Assuming this is true, why would the new owners of the paper mill not use the mill to produce paper? It would be unprofitable to just let it sit there empty. They'd need to hire workers to run it again, and likely the same batch of workers who were already skilled in operating it.

>> lol. Sure they did, you bet. They hired some of the workers back, but at lower pay rates, lost seniority, fewer benefits, and many of the older employees lost a great deal of their retirement savings tied up in the former company. Ah, but pensions too get raided, that's right! Oh you're right Jay, it was unprofitable to let it sit empty in that instance, but another mill further north was closed, since the big megacorp. simply wanted to get rid of a competitor and consolidate their operations into a few huge global plants, throwing another mill town into a tail-spin. Pure capitalism, it's quite the beast. :nod:

 

 

 

Because in a market economy, participants are incentivized to put capital toward its most-profitable use. In this case, the paper mill (or steel mill) is the capital, the "means of production".

>> In a market economy where the players have to abide by rules of fair play, and cannot rig the system as they have done, that is.. we must rise above oversimplifications.

 

A few reasons for a factory shutting down could include:

 

1. Workers (or their representatives in unions/government) demanding greater compensation than the market can sustain, which in turn makes the factory an unprofitable venture. This results in factories being moved to different jurisdictions.

>> :laugh3: Wages for working class citizens have been sliding sideways, while productivity, hours worked, and profits have been soaring. And if weren't for unions (aside from companies that have a family atmosphere at management, and/or are worker-owned), the employees wouldn't be getting their fair share in terms of wages and benefits. Of course, when one has to compete globally with places that house workers in cement cubicles off to one side of the factory floor, it's little wonder competitiveness is harder when workers get their fair share in developed nation's mills. What aught to happen is to set forth trade rules that adjust for this, and penalize producers of goods if they don't abide by certain basic labor standards with better pay for their employees, as well as adjust the dollar's value to create a more level playing field for all producers. And the moving of factories to different locations is pure capitalism - it works fabulously well for the wealthy investors, but suppresses wages for everyone else.

2. The factory being only marginally profitable, and the owners of the land discover some new use for the land that's more-profitable (for instance, building an apartment complex or mining/logging).

> Or, more often the case, the old plant sits idle for years, becomes a matter of blight, and the building winds up unusable because the roof starts to leak, pipes burst, and through neglect it is abandoned and then becomes a community burden. I know this happens, I can visibly see the results in a number of communities - whether in Detroit or smaller burgs, that's the reality. And with the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, we see the hollowing out of our economy. Sometimes it is true, a building is re-opened by a different company, sometime it's demolished in a timely manner, but that appears to be more the exception than the rule.

 

3. Market demand has softened in that particular sector of the economy, so the factory becomes unprofitable. Similar to how demand for horses and buggies fell after the invention of cars and trains.

> Market demand hasn't softened for paper, sadly for the Canadian forests and the forests of Borneo and elsewhere, but the corporate world now has perfected it's ability to maximize profits, control governments, and exploit workers. In some case, yes, demand naturally can taper off, but in the case of buggies, a lot of those same manufacturers and ancillary producers of parts switched over to automobile production, and often in the same vicinity. With an unemployment rate hovering around 13 million in the US, one has to think a bit harder about the mantra of laissez faire capitalism.

 

If there are stock traders who buy the shares of the company on the assumption that it will be profitable in the future, and it's currently unprofitable, then they will suffer the loss when it goes bankrupt. But this rarely happens because it's very suspicious to investors when insiders and owners are restructuring a company and selling shares en mass.

 

>> If everyone were so aware of the investments they were making, then you tell me how those big banks on Wall Street managed to take the risky loans they enticed citizens into, bundled them into mortgage-backed securities, and then managed to package & rate them as AAA rated investments, to be sold on the international markets. Yes, the investors may be suspicious, but without clear, honest, and well-funded government oversight, all sorts of con games are run, and the results have been very harmful to the global economy, directly impacting all of our lives.

I would much rather see the promotion of worker-owned companies, or companies held by a very diverse ownership so amassing of control and power isn't an issue, or companies owned by their founders who actually care about all who work at their businesses. And for the rest, then the oversight by agencies working on our behalf is essential, as are unions, to check and balance the excesses of the power held in the hands of a wealthy minority. Better government needs to be there as the arbiter of fair play, which is why I am so adamant about adding amendments to include protections against the abuses of power we are having to deal with and to restore our democratic governance, so we can have an honest insightful set of rules and referee.

