Friday Food For Thought

[deicer]

Discuss.....

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/matt-damon-stage-blows-mind/

[Moon The Loon]

But the Rule of Law is why civilization has evolved to our present day circumstance, is it not?

Go back in time, before the recognition of gods. Tribal Feudalism was the order of the day from the start of the hunter-gatherer development of our ancient ancestors. This development was one of the most significant human developments that further separated us from our pre-human ancestors. Even then, there were "laws" even if they weren't written down. Things one just did not do. Taboos.

Then the asking of the question upon recognition of one's coming death - what happens to me after I die? Enter the After Life and the origins of gods. Millennia later, the origins of one God. The original gods were so successful for the control of masses of human families by promising Good in the After Life through obedience in This Life.

Civilization flourished. Populations grew. City states became sources of wealth. As did war between these city states. Almost to the present day, although in the last century finally found to be abhorrent, war was a form, if not THE form of commerce. As was slavery.

Here we are today. What is different from what used to be? I think it is Awareness - being aware that some laws are good, some not so good and those that are just downright wrong. We can all fill in the blanks base upon our own personal morality. The penalties associated with all those laws, good, bad, indifferent, ensure the mass compliance with those laws, good, bad or indifferent. The upside? Prevention of anarchy. The downside? Blind obedience.

I think it is fairly obvious why Awareness is the new age, and why the words of Howard Zinn, especially today, are popular - we are finally aware of what the world is saying and doing because of radio & TV, and now the internet, we are finally aware, in real time, the effects of conflict among nations and war itself, the horrors, the successes, the social impacts. We can see when our politicians, our leaders, our churches stray from what we as individuals believe is Right, trying to convince us into believing what they want us to believe as Right. We recognize Social Engineering as it is occurring. We can see our Leaders telling us lies in order to foster their own positions as leaders, and their pursuit of personal wealth at the expense of those they lead.

I think, from the video, that this is what Professor (?) Zinn rails about in his condemnation of Civil Obedience.

Still a very interesting concept, but in my opinion, one that should be practiced in moderation. Otherwise we become what we used to be - tribal, feuding families of humans. And the end of life as we know it!

Food for thought? No kidding...

[deicer]

Looks like pushback is starting to happen....

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/23/bold_boeing_workers_refuse_to_screw_over_next_generation_partner/

In a remarkable act of courage and solidarity with the next generation, last week Boeing workers in Seattle soundly rejected corporate extortion, by voting down a contract which traded job guarantees for concessions that would severely erode the pay and benefits of younger workers. In doing so, the members of the Machinists are risking their jobs to save an America built on the middle class.

The dramatic fight of fast food workers for a minimal living wage, risking their jobs every time they take a day off to demonstrate, is one end of a corporate economy based on low wages, no benefits and no unions. That corporate strategy, aimed at maximizing profits, is destroying America’s middle class, wrecking the engine that powered the U.S. economy.

On the other end of the middle class are workers like Boeing’s, who have fought together through their union for the good pay, pensions, health benefits and job security that characterized the increased prosperity and lowered income inequality of America in much of the second half of the 20th Century. But despite being a hugely profitable corporation, with dominance in the world aerospace market, Boeing is eager to follow the Wal-Mart/fast-food model of the 21st Century economy.

Boeing is the aerospace and defense industry’s largest company, with its highest profits. In 2012 just the increase in Boeing revenues alone, $13 billion, would be equivalent to the 15th largest company in the industry. With a $319 billion backlog of orders – about 3,700 planes – the company is set for years and is outpacing its only competition, Airbus. Last year, Boeing made $6.3 billion in profits and rewarded its CEO $27.5 million in compensation, a 20% hike from the previous year.

Historically, Boeing’s Seattle workforce has shared in that wealth. With a 100-year history in the Puget Sound region, Boeing is still the area’s largest employer, its 70,000 employees dwarfing the 40,000 who work for Microsoft. Boeing workers are anchors of Seattle communities, both economically and civically. And with good schools and colleges, transportation, and stable communities, the Seattle area has provided key public structures that have enabled Boeing to prosper.

