls and the fact that there are only 18 months left till the next presidential elections has led the Socialist Party to be more active, though far from central, in this movement. They have promised to reinstate retirement at 60 if they are elected in 2012.

The Socialist Party today is like the Labour Party in Britain 20 years ago, divided between a wing that would abandon even weak links with an active workers' movement, and a left wing that sees a mix of parliamentary action and movements on the streets as the best way forward to more social justice. Dominique Strauss Kahn, one of the hopefuls for the Socialist Party presidential candidacy in 2012, is presently director general of the International Monetary Fund, the financial gangsters who are pushing across the world for later retirement and public sector cuts!

The left-reformist Left Party and the Communist Party are actively building the movement, though many activists are being diverted into campaigning for a referendum on the issue of pensions. Since Sarkozy would only grant a referendum if he was terrified by the power of the movement, and if we scare him enough, he will junk his reform anyway, the referendum idea is a waste of time.

Anti-capitalist groups such as the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA, by its French initials) are completely committed to building for a general strike. Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson for the NAP, said, "We need a 21st century version of May 1968."

So far, Sarkozy has been forced to make minor concessions on his pensions proposals--concerning, for example, women who have taken time off work to raise children. He has also made concessions in other areas, hoping to calm the anger of certain parts of the population--for example, an announced plan to cut housing benefit for students was abandoned. And a few days ago, he announced plans to look again at a whole raft of tax cuts for the rich instituted only three years ago.

But the main battle is still on. Now that the law has been voted through parliament, the stakes are high. The unions are not negotiating--the new law will stand or be broken. If it is broken, Sarkozy is unlike to survive as president beyond the next elections in 2012.

All year, Sarkozy has been using classic divide-and-rule tactics by playing the racist card. Mass expulsions of gypsies and threats to remove French nationality from naturalized immigrants convicted of certain crimes have led to protest movements. Tragically, the passage of a law banning women wearing a "full" Muslim veil from walking the streets was supported by most of the parliamentary left, and the far left remained practically silent, afraid of Islamophobic sentiments among its own supporters.

These racist tactics have had some effect, and racist attacks are on the rise. A sharp defeat for Sarkozy on pensions could help build a fighting left, which could then roll back some of the right's racist ploys and encourage united action on the radical left.

The movement is still on the rise, and last Friday, police thugs attacked high school students in a series of towns across France. In Montreuil, where I live, a high school student is in the hospital having an operation on his eye after police fired plastic bullets at students who were blockading their school.

Only two years ago, Sarkozy could be heard to gloat: "These days, when there is a strike in France, no one notices."

He has been made to notice now, and if a rising wave of strikes can defeat his attack on pensions, it will be a major step forward in the defense of workers in France and an encouragement for workers around the world. Already, Spain's recent general strike and Greece's mass strikes against austerity have shown that European workers are ready to fight.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/18/french-workers-strike-back

yves.
10/21/10, 10:50 AM
i wish that kind of shit would happen here.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 10:52 AM
Who will pay for the pensions?

Love As Arson
10/21/10, 10:55 AM
Who will pay for the pensions?
Well, Sarkozy caved in on the tax shield for the elite.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 10:56 AM
Well, Sarkozy caved in on the tax shield for the elite.

Even without that, the French government is the country's largest employer. Who will pay the pensions in 5, 10 years?

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 10:57 AM
I'm sorry but the UK has a pension age of 65 and that is increasing to 66, the French are a bunch of lazy people who don't see that this will help the economy and the country as a whole.

Juan Jose
10/21/10, 11:06 AM
I'm sorry but the UK has a pension age of 65 and that is increasing to 66, the French are a bunch of lazy people who don't see that this will help the economy and the country as a whole.

this

Love As Arson
10/21/10, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but the UK has a pension age of 65 and that is increasing to 66, the French are a bunch of lazy people who don't see that this will help the economy and the country as a whole.

How does one help the people in the country by cutting social programs and retirement benefits? The cuts themselves, including in Britain, lead to the loss of jobs.
Even without that, the French government is the country's largest employer. Who will pay the pensions in 5, 10 years?
Increase the percentage that employers have to pay into the system.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 11:15 AM
European workers are ready to fight... they're just not prepared to work.

Love As Arson
10/21/10, 11:16 AM
European workers are ready to fight... they're just not prepared to work.
People shouldn't live to work.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 11:17 AM
Increase the percentage that employers have to pay into the system.