Is a lack of education really a problem in America? More Americans than ever (as a %) have PhD and BA degrees. Not everybody can be employed as a paper-pusher.

 

Construction workers are in high demand? We just had a housing bubble. There's an oversupply of homes on the market now, and as a result prices have plummeted.

 

Wasn't it the government's job to ensure we had good roads and bridges? It seems they've failed at that, even after printing and taxing away trillions of dollars... I guess they blew it all on corporate bailouts and unnecessary wars.

-Yes it is. Especially among minorities. They are not provided with the same opportunities.

 

-I wasn't aware that construction workers only built houses, lol.

 

-Obama tried to accomplish it but Congress wouldn't pass the bill, as I have already said.

-Obama tried to accomplish it but Congress wouldn't pass the bill, as I have already said.

 

This is the story for quite a lot of things unfortunately. I think it's sensible to say congress a huge part of the problem. Congress has stopped Obama doing quite a lot of things - most namely they stopped Obama from shutting down Guantanamo Bay Prison.

This is the story for quite a lot of things unfortunately. I think it's sensible to say congress a huge part of the problem. Congress has stopped Obama doing quite a lot of things - most namely they stopped Obama from shutting down Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Yeah exactly!

 

 

Alright, I think I've gone off topic quite enough....back to OWS y'all.

A solid argument can (and has) been made that Obama didn't really try very hard to close Guantanamo:

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/guantanamo_17/

 

If you're going to be a charismatic leader, you're capable of following through on your promises like this. Or at least putting more effort into them.

 

And Keddie, your post didn't really have any substantiating content.

 

Education doesn't create jobs.

 

Construction workers don't only build houses, but that's MOSTLY what they build. Even the market for commercial real estate has tanked.

What aught to happen is to set forth trade rules that adjust for this, and penalize producers of goods if they don't abide by certain basic labor standards with better pay for their employees, as well as adjust the dollar's value to create a more level playing field for all producers. And the moving of factories to different locations is pure capitalism - it works fabulously well for the wealthy investors, but suppresses wages for everyone else.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40]Edgar the Exploiter - YouTube[/ame]

Education doesn't create jobs.

I'm just gonna leave this here for everyone else to laugh at.

I guess it would be a good time to bury bad news in Italy with the boat sinking they can push though thier austirity measures

I guess it would be a good time to bury bad news in Italy with the boat sinking they can push though thier austirity measures

Are you suggesting that the media in Italy, controlled as it is by Berlusconi's machine or whoever runs it now, has shifted it's focus away from tragic news and is focusing on the austerity measures instead? I'm a bit confused.. :confused:

The movement for basic human rights and economic fairness today is with Occupy, in the 60's it was with the civil right's movement and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; we are paralleling history, as we pay homage to this great man: #J15 Worldwide Candlelight Vigil for Unity MLK, Jr.'s Birthday 7pm

:laugh3: I love M. Wuerker's cartoons, right on! ;)

 

But there is a need to get the issues in the forefront of the news, some rallying point for people to come together and get a sense of community and to network, so I really do believe the occupy movement does something, it makes citizens feel empowered again, and it unifies citizens in a cultural movement that has at its core getting to the root issues of the day.

Beyond voting is the need for reform, the need to press those reform and justice issues front and center, so they must be taken up by elected officials, so those elected, like President Obama, can actually push for what a mass of citizens wants. That takes a coming together, an organized campaign for change.

I think one step further is to organize and demand amendments, so anyone getting elected then either has to get on board or loose the election, to choose doing what is right for the people over doing what those with the biggest bucks say. Maybe even a Constitutional convention, if need be - these problems are at the root, and getting to the root might mean calling for a convention in each state.

The root of representative government starts with defining elected official's roles and ensuring a process that leads to accurate representation of our interests as citizens.

Rep're.sent'a.tive -n. 1. Anyone who represents our interests as citizens; a servant of we, the people. All elected officials are representatives; they are to be representative of our will.