But none of that matters – the high profits, the educated workers, the civic history – to a modern corporation that is driven only to maximize profits for its shareholders and pay for its top executives. Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago in 2001 and decided to build its new 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, with the first planes rolling out in 2012, assembled by 6,000 workers who earn $15 per hour, almost 50% less than what Washington assembly line workers earn.

Early this month, Boeing tried to blackmail both its union members and Washington state. Declaring that it would consider moving assembly of a new line of 777X planes out of state, the corporation asked for mammoth tax incentives and huge concessions on wages and benefits. The Governor and State Legislature caved immediately, passing the largest development tax break for a company in American history, $8.7 billion over 16 years, in a special weekend session. The leadership of Machinists Local 751 also wavered, agreeing to put the contract up for a membership vote, over the objections of most of the union’s management council.

But then a remarkable thing happened, in an age in which Americans, scared that they will lose what they have left, seem resigned to shrinking pay and disappearing benefits. A grassroots swell of membership opposition to the contract rose up, leading to 67% of the member rejecting the contract. The members did so with their eyes wide open, understanding that Boeing might not be bluffing and despite the fact that Boeing combined bribery with their extortion; the contract would have provided a $10,000 signing bonus to each worker. So why did they show such resolve?

In making their case, the members who organized against the contract focused on the fact that they would be giving up “hard fought contract negotiations and strikes by generations of Fighting Machinists that came before us. ” They warned, “Boeing is hoping you will deny the next generation many of the benefits we have today.”

While the proposed contract came with skimpy pay increases and benefit cut-backs for all workers, younger Boeing workers and new hires would have been hit the hardest. Instead of a steady progression to higher wage rates as workers stayed with the company and acquired new skills – which is what Boeing contracts have guaranteed for years – under the proposed contract, recent hires and new hires would be locked into low pay, with glacial increases. The contract would have frozen current pensions and replaced future pensions with a 401K, the defined-contribution accounts that have no guaranteed pay-out and are subject to market risk. Boeing would have been allowed to transfer money from the over-funded workers’ pension fund to the under-funded executive retirement fund.

Angered at the company’s “corporate threats and intimidation,” the members declared, “The one thing Boeing can’t take away is our solidarity.”

Unlike Boeing, which has no allegiance to anything but the bottom line, the workers care about their community. As the 751voteno.com website stated, “We must be prepared for a decision they [boeing] may make and understand that if they take the work elsewhere, they are responsible for that decision. We just could not destroy ourselves in order to keep the company from making a decision that destroys union and non-union workers alike, our communities and the investors.”

That statement reminds me of a memorable insight I received in the first lecture of a finance class at the University of Chicago School of Business, delivered by Robert Hamada, a future dean of the School. Hamada pointed out that in the class we would be learning how a firm calculates return on investment (ROI), but that there was no reason that the calculations needed to be applied to ROI for shareholders. The same methods could be used to maximize ROI for workers, the community or society at large.

As a society, we do not have to accept that the mammoth entities that control so much of our economy should operate just to benefit their shareholders. We can require that corporate decision making take into account its impact on its workers, our communities and the broader economy.

That is what unions have done historically and still do at companies like Boeing, which pay high union wages, and in countries that support high rates of unionization. To give workers a say in decision making, German corporations are required to have works councils, which have union members sharing in decisions – which the UAW is now trying to win in a Volkswagon plant in Tennessee – and union representatives have the right to sit on corporate boards of directors.

Two years ago there was a huge uproar from conservatives when the National Labor Relations Board accused Boeing of moving to South Carolina in 2009 because of anti-union bias, which is prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act. The Board was roundly attacked for second guessing a corporate decision on where to locate jobs. But the Board’s action was based on a Boeing memo, which admitted“the only consistent advantage attributed to Charleston was the ability to ‘leverage’ the site placement decision toward ‘rebalancing an unbalanced and uncompetitive labor relationship.’” The Board dropped the case after the union and company agreed to a new labor contract, the very one that Boeing now wants to replace with the concessions that the union’s members just rejected.

Part of the controversy around the Board’s decision was its novelty; cases are rare because it is difficult to prove that a company made relocation decisions based on anti-union bias. If we are going to reign in corporate destruction of wages and communities, we should instead imagine a labor law in which corporations are not able to expand into non-unionized facilities and make long-term investment decisions at the expense of jobs at already unionized facilities. These and other changes aimed at giving workers a powerful role in corporate governance are needed to balance the grip that corporate America now has on our economy and democracy.

