21–30 of 100 posts
There are some people trying to organize a general strike for October 15th. I just see mentions of it on social media, but I have yet to hear of any big unions getting involved.
wouldn't be the first time there's been chatter online about a general strike. it won't happen because we aren't there, not even remotely. there is no class consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state." Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing…
All land is owned subject to the laws that govern its potential uses. Land that is open to more uses is more valuable than land that is not. Land that can be subdivided is worth more than land that cannot. Allowing people to build more houses on "their own land" is a wonderful gift to land owners. It increases the value of their property. But that exacerbates the problem. A trend towards greater freedom to develop real estate means it is, yet again, only a more attractive investment vehicle.
Rather than "let them build", perhaps we should consider "thou shalt build" or "thou shalt rent". Laws that demand certain real estate owners do X or Y could not only increase the number of rental units but also diminish the attractiveness of unoccupied or unused real estate as an investment vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state." Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't see the big, "respectable" unions get involved because under the Taft-Hartley Act general strikes are pretty much illegal. https://web.archive.org/web/20120501041417/http://inthesetim... The thing is, they can't arrest everybody without turning the USA into more of a prison than it already is and setting the stage for John Carpenter's ESCAPE FROM AMERICA. October 15 is a good day for a strike, but in the US…
> https://octoberstrike.com/ Too bad they mixed political ideology in what would have been otherwise a unifying populist movement. Remember, most socialists are upper middle class and above. > Our Goals: 25% corporate tax rate (No loopholes) Free Healthcare for all 12 weeks paid paternity and maternity leave $20 minimum wage 4 day work week Stricter Environmental Regulations on Corporations (Bans on single use and mi…
A good chunk of that can be improved with full employment. Capitalism also leaves a significant amount of storehouses/factories/etc unused because they're not profitable to operate. We don't have a large enough labor-force to operate at full capacity right now (I think including unemployed), we'd need more immigration for that. Reducing busywork jobs like advertising that suck in more labor in a pointless arms race will free up people for productive labor. Another hope is that a society that has everyone cared for on a fairly even basis will have less crime and so reduce the need for guard labor.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCU
> Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits.
We can take control of the actual physical plants and prevent them from escaping. Money isn't real, physical reality is.
> Free Healthcare for all is a lie.
Many countries have this, even poorer countries than the US. In any case, even libertarian think tanks found M4A would reduce the cost of healthcare by removing complexity from the administrative side at minimum. Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
> High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
Not if the workers control the economy. They will not want their jobs to disappear unless they are promised placement and training. If those are provided, you may see even higher levels of automation as there will be reduced resistance to it. Not many people care if a business process changes so long as it won't leave them on the street.
The Bourgeois use the Proletariat as a tool to overtake power from the owners and royal blood. Labor unrest works the other way: the owners, comfortably tucked away in their mansions in places that are guarded and far away from prying eyes (think Zuckerberg, but multiplied further), are egging the proles on to riot and therefore to keep the opposition in check, while they, as always, are out of sight and out of mind.…
That also goes for every single Marxist revolutionaries including Marx and Engels. Very conformable upper class educated intellectuals obsessed by power dynamics and being seen as enlightened prophets of "the workers", which they know very little of and can barely relate to.
> Labor unrest works the other way: the owners, comfortably tucked away in their mansions in places that are guarded and far away from prying eyes (think Zuckerberg, but multiplied further), are egging the proles on to riot and therefore to keep the opposition in check, while they, as always, are out of sight and out of mind. You would be laughed out of any discussion suggesting that this was all orchestrated by a group of people who own the world. Such a thing, as we all know, is unheard of. The rioters are unaware of the owners, but they think that whoever they are aware of are the people to protest against, guilty of the circumstances that has befallen the proles. As always, it’s a clever play of misdirection and it works wonders.
That's a nice theory with maybe a few good insights. But since it is asserted without any evidence it can also be dismissed without evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state." Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing…
It's a common fallacy to look at a heavily regulated market and blame "the market" in general. What makes it worse is supposed "free market" advocates that instead selectively deregulate in their favor. But the market can be corrected by selectively deregulating in favor of the disadvantaged too. It just doesnt happen very often due to the nature of the of the people in power.
Only to the extent that existing regulation favors the advantaged more than the market naturally does, which tends to make that approach quite limited in potential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle…
The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
It comes down to that line about residential property has to be good for residents or good for investors, you can't have both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle…
The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
1. Step one: Prevent market from functioning through excessive regulation
2. Step two: Blame the market
Step 3: Downvote and run away
The Bourgeois use the Proletariat as a tool to overtake power from the owners and royal blood. Labor unrest works the other way: the owners, comfortably tucked away in their mansions in places that are guarded and far away from prying eyes (think Zuckerberg, but multiplied further), are egging the proles on to riot and therefore to keep the opposition in check, while they, as always, are out of sight and out of mind.…