 

1.) Declare and define our right to fair candidate contests for office & fair elections as essential for honest government, and thus by extension protection of all rights that we hold dear. The essential safeguards of liberty include a well-informed electorate and a democratic system whereby those elected are beholden to the citizens.

Are you suggesting that the media in Italy, controlled as it is by Berlusconi's machine or whoever runs it now, has shifted it's focus away from tragic news and is focusing on the austerity measures instead? I'm a bit confused.. :confused:

 

I mean it will be a chance to put things though without anyone taking note...

I mean it will be a chance to put things though without anyone taking note...

> I understand now what you're getting at Bart. Here the trick most often pulled is to sign the legislation over a holiday when everyone's busy and distracted, or to do it at 3AM Friday night / Saturday morning, hoping to be out of the watchful eyes of the public. I wish these sorts of behaviors were checked, they are indicative of corrupt practices, if hiding their actions from public view is what's afoot.

But using a tragedy as cover for their actions, that's really low.

> I understand now what you're getting at Bart. Here the trick most often pulled is to sign the legislation over a holiday when everyone's busy and distracted, or to do it at 3AM Friday night / Saturday morning, hoping to be out of the watchful eyes of the public. I wish these sorts of behaviors were checked, they are indicative of corrupt practices, if hiding their actions from public view is what's afoot.

But using a tragedy as cover for their actions, that's really low.

 

 

just would not shock me they keep being told there is some very tuff choices to make....

In reference to the actual Occupy movement, this cartoon is absolutely correct. It disappoints me that they couldn't at least agree on one specific thing to work towards, which really confirmed right from the beginning that the movement would never cause any real change to come to fruition.

 

However, this cartoon also seems to be implying that protests and marches have never been successful in evoking political change, and that I disagree with. I mean hoenstly, you can just look at the Civil Rights Movement as an example of that.

 

Basically I think it's necessary to be skeptical and even critical of these forms of protests, but not overly negative or cynical, as there have been successful ones before.

And 3 days of peace and music changed the world!

WOODSTOCK!!

:woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock::woodstock:

So keep on keeping on, this is the new dawning of the age of Aquarius!!

(Mayan Calendar Says So)

Edgar the Exploiter - YouTube[/url]

 

Ah, this myth again. Post a video with cartoons that talk simpleton economics that people are taught when they are five years old and present it as fact. Great stuff.

 

A myriad of studies have strongly suggested that there is no correlation between a minimum wage and unemployment rates whatsoever. Likewise, there is no correlation between business failure and minimum wage legislation.

 

Check out the studies done by the University of Massachusetts and University of California.

 

Here is one of the many papers that have been written that have pooled data from the last two decades and has seen no indication of higher minimum wages resulting in unemployment. In fact, the opposite is true. States with lower or static minimum wages have higher rates of unemployment than states with higher and growing minimum wages.

 

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

 

Things aren't as one sided as you love to make them out to be.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2B-wpEj-9k]Unintended Consequences of Price Controls - YouTube[/ame]

 

Here is empirical evidence showing minimum wage hurts employment.

Unintended Consequences of Price Controls - YouTube[/url]

 

Here is empirical evidence showing minimum wage hurts employment.

 

And this is why it's such a waste to talk to you. You call your own evidence "empirical" and completely ignore the other side of the fence. The link I gave you specifically mentions many of the arguments raised in that video and debunks them.

 

Nothing to do here.

Your link is focused on the counties near state borders, not the entire states. It's cherry-picking data. My video shows scatter plots of many studies taken over many years.

Instead of looking at it from the perspective of markets, let's look at minimum wage from the perspective of social justice. It would make sense to raise the minimum wage, since workers are typically at a disadvantage when it comes to getting higher wages, since one group of workers is pitted against another, it is more often the case that there is downward pressure on worker's wages, while profits and productivity soar. Is that a just arrangement? Trade agreements could be set to support higher wages in all nations, to raise the bar evenly. And if workers get paid a little more, they can then afford to buy the goods they help make, and then stimulate the slow economy, improving profits as well as improving their lives.

I went to Zuccotti Park again today (where occupy wall street started). They took down the barriers, and I didn't see anyone with signs. I know it's winter, but it was a bit depressing as to how dead it was there.

'Smoke bomb' thrown at White House during Occupy rally

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16606470

 

Brilliant. :rolleyes: