SFBG radio: Demanding full employment

09.24.11 - 12:48 pm | Tim Redmond |

(30)

Today Johnny talks about marching on Wall Street -- to demand full employment or else. Check out the discussion after the jump.

FullEmploymentOrElse by endorsements2011

SFBG Radio

Comments

First You Gotta Get People To Notice

The uprisings in Tunisia got more press in New York than this "occupation" and it's in NYC itself.

Wishful thinking, guys.

Posted by Beast Of Bourbon on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

The modern credit default

The modern credit default swap didn't exist before the early 1990s although there had been credit default swap like instruments earlier - (like those which caused the South Sea Bubble, the biggest economic disaster in recorded history - interesting precedent...) Hedge funds were wiped out in the recessions of the 1970s but reappeared with the prosperity of the '90s. There is no excuse for either when the economy is in depression or recession. Johnny's idea of convincing Wall Street to start creating jobs instead of sitting on its money would help the US economy - the REAL, productive economy.

Posted by BrianMoynihanSucks on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

Wall Street

Funny thing that when unemployment is low, profits soar and so do stocks and that's what these people should want.

But they don't--the only thing that matters is no inflation and no jobs, because that seals in their wealth.

Posted by guest on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 2:11 pm

Actually Demanding The Private Sector Step Up

Amazing that the fiction that the private sector gives a rat's ass about the general public remains alive.

Everyone wants to think they're just like the rich. There was a piece out recently about how half of Americans thought they were gonna be millionaires, five years ago.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

Nope

Never gonna happen.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

Never Say Never

Yes, it has to be bigger than 2000 people.

But what makes you think you can't make them part with their cash? If the alternative was a windfall profits tax (or a general strike), I think they'd cave. These people are not used to America fighting back.

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 6:54 pm

Really? A general strike

Come on, we didn't get that during the Great Depression or during the height of the Vietnam struggle or even back in 2008 when the economy was in the crapper. You won't get that now. As for parting them with their cash? How would you force them? About half of the liquid cash held by companies is parked outside the country, layered and sheltered. Most of the money being held by companies, not banks, but companies, are doing so because they're also afraid the bank won't lend them. The crisis, when even GE couldn't get a loan to make payroll, taught them a very valuable lesson.

As for a Windfall profits tax, you couldn't even get that when the Democrats were a majority in both houses and held the White House! What makes you think you're going to convince the Tea Party infected House and a wobbly-kneed Senate to enact such? C'mon, Perkins. A bunch of people making noise outside of Wall Street isn't going to change anything. It has to come from the states, not nationally. Why? Because Uncle Sam is too compromised. Progressivism at the federal level is dead.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 6:24 am

Spending

Spending, military especially, cannot continue at these levels. And any pol that cuts benefits for SS or Medicare will be unemployed.

What that means is, if the US is gonna keep its military adventurism afloat (which these international companies profit from heavily), the economy has to be stimulated for real somewhere. Wall Street may just be looking for an out on this one after all.

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 7:25 am

General Strikes During The Depression - Venom, Learn History

Johnny, what are you talking about? There were -very- important general strikes during the Great Depression; including one in San Francisco.

See:

http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu/themed_collections/subt...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 10:30 am

Back then, people didn't have credit card debt

or mortgages of five times their annual salaries. A strike would ruin many families and workers, which is why they are so rare in the US. The average American has no appetite for any kind of strike, let alone one for "general" purposes rather than a specific issue.

Moreover union membership was normal back then - now unions are restricted to the public sector and a few trades and occupations. The vast majority of Americans aren't in a union, don't want to be in a union, see little need for unions and are culturally opposed to striking.

You'd probably have more luck in France or Greece with that idea. It's a non-starter here.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

Oh?

"The vast majority of Americans aren't in a union, don't want to be in a union, see little need for unions and are culturally opposed to striking"?

In December 2006 Hart Research surveyed 808 members of the general public and 382 union members and the strongest argument for supporting the Employee Free Choice Act was the following economic argument: “The legislation is expected to result in more workers being able to bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Apparently not.

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 1:28 pm

Perkins, the rate of union membership has been

declining for many decades now. Whole sectors of the economy are now non-union, particularly the newer industries like tech. So while a poll of a few hundred people may show what you are saying, the simplest of way of determining national trends is to look at the stats for union membership.

And that's not just the US, by the way, although it's a stronger trend here. Even in places like England and France, union member ship has declined, as unionized sectors like manufacturing decline, to be replaced by newer, usually non-union service employment.