The government is the largest employer and it pays nothing into the system. It's a broken system that's collapsing all across Europe. Social benefits and entitlements mean nothing if the country is in financial ruins.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 11:19 AM
People shouldn't live to work.

Only a few should though, to pay for all of those who shouldn't. I get it.

What a ridiculous notion. How will people live without the fruits of labor?

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 11:19 AM
How does one help the people in the country by cutting social programs and retirement benefits? The cuts themselves, including in Britain, lead to the loss of jobs.

Increase the percentage that employers have to pay into the system.
Everyone needs to pull their weight to help, I agree that the job losses are too high (490,000 I think) and there are stupid ideas like scrapping HMS Ark Royal and then building two new aircraft carriers but a two year increase on the retirement age isn't worth all this fuss.

Love As Arson
10/21/10, 11:25 AM
The government is the largest employer and it pays nothing into the system. It's a broken system that's collapsing all across Europe. Social benefits and entitlements mean nothing if the country is in financial ruins.
The reason countries are in financial distress relates more to a capitalist crisis than social benefits.

Only a few should though, to pay for all of those who shouldn't. I get it.

What a ridiculous notion. How will people live without the fruits of labor?
Which few are you referring to? If it is the elite, then I'd argue that they do very much work at all. Asking me how people live without the fruits of their labor is humorous to me because the working class does it every day.

Everyone needs to pull their weight to help, I agree that the job losses are too high (490,000 I think) and there are stupid ideas like scrapping HMS Ark Royal and then building two new aircraft carriers but a two year increase on the retirement age isn't worth all this fuss.
What have the banks, for example, done to pull their weight?

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 11:28 AM
The reason countries are in financial distress relates more to a capitalist crisis than social benefits.


Which few are you referring to? If it is the elite, then I'd argue that they do very much work at all. Asking me how people live without the fruits of their labor is humorous to me because the working class does it every day.


What have the banks, for example, done to pull their weight?
Fuck all but the government have done nothing to hurt them and neither is the government doing anything to help the economic recovery with idiotic job losses and defense spending.

saysmydoctor
10/21/10, 11:35 AM
I'm sorry but the UK has a pension age of 65 and that is increasing to 66, the French are a bunch of lazy people who don't see that this will help the economy and the country as a whole.
Look at that generalization.

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 11:36 AM
Look at that generalization.
Alright then if you want specific 70% of the French public don't want the retirement age to increase.

saysmydoctor
10/21/10, 11:37 AM
Alright then if you want specific 70% of the French public don't want the retirement age to increase.
I wouldn't either, if I had to work longer to get less from my government when I do retire.

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 11:40 AM
I wouldn't either, if I had to work longer to get less from my government when I do retire.
Should save more towards retiring then. Can't expect the government to fund every person who retires without a consequence.

saysmydoctor
10/21/10, 11:48 AM
Should save more towards retiring then. Can't expect the government to fund every person who retires without a consequence.
You make saving seem easy. The typical laborer doesn't have the luxury of a six figure salary where they can save up like that for rainy days and retirement. That's why they pay into social security like programs. That's why it's taken out of their wages.

I can and should expect the government to fund such programs--especially when I pay into the programs--that's kind of the fucking point.

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 11:57 AM
You make saving seem easy. The typical laborer doesn't have the luxury of a six figure salary where they can save up like that for rainy days and retirement. That's why they pay into social security like programs. That's why it's taken out of their wages.

I can and should expect the government to fund such programs--especially when I pay into the programs--that's kind of the fucking point.
The way that they are going about trying to get their way isn't helping either. Jobs are being put at risk, airlines in France have paid more out since the strikes than they did during the Icelandic volcano, rubbish is being left out on the streets and the economy isn't exactly liking the fact that fuel and energy is low. Not what I would call a way of helping out the people of your country.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 12:11 PM
Which few are you referring to? If it is the elite, then I'd argue that they do very much work at all. Asking me how people live without the fruits of their labor is humorous to me because the working class does it every day.

I'm referring to the few who work extremely hard to produce, the people who "live to work". The employers that you would lean on are producing the necessary capital to fund your social programs. This is not old money, which is finite. These are enterprising people who achieve in life and are being unfairly taxed for doing so. It has to be them because they must continually produce what you need to siphon off.

Ignoring for now the fact that you cleverly inserted the bold word, let's consider if these people live without the fruits of labor. Do they really? They get along without food, which has to be farmed and produced by labor? They get along without homes, which needed to be conceived of and erected by labor and hard work? How many of these workers miss out on food and shelter, or are without luxuries like cellphones? Not very many. How were these things produced? With labor. With work.

You claim they do not see the fruits of their own labor. I agree. Not when a majority of their income has to be paid into a system that purports to give them benefits, whether directly through taxation on their wages or leaning on their employers more heavily which forces the employers to pay less money in order to remain afloat. Then too, that money does not directly translate into benefits for them, it gets lost in a bureaucratic system needed to facilitate those benefits. It's understandable then that England, France, and Greece would need to lay off thousands of government jobs. Those jobs pay nothing into the system and leech off those that do.

You want workers to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Don't take their money from them. Let them keep more of what they earn so they can spend (or not spend) it how they wish.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 01:00 PM
You did not just say people are punished for working hard. Come on.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 01:02 PM
You did not just say people are punished for working hard. Come on.

The people who produce the most are required to pay the most. That one word does not invalidate my argument.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 01:06 PM
The people who produce the most are required to pay the most. That one word does not invalidate my argument.

Equating that to punishment is flat out ridiculous. Not a damn person would trade places to be in a lower tax bracket. Let's stay away from Tea Party talking points.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 01:07 PM
Equating that to punishment is flat out ridiculous. Not a damn person would trade places to be in a lower tax bracket. Let's stay away from Tea Party talking points.

Fine, ignore that word then. You still missed the remainder of my post.

Edit: Better now?

Scrandon
10/21/10, 01:12 PM
Fine, ignore that word then. You still missed the remainder of my post.

Edit: Better now?

What's good for the society isn't simply what's good for the individual. Letting them keep their tax dollars won't make them better off.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 01:13 PM
What's good for the society isn't simply what's good for the individual. Letting them keep their tax dollars won't make them better off.



It will allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor. It will also prevent a gross mismanagement of their money by the government.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 01:22 PM
It will allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor. It will also prevent a gross mismanagement of their money by the government.

Now I'm lost. The private sector wouldn't grossly mismanage their money? We're living the effects of that right now. There are much worse things to worry about than the government employing a few extra bureaucrats, such as private corporations willfully gambling with the little guy's savings.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 01:38 PM
Now I'm lost. The private sector wouldn't grossly mismanage their money? We're living the effects of that right now. There are much worse things to worry about than the government employing a few extra bureaucrats, such as private corporations willfully gambling with the little guy's savings.

What's with the straw man? What does that have to do with anything in my post? I said the worker should be given the money he earns.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 01:43 PM
What's with the straw man? What does that have to do with anything in my post? I said the worker should be given the money he earns.

If the government isn't managing the money, the private sector would have to. People can't just stuff it under their mattress. It's no straw man, just showing you the alternative isn't any better.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 01:57 PM
If the government isn't managing the money, the private sector would have to. People can't just stuff it under their mattress. It's no straw man, just showing you the alternative isn't any better.

That's exactly what a straw man is. Out of my entire post, you pick on one little portion of it and claim the alternative is no better. That doesn't really argue against anything I said.


People need to learn to be more responsible with their money. One way to do that is to not purchase a house you cannot afford. Another is to not operate under a heavy load of debt. A little fiscal responsibility can go a long way. This will never be realized though, at the individual level or higher, if someone is always saving your ass.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 02:05 PM
That's exactly what a straw man is. Out of my entire post, you pick on one little portion of it and claim the alternative is no better. That doesn't really argue against anything I said.


People need to learn to be more responsible with their money. One way to do that is to not purchase a house you cannot afford. Another is to not operate under a heavy load of debt. A little fiscal responsibility can go a long way. This will never be realized though, at the individual level or higher, if someone is always saving your ass.
The post was two sentencess long, how can I pick one little portion out? I was arguing that taxes ain't that bad, if you didn't get my point, oh well.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 02:09 PM
The post was two sentencess long, how can I pick one little portion out? I was arguing that taxes ain't that bad, if you didn't get my point, oh well.

...