We will find out in the next year whether Boeing is bluffing or serious. Production problems at the South Carolina plant give the union some hope that Boeing might return to the bargaining table, although only after looking to see what they can extort in concessions for anti-union states.

But regardless of where Boeing builds the 777X, the fight for an America in which hugely profitable corporations – whether it be Wal-Mart, McDonald’s or Boeing – share their wealth with their workers and their communities is just heating up. The bold vote by Boeing workers, like the wave of fast food strikes, are encouraging signs of a new movement of workers, supported by our communities, to build an America that again promises broadly based prosperity.

[Mizar]

De-Icer, this is a mindlessly naïve attempt by political extremists(they are at both ends of the spectrum), in this case left wing types who are upset that their discredited revolutions no longer have effect and are not followed anymore. They are upset that their occupy movement did not work and want to start it up again.

Lets just break the rule of law instead of following the law. Well which laws are to be broken one might ask? Of course the answer is the ones that(I'll use Damon's name as he is today's representative) Damon does not like. He talks of wealth redistribution, no doubt enacted by a law that all would be expected to follow. But then advocates not following the laws that he doesn't like.

Damon would appear to want to force new laws or ways upon us that he advocates instead of us voting for a party that imposes new laws on us(which is of course democracy). We have a party in Canada that is oriented toward a platform of redistribution of wealth. That is the NDP, and if the people of Canada decide that this is the platform they want, they can simply vote the NDP in with a majority. But the people have spoken over the years with alternating votes for Conservative and liberal governments. People like yourself who are frustrated that the majority reject your views are the ones calling for this disobedience.

Of course the frustrated people like you who can't wait to get their hands on the money of others now advocate doing it by illegal means.

Somehow you manage to conclude that the lawful rejection by Boeing workers through a democratic vote is the equivalent of this Damon style revolutionary political agenda. Well perhaps Boeing should just break the law and forcibly lower their wages in spite of a contract backed by the rule of law. People who take the time to consider aspects of what they advocate, will realize that this can be a two way street and if you want to break the laws you don't like, others may break the ones you do like with equal impunity. The result depending on the scale can approach anarchy.

I suggest that perhaps you go experience some countries where the rule of law is broken with impunity by all aspects of society. Nigeria would be a good place to start as it is all encompassing but there is no shortage of places for you to visit. This is not a rich vs. poor or left vs. right happening, it is just widespread among most of that society over there due to their culture. Perhaps you could analyze Greece and understand that the societal norm of most not paying taxes among other issues is the reason for their present condition. The law was not followed.

I suggest that your analysis is shallow and based on a desire for a quick result based on simplistic ideas. Damon certainly has the same. Shortly after alluding to the terrible wars that were fought by the west due to us just following these terrible laws(which brought up the obvious thought of WWII in my mind) he states how the Nazi Germany experience happened just because the Germans followed the law as created by one man, which therefore was the reason for the whole Nazi Germany experience. There is of course no mention in the shallow analysis that this government had widespread support in Germany at the time and Hitler was in effect doing what the majority wanted him to do. He created the laws they wanted. I suggest that at the height of German WWII success, Hitler could have held a free election and easily won.

I suggest that your strong union affiliations that have been seen in your posts(which is perfectly fine) and frustration at its general demise over the years has led you to decide that you feel that potential paralysis of society(but only in a way that benefits you) is the best way forward. We are fortunate as a society that you are a small but unfortunately vocal minority.

[deicer]

Before one pontificates about small but vocal minorities, one must remember that it is a small but vocal minority that voted in the present Canadian government.

Having said that, it is amusing to see that when the left wing types push back against the pendulum which has swung too far, all sorts of way to the right analogies are trotted out.

The Harper government has chosen to push their agenda by stealth...

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/10/23/harpers_new_omnibus_budget_bill_a_stealth_blow_to_civil_servants_editorial.html

And then they trotted out Tony Clement who basically said that they would explain what it was after it was passed.

http://blog.tedhsu.ca/2013/10/25/harper-government-to-mps-first-pass-the-law-then-well-tell-you-what-it-means/

So when a government shows so much disdain for it own citizens, it doesn't take much to realise that a pushback will be coming.