I'd infer more from what people do than what they say in a poll, even assuming the poll wasn't biased, which of course many are. The chances of organizing a general strike these days is negligible.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

Nonsense Argument

Total nonsense.

A general strike takes place when both union -and- non-union workers join together to shut an entire community/economy down in order to win demands for everyone; one of which would be a demand for relief of card and mortgage debt.

Multinational bank and finance debts have been wiped off of the books, while the debts of workers and the lower classes remain.

Debt should be the main target of a general strike.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

Speculate all you like, Eric, but the statistical odds

of American workers going all French like that are probably less than the odds of you joining the Tea Party or Baum becoming SF Mayor.

Few things are more certain than that there would be negligible national support for a general strike. There hasn't been one in living memory, and there won't be one again. Care to share any poll results that indicate otherwise?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

Eric's not interested in success

He's interested in ideological purity. He's a Green Party leader for God's sake - clearly he has very-to-little interest in anything having to do with success. Look at their mayoral candidate if you have any question about that.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

General Strike Within 5 Years

Actually, it's a good bet that there will be a general strike somewhere in the U.S., within the next 5 years. Afterwhich a wave of similar strikes will sweep across the country.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

There's not a shred of evidence for that speculation

It's just an ideological wet dream for under-employed troublemakers, misfits and slackers.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

General strikes

In the 20 years I have lived here, starting out with the first general strike ultimatum during the first gulf war. I think the IWW, CPUSA, RCP wing of the "progressive" left here has called for a general strike or threatened one at least once a year.

Instead they just attack BART machines with axes to convert the squares and swing the agenda their way.

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 6:50 pm

Must be tough

Republicans are what, 15% of San Francisco?

Why not go back to Omaha or wherever you came from to be with your people then?

Posted by guest on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

So you identify

With the RCP, CPUSA and the IWW?

It's interesting that a Stalinist apologist would others being out of touch.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

What language is this?

a double posting of pure gibberish.

Broken up over Perry's lousy performance the other day?

Don't worry, Chris Christie to the rescue and your loyal Republican heart will return to normal.

Posted by guest on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 8:45 pm

So you identify

With the RCP, CPUSA and the IWW?

It's interesting that a Stalinist apologist would complain about others being out of touch.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

And....

A nightmare for suck-up brown nosing sycophants whose every waking thought is how apple polishing their bosses are gonna get them ahead.

I realize that it never crosses your Republican brain-pan but you think maybe underemployed people would prefer to be fully employed if the work was there.

Or has the delicious bouquet of privileged anus numbed your brain to that one?

Posted by paul patterson on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

Mr Venom/Beast of Bourbon/Et Al

This may change your opinion--it's one thing to believe you're literally above it all, it's another to rub same in desperate people's faces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PiXDTK_CBY&feature=share

Posted by Johnny Wendell on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 9:27 am

OOOOOOOOh, a "general strike"

OOOOOOOOh, a "general strike"

Super.

The unemployment rate in the Bar Area is about 15%. There are plenty of people to take jobs that regular "workers" won't do. Dream on and lose your jobs.

General strike is a 1930s fantasy. Ain't gonna happen with all these people looking for jobs.

"Full employment"? Really? Pardon my French, but who is going to hire Tyrone from the ghetto who can't read? (Don't bother to call me "racist" as I couldn't care less).

Grow up....get a job...or cancel your major in Women's Studies and get a real job.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 1:17 pm

Yep, Guest, a lot of employers would LOVE a strike

as they'd be able to fire the losers and troublemakers, and replace them with cheaper staff. Maybe tear up that contract and make the place non-union at the same time. Cut pay, pensions and benefits. Woo hoo.

Ever since Reagan crushed the air traffic controllers, striking has been a fringe activity in the U.S.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

That's funny...

I've seen lots of successful strikes since Reagan.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

If there have been "lots" then obviously

they weren't very successful, else they wouldn't have to keep on going on strike, would they?

Interesting that you didn't provide a single example, given that there were "lots".

Hmmm.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 6:05 pm

UPS, Mid 90's, Nurse's now

Sorry to interrupt your stroke fest, toe jammer...

Posted by guest on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

removing a requirement of several public votes

The bill, AB664, Ammiano, streamlines process removing requirement several public votes before special district is formed, for great purpose. At behest of richest among us, for sake of jobs emergency, VOTING PRIVILEGE ABROGATED in SF. Gov. Brown, