seabeckind
seabeckind's JournalIgnore? What a poor choice of words.
The gop isn't ignoring it.
Far from it. They know exactly what it means. People like the Kochs get all their wealth from fossil fuels. Many of our states get a big chunk of their income (the part that falls off the tracks) from fossil fuels. The cold states depend it to survive. The fracking industry needs water and they don't care if the people who live there can't anymore (all to the good cause then they won't have pesky complaints about taste and flammability).
They're not ignoring it...lord no. They have it foremost on their agenda.
It's just a different agenda.
Reverse Hanlon's Razor
Our entire economic structure is based on the status quo. That we will continue burning fossil fuels, that we will continue driving all alone on expensive highways designed for capacities that occur 10% of the time, that everything is dependent upon consumerism, etc.
All thru the US history tech breakthrus have built new companies and destroyed old ones. Those breakthrus came because of R&D in all areas, academic, public laboratories and private ones.
The corporations are protecting their domain and they bought them a nation to do it, the most powerful nation on earth. Congress isn't doing what do because of stupidity.
And the legislative branch isn't the only branch doing it.
Right now one of the biggest threats facing us is climate change. And an effective response to that threat will destroy economic empires.
Read the report for the executive branch response to this global warming crisis? Written more like it's protecting our corporations and status quo than our people's survival.
(added on edit)
From cha in another thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=798012):
Jay Carney (EOP) ✔ @PressSec
Follow
Here's how President Obama's plan to #ActOnClimate helps states, cities, and towns prepare for climate change ? http://go.wh.gov/iJhqKu
5:18 AM - 6 May 2014
68 Retweets 22 favorites
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Thanks very much.
I wasn't overly impressed with the "plan", tho. It looks too much like the shovel-ready stuff, basically instead of directing where we as a nation need to go and then usingthe power of gov't spending and contracts to force it, it turns much of the implementation to the local gov'ts. Since more than half the states are in denial because they are under control of the conservatives, I don't see a lot of progress.
For example, the legislature here in Indiana rescinded the credit and assistance programs the electric utility was doin to increase efficiency. Turning to this state to improve energy efficiency in homes doesn't fly well.
The next problem I have with it is that it is doing the same thing and trying to make it more efficient. Raising fuel standards is a great idea...what about my 17 year old vehicles? Secondly, what good does it do to increase efficiency pervehicle if the number of vehicles on the roads increases at the same time? Net effect zero.
What steps are being taken to reduce the number of vehicles? Or a more efficient use of the systems we already have. Eg, reducing the transportation of goods across the country by implementing local productions. This not only reduces our footprint, it also provides regional jobs.
How about some mandates for sustainability and reuse? Do what some european countries do. You must have a use for a byproduct or pay a penalty. If a factory, like a steel mill (assumign there are any left in this country) or a fossil fuel generator has heat as a byproduct of its operation, use that heat for other purposes.
But it really was a nice looking report. Just didn't go very far. It seemed like the author was more worried about stepping on toes than stepping forward.
Addendum
A pet peeve of mine is that I cannot comment on stories in the local paper, a USA Today echo chamber. And that is true of quite a few liberal commentors. As soon as we voice a comment that is unacceptable to the fox crowd, that commentor is removed using FB means.
Why isn't there a democratic voice, maybe more than one, in that paper? I'm sure there would be volunteers. I sure would.
But I'm not going to pay for a subscription. I got a disposal as an alternative to wrapping garbage long ago.
And I don't like using my personal FB presence for that.
So here I sit, broken-hearted...mad as hell.
Oh bullsh!t.
Where do these people get credibility.
They break down the poll by district and then say that indicates that democrats are in trouble in that district.
No sh!t. My district was gerrymandered long ago and hasn't elected a democrat since then. To extrapolate this into a national "trend" is where the bullsh!t comes in. This poll result looks a lot like the distribution in the HOR.
Duh.
Overlay this result with the map of critters in safe districts and what do we see?
How about they ignore all the results from any safe districts and treat the others like what they really are...swing.
Secondly, don't you ever say that if we gotv in my district we'll swing the thing... the only way this district will switch is if we do voter id and get rid of any gop voters. No wait...the Indiana legislature already did that the other way.
The "primary" in most local and national districts in this state are very conservatives against batsh!t crazy conservatives.
Now if you want to start changing these trends, getting people out to vote the way they would usually vote doesn't do a f'in thing. NOTHING!
We need some education in this state and I'm NOT talking about door-to-door. All that does is upset the neighbors. There's a reason for no soliciting signs and a lot of people consider religion and politics to be soliciting.
How about the democrats do an information campaign. Just what the f' do we stand for? Make the gop argue against women's rights. Make that fat-assed bigot face an informed wife...not a barefoot pregnant one.
You know, maybe a democratic platform? One we put out before the popularity contest? Maybe one we can use to judge OUR candidates?
Stop it.
</rant>
Reaganomics wasn't the problem, it was a symptom
The biggest problem was that he brought the moneychangers into the temple and promoted them to godlike status.
Government and business operate with totally different goals. Business emphasizes profits for the few while government functions for service for the many. In the former case it is easy to determine success or failure. In the latter it is much more abstract, more esoteric.
He arose in stature by pointing out those places where government failed small segments under different circumstances and appealed to them. Since it is impossible to satisfy all people in all ways...well, the rest is history.
Since his presidency we have seen no leader who hs reversed this attitude. Our current president gives the moneychangers as much access as Reagan did. In fact he held Reagan up as someone to be admired for a generated sea change.
When we look at the current failures in our gov't, bank regulations, sprawl, tax shelters, wealth inequities, they can all be traced back to the shift from gov't to service the many to emphasis on economics as a measurement of success.
It is a culture
I would bet that just down the hall from Dr Reich's office there is an MBA class going on which emphasizes success in terms of profits and that decisions should be made that maximize current profits. The results of that class are the decisions that are made within the company on a day to day basis.
The CEO has little to say about it. If he tries to buck the trend, the stockholders and board will send him packing. Because their income is dependent on the current profits. Doesn't mean anything to them if there'll be a long term decline in the company -- they will have pulled their investments long before the collapse. As far as the day-to-day decisions, there is little chance that he would have any say (or even knowlege) when a mid-level manager decides on a supplier from an outsourcer. Hel, that manager might not even know.
It's the common folk who will lose a livelihood and stare at an empty husk of the place that nurtured their town. It is the common folk who will suffer thru stagnant wages and staff cuts.
And all of our rules for operation insist that this is the preferred method. In order to change the result we need to change the culture. An example is what happened when Obama sought to correct the jobs situation and turn the economy around. Why would he look to Immelt? He was very successful at increasing profits, not increasing employment. Why did Obama look to Geithner to fix the economic culture? He was knee deep in that culture. Even after seeing the collapse of an economy that Bernanke was so much a part of, he kept him on, and then appointed a replacement that was also a part of that culture. And I don't even want to think about a corporate attorney as AG.
It is next to impossible to change behavior if there is no belief that the behavior is wrong. And little chance of recognising bad behavior if there is no one to slap fingers.
We desperately need a change in the corporate charter...one that recognises the value of those who labor and gives them an implicit ownership in the company. We need to change the charter of the corporation that directs that it should maximize return, except when that maximization is in direct opposition to the longterm health of the company or detrimental to the implicit ownership or in opposition to the national interests. Note, national interest, not state or regional interest.
No more beggar thy neighbor. No more competition between states.
Lastly, the corporations must recognise that they must invest in our country, not their profits.
And our educational system must quit looking to the "experts" in current culture to teach a new culture.
Table 2 is absolutely disgusting and says much more
If you look thru that list of "companies" there are quite a few that began life as public utilities. In their case the term "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT" very much applies. Some guy with the money took value and gave us bigger bills (like the "harvesters" like Romney).