I'm referring to the few who work extremely hard to produce, the people who "live to work". The employers that you would lean on are producing the necessary capital to fund your social programs. This is not old money, which is finite. These are enterprising people who achieve in life and are being unfairly taxed for doing so. It has to be them because they must continually produce what you need to siphon off.

Ignoring for now the fact that you cleverly inserted the bold word, let's consider if these people live without the fruits of labor. Do they really? They get along without food, which has to be farmed and produced by labor? They get along without homes, which needed to be conceived of and erected by labor and hard work? How many of these workers miss out on food and shelter, or are without luxuries like cellphones? Not very many. How were these things produced? With labor. With work.

You claim they do not see the fruits of their own labor. I agree. Not when a majority of their income has to be paid into a system that purports to give them benefits, whether directly through taxation on their wages or leaning on their employers more heavily which forces the employers to pay less money in order to remain afloat. Then too, that money does not directly translate into benefits for them, it gets lost in a bureaucratic system needed to facilitate those benefits. It's understandable then that England, France, and Greece would need to lay off thousands of government jobs. Those jobs pay nothing into the system and leech off those that do.

You want workers to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Don't take their money from them. Let them keep more of what they earn so they can spend (or not spend) it how they wish.

^^^ In this post you were hung up on a single word, and then after that your response was:

What's good for the society isn't simply what's good for the individual. Letting them keep their tax dollars won't make them better off.

So yeah, one little portion of my post.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 02:16 PM
So what do you want to talk about then, taxation is irrelevant to your argument?

notmrblond234
10/21/10, 02:18 PM
i wish that kind of shit would happen here.

Agreed.

Simulcast
10/21/10, 02:25 PM
So what do you want to talk about then, taxation is irrelevant to your argument?

I want a fleshed out argument from you. What am I supposed to do with a statement like "Letting them keep their tax dollars won't make them better off"? Okay, great, why not?

Taxation is relevant, but that statement is not.

Shoes
10/21/10, 02:40 PM
I'm sorry but the UK has a pension age of 65 and that is increasing to 66, the French are a bunch of lazy people who don't see that this will help the economy and the country as a whole.
Having the pension age up to 66 isn't a good thing. Our whole country is going to shit. 500,000 job loses, not to mention pay and hour cuts. I wish we were as half as active as the French, maybe our country wouldn't be falling to pieces right now.

secretsociety92
10/21/10, 02:50 PM
Having the pension age up to 66 isn't a good thing. Our whole country is going to shit. 500,000 job loses, not to mention pay and hour cuts. I wish we were as half as active as the French, maybe our country wouldn't be falling to pieces right now.
I didn't say it was a good thing that it was increasing I was just comparing how high our retirement age is compared to the French. France is being made worse with all these strikes, I doubt you would want rubbish in your street or not be able to drive because there is a lack of fuel.

Scrandon
10/21/10, 03:26 PM
I want a fleshed out argument from you. What am I supposed to do with a statement like "Letting them keep their tax dollars won't make them better off"? Okay, great, why not?

Taxation is relevant, but that statement is not.
Well, I guess it depends on who you're talking about. If you're talking about the top 2% of income earners, then it's possible that they would be better off keeping their tax dollars. If you care about the other 98% of Americans, then that is not the case.

Describing a better alternative to your argument is not a straw man. Pulling out one point from a paragraph is not a straw man either, as long a it was kept in context, which is what I did.

Love As Arson
10/21/10, 03:26 PM
I'm referring to the few who work extremely hard to produce, the people who "live to work". The employers that you would lean on are producing the necessary capital to fund your social programs. This is not old money, which is finite. These are enterprising people who achieve in life and are being unfairly taxed for doing so. It has to be them because they must continually produce what you need to siphon off.
Their capital and wealth is accumulated through exploitation. The system essentially functions to service them, to ensure they are profitable, since the health of the economy is associated with their interests, so it seems to me that they should pay more into social programs.



Ignoring for now the fact that you cleverly inserted the bold word, let's consider if these people live without the fruits of labor. Do they really? They get along without food, which has to be farmed and produced by labor? They get along without homes, which needed to be conceived of and erected by labor and hard work? How many of these workers miss out on food and shelter, or are without luxuries like cellphones? Not very many. How were these things produced? With labor. With work.
I support the people that actually do the work, who aren't being paid the full wage they deserve; their work is generally alienating, they have no control over what goes on in the company and when they are paid, it is only enough to replenish their energy so they can go back to work the next day. I do not support those who amass their wealth by perpetuating those conditions, which I do not consider "hard work".