Only difference between us and what has been happening in southern Europe and the Middle East is that we still have too many big screen tv's and iphones.

Given their way though, the conservative elements would like to change that.....

[Specs]

Isn't the bigger picture here the state of our governance? It could be argued that we are, in a sense, being ruled the same way our ancestors were back in feudal times. Our standard of living is better of course but the commerial class, and the serfs still serve the ruling class and the aristocrats nonetheless. Our society doesn't function to achieve the greater good - it serves to eempower and enrich the elite.

[Mitch Cronin]

Specs... Exactly!!

[inchman]

It is interesting that some are advocating a more equal distribution of income here, in a website on which some are in the top 4% of income earners, many are in the top 10% of income earners and virtually all would be in the top 50% of income earners.

While it would be nice to have some of the Thompson's or Weston's money, if distributed in a more social manner, none would be coming to anyone here and all of us would be giving EVEN MORE of our money to some of those in society who decided that cutting class, ignoring homework and being anti-establishment was more important than hunkering down and being "obedient" by planning for the future.

[Mitch Cronin]

Inchman.... like chopping the meat out of your diet alone won't make you a successful vegetarian, redistributing wealth alone won't make for a successful society. ...Much else would have to change.

But I think you might be surprised at how much of the pie those top 1 percent have.

Here's something I came across the other day to help illustrate:

[Mitch Cronin]

Rich,

There's nothing wrong with paying a decent wage for such responsibility. I'd argue pilots (and AME's, of course ) should earn as much or more than the CEO.

I think for Canada you'd have to narrow the focus a little to maybe the top 0.1 percent before the inequality gets really silly....

[inchman]

There's no question the top 1% have an awful lot of money. The numbers we see are presented with are almost always from the US, where the poor are REALLY poor and the rich are REALLY rich. The US takes everything to its limits... gun ownership, capitalism, religion, freedom of speech, litigation...

I'm pretty sure that the numbers are distributed quite differently in Canada and Rich's posting shows that. $200,000 only puts people in the top 4% in the US, while it puts them easily in the top 1% in Canada.

I have always felt that there should be a minimum % tax on income, but one of the problems is that governments need private investment to further things like research, development, distribution of population, etc and create incentives for rich people to invest. In many cases, this investment is necessary to keep economies moving forward. In a country like the US, where the goal is "minimum government", encouraging private investment the only way to do it because they don't want the government "owning" anything. If there isn't any rich people, then there would be no investment. And once the government has money.... well we know what happens with that.

If we took all of the money that the top 1% in the US had, it would be distributed to the masses at about $15,000 per household. The only effect that that would have in a commodity driven society would be inflation. House prices, in particular, would rise, because most people buy the biggest house whose mortgage their income will support.

Eventually, this would just put money in the hands of the rich guys who own the nationwide house builders in the US and the supply companies.

The bottom line.... don't be a worker... be an investor or a business owner with people working for you. But to do that, you have to have certain skills, take personal and financial risks and put up with big headaches. There has to be a payoff. If some feel need to draw a line at what's reasonable, then that's up to them, but I don't think doing so would really improve the quality of life of anyone.

[Specs]

Inch

My big moment was the G-20 conference in Toronto. The police were essentially tools of the state. There were secret laws put in place and just recently it was pointed out that police had instructions to arrest anybody wearing a bandana. People were beaten and thrown in jail simply for being there. It was as totalitarian an event as I ever care to see and makes it clear to me why we pay police so well.

We talk about free enterprise and economic principles but here in Canada we still pay ridiculous cell phone bills and up to twice as much as Americans do for products made in Canada. The Ontario courts this past week just ruled that drug stores have to stop selling generic brand drugs because they were actually leading to increased prices. In my mind what is really happening is that large commercial entities are actually running our country. It's not much different in the USA. You need several billion to become president now; many millions if you want to run for congress. That money comes with strings and lobbyists make fortunes selling their influence. The justice system even seems to work differently for different folks. Heck - most people can't even afford it.

This is not democracy and this is not for the greater good. We still live in a world where the powerful and influential start wars for commercial benefit. They stay safe and secure back at HQ and send the wretches to the trenches.