We the people built that infrastructure. By putting our money and support into it, we put our blood and tears into it. We are the ones who supported the eminent domain to buy the right-of-ways -- it was our land that was "donated".
And then some politician, a temp worker, came in and decided it had some value, so he sold it. Even tho HE didn't own it. Sometimes he asked us tho many times our objections were ignored.
Like that bridge that the big controversy is about...how much of port authority is us and how much goes to line the 1% pockets? Or parking meters in Chicago.
When someone says take back our country, how about we start with this? If eminent domain worked to take away the right-of-ways, it sure should be able to work to take back our infrastructure.
Then maybe I can tell Comcast and Verizon to shove their cables and towers.
</rant>
There are multiple factors at play in the jobs situation
I think what's happening is that you are not looking at the totality of the problem, that you are looking for the silver lining and ignoring the rest of the cloud.
My reference to unpaid internships is an example of the tactics employed by the unscrupulous to reduce their labor cost. It was not meant to be a factor in this article. Eg:
"But in practice, there is little to stop employers from exploiting interns. The Labor Department rarely cracks down on offenders, saying that it has limited resources and that unpaid interns are loath to file complaints for fear of jeopardizing any future job search."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/business/unpaid-internships-dont-always-deliver.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The point m by cabrona is more related to the assertion by businesses in their justification for H1B visas. There are many of us who feel that justification is a total crock because anecdotally anyone having any connection to the IT industry know there are many, many out-of-work technical people. Many of us know students who graduate from top schools but can't find a job. It's a buyer's market when it comes to labor. Eg:
"The tech industry, through lobbying organizations such as Compete America, argues that there is a skills shortage in the U.S., which justifies the need for H-1B visas. The claim of a skills shortage is in dispute, however.
Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist, argued in a column Monday that the idea of a skills gap is something "that should have been killed by the evidence, but refuses to die."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247241/Offshore_firms_took_50_of_H_1B_visas_in_2013
And now back to this particular case. It is a feel-good attempt to make us think something i being done to solve the job problem in this country. It will do nothing other shove money at trade school training with no guarantee of a real job afterwards. Any "manufacturer" in the area (of which there might be few) who hires these workers will get a freeby. Instead of a couple weeks or months in ojt, they're productive right away.
The entire salon article is full of maybes and couldbes. Saying an intern might make $50k a year is great but hen saying the USA doesn't use them much is kind of a buzzkill, isn't it?
Long ago I thought making the head of a corporation which was a leader in outsourcing our jobs czar (Immelt) was a very bad idea. Haven't seen any reason to change my mind yet.
So whatcha think of the Heinz business?
That one "taxpayer" word really got you worked up, I see.
I know exactly who funded FDR's New Deal...a whole new set of taxpayers who hadn't been paying taxes. The 1%.
There was also a law enacted, short lived unfortunately, which only allowed corporate deductions for reinvestment in the US.
That's where the money came from...not those without jobs.
The idea of the New Deal that you seem to miss is that the entire thing was an investment in the infrastructure of the USA. Electrification, dams, roads, even buildings (Timberline Lodge is impressive). The gov't commissions decided where best to spend money to make jobs. It may have asked for advice from corporations, but didn't hand over millions to let them improve their bottom line.
This giveaway is just trickledown by another name.
Now let's look at what this "investment" is. It is an investment in the status quo. An example might be to teach workers how to build and maintain ICE. Great for today but what about the future? Instead of teaching what is, our education should be to sow the seeds for innovation. Not a better GPS display for a Toyota.
The New Deal was an investment in the future. That is until the reagan crew came to town and started selling it off. Now we have our own dem congresscritters selling awesome buildings for a song that are then turned into condos for rich people.
Quit looking at Biden for what he has. Look at his roots. That's why I said he should know better.
As a little quip, maybe they can stop by the Heinz hq and talk about training the replacement workers for those being let go.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis
Member since: Thu Dec 8, 2005, 10:45 PM
Number of posts: 1,957