You claim they do not see the fruits of their own labor. I agree. Not when a majority of their income has to be paid into a system that purports to give them benefits, whether directly through taxation on their wages or leaning on their employers more heavily which forces the employers to pay less money in order to remain afloat. Then too, that money does not directly translate into benefits for them, it gets lost in a bureaucratic system needed to facilitate those benefits. It's understandable then that England, France, and Greece would need to lay off thousands of government jobs. Those jobs pay nothing into the system and leech off those that do.
I agree regarding taxation, which is why I support cutting taxes for the vast majority of working people and increasing the rates on the wealthy; I would have no problem with a tax rate that goes as high as 90%. In any event, you fail to understand the issue in context; that is, these issues came to the fore during the financial crisis and now when there is a need to increase profitability, the cuts that need to be made are those which actually benefit people. That is what's at the heart of this issue. Where we disagree, it seems to me, is I do not think average people should have to pay for the problems made by the financial elite. They should be forced to bear the brunt of the difficulties many countries are facing.


You want workers to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Don't take their money from them. Let them keep more of what they earn so they can spend (or not spend) it how they wish.
In this case, the majority of workers want to continue with this system. They do not want the free-market you seem to fetishize.

saysmydoctor
10/21/10, 04:55 PM
It will allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor. It will also prevent a gross mismanagement of their money by the government.
They aren't enjoying the fruits of their labor. They are reaping the rewards off other people's labor.

DejaGuy89
10/21/10, 11:19 PM
this guy is burying himself

<*)))><
10/22/10, 01:07 PM
If only people were smart enough to save, so they don't have to rely on goverment.

deFobbed14yrs
10/22/10, 02:19 PM
If only people were smart enough to save, so they don't have to rely on goverment.

Totally man, I mean like if you make 7.50 and hour, you are rolling in it and should open a fucking bank account and start saving those massive paychecks. I mean they can hold off on the mortgage and car loans and food and medical bills and gas and clothing and their kids.

Those people man, fuck em.

jawstheme
10/22/10, 02:20 PM
Totally man, I mean like if you make 7.50 and hour, you are rolling in it and should open a fucking bank account and start saving those massive paychecks. I mean they can hold off on the mortgage and car loans and food and medical bills and gas and clothing and their kids.

Those people man, fuck em.

hahaha :-d Amen.

<*)))><
10/22/10, 02:25 PM
Totally man, I mean like if you make 7.50 and hour, you are rolling in it and should open a fucking bank account and start saving those massive paychecks. I mean they can hold off on the mortgage and car loans and food and medical bills and gas and clothing and their kids.

Those people man, fuck em.
Rent, take a bus, easy mac, and dont have kids.

deFobbed14yrs
10/22/10, 02:36 PM
Rent, take a bus, easy mac, and dont have kids.

You think poor people own cars?? Or own homes?? Ha

:rotfl: yeah, totally that works. Dude have you read Nickled and Dimed? or This is their land? Read up, see how hard it is to survive in this great country of ours.


But no, you did make a partially valid point. A lot of people did try to live out of their means. I mean who doesn't try to get more bang for their buck. But you know when you're little and you want something your parent says no? Well that's where America fucked up. No one said no, the professionals who we look to for advice became greedy and help fuck a lot of people over.

<*)))><
10/22/10, 02:41 PM
You think poor people own cars?? Or own homes?? Ha

:rotfl: yeah, totally that works. Dude have you read Nickled and Dimed? or This is their land? Read up, see how hard it is to survive in this great country of ours.
I grew with a single parent making 7.25 an hour, living in one of the most expensive states. My mom made it work by living on a very cheap budget raising two kids. She also put away a quater of her wage for her retirement, so if she can do anyone else can. What is wrong with taking the bus if you can't afford a car? Or renting an apartment?

shit stroll
10/22/10, 02:57 PM
I grew with a single parent making 7.25 an hour, living in one of the most expensive states. My mom made it work by living on a very cheap budget raising two kids. She also put away a quater of her wage for her retirement, so if she can do anyone else can. What is wrong with taking the bus if you can't afford a car? Or renting an apartment?
I think i remember you saying in another thread that your dad makes over 600k a year. So your mom would have received plenty in child support/alimony money. No wonder she could afford to put away a quarter of her salary for retirement.