[DEFCON]

"Otherwise we become what we used to be - tribal, feuding families of humans"

Used to be?

[Moon The Loon]

Yeah, well...

In a perfect world.

To this day, Man's only natural predator, is his fellow Man. Not getting into the PC stuff. We are still Mankind as a species!

[inchman]

This is not democracy and this is not for the greater good. We still live in a world where the powerful and influential start wars for commercial benefit. They stay safe and secure back at HQ and send the wretches to the trenches.

... and how is that different from any period in recorded history?

I always felt that day 2 of the G20 was a kneejerk reaction to a complete lack of control on day 1, where there was clearly an order for the police NOT to control the crowd at all.... maybe to show the world how liberal we were here in Canada. There were people running around in black outfits with balaclavas busting windows and burning police cars and the police just stood and watched them.

Then it appears (to me, at least) that somebody came to the conclusion that that didn't work very well and passed control to those who leant well the other way.

Another case where the right decision would have been to apply appropriate force initially, thus avoiding a situation where too much force had to be used.

[Mizar]

Before one pontificates about small but vocal minorities, one must remember that it is a small but vocal minority that voted in the present Canadian government.

Same old tired and ridiculous argument. When the Liberals were in power with a minority of the popular vote, the same people said nothing about it back then. But when it is a different party in power the screaming starts about only a minority of votes achieved.

Some basic math for those who have a problem with a majority government with a minority of votes. If you have three or more large parties, there will likely be a governing party with out a majority of votes. Perhaps, De-Icer if you want an end to this you should start advocating that only two parties be allowed. Obviously the two most popular parties will have to stay, so time to get rid of the NDP.

[Mizar]

Rich,

I'd argue pilots (and AME's, of course ) should earn as much or more than the CEO.

I think for Canada you'd have to narrow the focus a little to maybe the top 0.1 percent before the inequality gets really silly....

Always entertaining how people find a way of excluding themselves from the money redistribution schemes. If we are going for real redistribution, I think it is time to move the upper 50% toward the lower 50%.

Oops, all of a sudden a bunch of people have changed their minds.

Reminds me of a good quote I heard, "self-interest knows no bounds"

[inchman]

Had a look at the Forbes top 100 in the US. Don't look at it until you read the rest of this.

Also recalled the video that Mitch posted on people's impressions of richness and stuff.

So, we're all sitting here thinking that all of the really rich people are just blood sucking financial leaches who just turn our money into theirs without anything in return.

It's easy to lump people into percentages. The top 100 (0.00003% (edit... too many zeros) of the US population) in the US have net holdings of roughly 1.3 trillion dollars. At simple 3% interest, this works out to $39 Billion per year... divided evenly among them, it's $390 million per year. I don't know what percentage of the top 1% these guy's total income makes up, but I'm willing to bet its a pretty good chunk.

But if you look at their sources of income, the vast majority have created companies that we couldn't even imagine being without... Microsoft, Google, Amazon, WalMart, Oracle, Intel, Kohler, pipelines, Ebay. And, for the most part, the people in these companies don't "gouge" us. A lot make their money pennies at a time. So, they only make money because of our willingness to use their services. And most took big risks to build the companies they have.

And many of them spend a lot of their time trying to give money away.

To quote one of them: "The world is better than it has ever been. But it is still not as good as we wish."

When we look at the comparison between the elite and the lowly slobs at the bottom, the elite are still unimaginably rich, and there are some very destitute people but, for the most part, those at the bottom are better off than they were even 50 years ago and the number at the bottom is no where near where it has been even in many of our lives. They don't show you that in their graphs.

It ain't perfect but it's getting better.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

[boestar]

Inchman.

I think you are still in the shallow end. Move to the deep end where you will find that the majority of their wealth comes from other INVESTMENTS. While the companies they created started the "Pennies" flowing, the old addage plays here "It takes money to make money"

[boestar]

Hard work goes without saying Rich. What I mean is even with hard work and dedication one has to have the means to fund whatever it is or the means to find someone to fund it. Think Dragons Den or Shark Tank. you can invest all the time you want but in order to make money on a large scale you need money first. I have been working hard my whole life, still not making 1% type of cash.

[DEFCON]

How does the Party system serve the interests / needs of the Canadian populace?

In spite of the fact that votes are cast in favour of a local Federal / Provincial candidate, most voters know little, if anything, about that candidate. We've been conditioned to view elections as an expression of support for a particular Party and its leader rather than as an opportunity to send someone forward into government that will represent the considerations of the home grown electorate. When we exercise our vote, most are casting said vote in support of a given Party leader and the Party's grand position, which more often than not, has little, if anything to do with the advancement of local objectives.

[Mizar]

Hard work goes without saying Rich. What I mean is even with hard work and dedication one has to have the means to fund whatever it is or the means to find someone to fund it. Think Dragons Den or Shark Tank. you can invest all the time you want but in order to make money on a large scale you need money first. I have been working hard my whole life, still not making 1% type of cash.

It is not just hard work(and the hard work usually means 70-80 hour weeks with no duty limits, not a full time pilot job as a career at a nice airline), it is also being a lot smarter than most of the rest of us. That is how Gates made it. Writing the computer stuff, managing a company, marketing the product. The same gets said for most of these entrepreneurs. Plus most of them risked most of their financial assets to start the company. Not quite the same as "I have been working hard all my life". No doubt which includes some nice layovers and a bunch of guaranteed days off. At least that is what I have had in portions of my hard airline career.

If you want to get into the 0.1% of earnings, take a risk yourself and start a business. Nothing is stopping you. Risk most of your money and your house, try the 80 hour weeks. Outsmart everyone else. There are endless ways to make a billion from Beanie Babies to Chobani Yogurt to Hello Kitty to Facebook to Dollarama, and the list goes on for the 0.1%. Join the crowd if you can. When you give the inevitable answer of no, you will know why you are in your own percentile which is likely still pretty good.

[Kip Powick]

If all of you consider the ultimate goal in life as to make mountains of money, I would suggest you step back and press the "reset" button.

Why are any of you working?? Is it only for the money??

Take it from a DOT....there is oh, so much more to life than the almighty $$

Yes, I'm out of the game and while in it, I loved just about every minute and the $$ was nice but it certainly wasn't the reason I was a player.

I loved the job, I mean I really loved the opportunity to be a "birdman"....and I have always wanted to be busy and even now my day starts at 6:00am and ends at about 12:30am.

Love life, hug your kids, your spouse/ partner, laugh a lot, everyday................. because when you get punted through the goal posts of a working life, you will actually see that light at the end of the tunnel getting brighter everyday so do what you have always wanted to do for the rest of your short time on this planet......and................

I don't say this because I have one of those 1980-1990 35 year airline pensions...I only spent 15 years in that costume but I did plan for the "exit" and I have not been happier.. of course it helps if you have a great partner and as year 49 looms around the corner. I think it is safe to say I have

[Specs]

I think it is fairly obvious why Awareness is the new age, and why the words of Howard Zinn, especially today, are popular - we are finally aware of what the world is saying and doing because of radio & TV, and now the internet, we are finally aware, in real time, the effects of conflict among nations and war itself, the horrors, the successes, the social impacts. We can see when our politicians, our leaders, our churches stray from what we as individuals believe is Right, trying to convince us into believing what they want us to believe as Right. We recognize Social Engineering as it is occurring. We can see our Leaders telling us lies in order to foster their own positions as leaders, and their pursuit of personal wealth at the expense of those they lead.

I think, from the video, that this is what Professor (?) Zinn rails about in his condemnation of Civil Obedience.

Still a very interesting concept, but in my opinion, one that should be practiced in moderation. Otherwise we become what we used to be - tribal, feuding families of humans. And the end of life as we know it!

Food for thought? No kidding...

Do we become what we used to be? It seems pretty evident we're just repeating the same cycle all the civilizations from the past have. They all eventually collapsed. We know this and we have some pretty reasonable ideas as to why? Shouldn't we now, with all that we know or think we know, look to build something better?

First thing we need is a replicator. Either that or some kind of universal acceptance of what Kip was connecting with. Money and power shouldn't be the driving force of a society.

(I'd still love a replicator though.)

[boestar]

Bill Gates BOUGHT CPM for $15,000. That became DOS eventually he did NOT develop it. It takes MONEY. Smarts does help