<*)))><
10/22/10, 03:09 PM
I think i remember you saying in another thread that your dad makes over 600k a year. So your mom would have received plenty in child support/alimony money. No wonder she could afford to put away a quarter of her salary for retirement.

He started his other job when I was about 7 and they got divorsed when I was 5. During those two years my dad was working at a junk yard and making about the same as my mom, maybe a little more/less. Then when he started his pratice it took him a while to finally get it going, I believe it was about when I was 11, that he had a good paycheck(100kish). So for about four years my mom wasn't getting much from my dad. Is it better then nothing yes, but does it really change much, no.

mattmatumbo
10/22/10, 06:13 PM
Only a few should though, to pay for all of those who shouldn't. I get it.

What a ridiculous notion. How will people live without the fruits of labor?

Everyone should work, like in Thomas More's Utopia.

Zeran
10/23/10, 12:02 AM
i wish that kind of shit would happen here.
me too. it only seems to really come about once in a generation or so, though...

How does one help the people in the country by cutting social programs and retirement benefits? The cuts themselves, including in Britain, lead to the loss of jobs.

paul krugman just wrote a very insightful blog piece about this very thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp

i'm not exactly sure how austerity measures will make economies recover, but maybe i'm missing something.

Shoes
10/23/10, 04:09 AM
I didn't say it was a good thing that it was increasing I was just comparing how high our retirement age is compared to the French. France is being made worse with all these strikes, I doubt you would want rubbish in your street or not be able to drive because there is a lack of fuel.
If you weren't comparing it then why did you mention it?
Honestly I completely back it; and if I had to bare a bit of rubbish for a week or two so the retirement age wasn't raised then I wouldn't mind one bit. They're not striking for fun and jokes, they're doing it for a reason. It's not about immediate gratification, if in the long run you benefit.

deFobbed14yrs
10/23/10, 07:27 AM
I grew with a single parent making 7.25 an hour, living in one of the most expensive states. My mom made it work by living on a very cheap budget raising two kids. She also put away a quater of her wage for her retirement, so if she can do anyone else can. What is wrong with taking the bus if you can't afford a car? Or renting an apartment?

I think i remember you saying in another thread that your dad makes over 600k a year. So your mom would have received plenty in child support/alimony money. No wonder she could afford to put away a quarter of her salary for retirement.

Interesting.

And were you or your sibling ever horribly sick? Did you have extended family to take care off? What kind of benefits did your mom get if any? Was she educated? Everyone has a different situation than you, and for many do not have any sort of proper education where they can fully understand how to handle money or if they do, simply can't.

The bolded is where you misunderstood me, I said mean it to be taken in my previous posts that these people already do and it's insane to think that they own cars or homes.

<*)))><
10/23/10, 12:50 PM
Interesting.

And were you or your sibling ever horribly sick? Did you have extended family to take care off? What kind of benefits did your mom get if any? Was she educated? Everyone has a different situation than you, and for many do not have any sort of proper education where they can fully understand how to handle money or if they do, simply can't.

The bolded is where you misunderstood me, I said mean it to be taken in my previous posts that these people already do and it's insane to think that they own cars or homes.
Not that I can remember. No extended family could take care of us. I'm not sure what type of benefits you would get working as a secritary. I believe she had an associates degree. If someone isn't smart enough to not spend more then they have they don't deserve anything. And if someone has a car or a house they can't pay for then sell it then take the bus and rent an appartment.

jawstheme
10/23/10, 01:08 PM
Not that I can remember. No extended family could take care of us. I'm not sure what type of benefits you would get working as a secritary. I believe she had an associates degree. If someone isn't smart enough to not spend more then they have they don't deserve anything. And if someone has a car or a house they can't pay for then sell it then take the bus and rent an appartment.

The problem is that the rent is too damn high. Duh.

But seriously you're being ridiculous by saying it's not hard that hard to save while making minimum wage and raising a family. I can't take you seriously.

<*)))><
10/23/10, 01:12 PM
The problem is that the rent is too damn high. Duh.

But seriously you're being rediculous by saying it's not hard that hard to save while making minimum wage and raising a family. I can't take you seriously.
I never said it wasn't hard, but people can live just fine on minimum wage. Or better yet they should have gotten an education so they don't have that problem.

jawstheme
10/23/10, 01:15 PM
I never said it wasn't hard, but people can live just fine on minimum wage. Or better yet they should have gotten an education so they don't have that problem.

Are you a troll?

Love As Arson
10/23/10, 02:49 PM
I never said it wasn't hard, but people can live just fine on minimum wage. Or better yet they should have gotten an education so they don't have that problem.
You do realize that education is intrinsically connected to class,right? Someone who lives in an upper-class area and has parents who make a good deal of money will likely get a better education. In such a situation, they have two steps ahead of other people, since they not only have inherited wealth, which is where most of the wealthy get their money from, and a good education. As for living just fine, most people that make minimum wage are a paycheck away from poverty and if they decide to take on two more jobs, then they have less time with their children and cannot provide them with the support they made need to succeed. Furthermore, your argument plays out like opportunity is infinite, along with wealth, and that simply isn't the case. If we kept this system and divided opportunity equally, such that every person has the ability to be upper-middle class, there could be no profit and the system would grind to a halt. There is a need for a population of minimum wage workers, so that profit can be attained. School funding, as well as prisons, are one of the many mechanisms that ensure that population exists.

<*)))><
10/23/10, 02:53 PM
You do realize that education is intrinsically connected to class,right? Someone who lives in an upper-class area and has parents who make a good deal of money will likely get a better education. In such a situation, they have two steps ahead of other people, since they not only have inherited wealth, which is where most of the wealthy get their money from, and a good education. As for living just fine, most people that make minimum wage are a paycheck away from poverty and if they decide to take on two more jobs, then they have less time with their children and cannot provide them with the support they made need to succeed. Furthermore, your argument plays out like opportunity is infinite, along with wealth, and that simply isn't the case. If we kept this system and divided opportunity equally, such that every person has the ability to be upper-middle class, there could be no profit and the system would grind to a halt. There is a need for a population of minimum wage workers, so that profit can be attained. School funding, as well as prisons, are one of the many mechanisms that ensure that population exists.
Ever hear of online classes?

Love As Arson
10/23/10, 05:28 PM
Ever hear of online classes?
People working minimum wage do not have the extra income to take them.

caveBEAR
10/23/10, 05:41 PM
People working minimum wage do not have the extra income to take them.

As well, many people can't keep up with the required work load for some online classes, especially if they're taking tougher classes and trying to balance life/jobs/kids around said classes.

<*)))><
10/23/10, 08:07 PM
People working minimum wage do not have the extra income to take them.
If they really want to get out of working at McDonald they can make it work by a little cutting back.

Machu505
10/23/10, 08:18 PM
Yeah, who needs food or heat.

Machu505
10/23/10, 08:22 PM
Relating to Love As Arson's comments on wealth and education, he's absolutely correct. My example is education in West Virginia: the high school with the best test scores is one in the affluent suburbs of Charleston. The high school that covers the urban areas of Charleston is towards the bottom. The worst test scores come from schools in the coal fields, McDowell County and Mingo County schools.

saysmydoctor
10/23/10, 08:24 PM
You cannot live off the minimum wage, I've tried.

caveBEAR
10/23/10, 08:39 PM
Ditto.

Jake Gyllenhaal
10/23/10, 09:38 PM
You cannot live off the minimum wage, I've tried.

Tell that to a Republican who wants to abolish the minimum wage.

GuitarR0cker1
10/23/10, 10:05 PM
At least in Britain they're raising the VAT along with the "reforms" as opposed to just only fucking the working class in the ass (and of course they delayed raising the reitrement age until 2020). As if the upper class will be even moderately hurt by raising the pension age. The old will have spend time browsing for jobs that they can't handle and many of them will be doing this at their deathbed. The blue collar workers will be the worst off and couldn't handle being employed again at such of an old age.

Overall this reform fucking sucks. The government could cut defense spending,raise income taxes for the upper brackets, and try to actually reform programs that might not be efficient as opposed to just raising the retirement age. But of course conservatives don't really believe in reform, they believe in destroying the social safety net.

Machu505
10/23/10, 10:25 PM
Could be worse. They could be Republicans.

saysmydoctor
10/24/10, 12:36 AM
Tell that to a Republican who wants to abolish the minimum wage.
I've tried. "Price floors are bad."

Zeran
10/24/10, 11:04 AM
why americans will never have a situation like that of france right now (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9118869.stm)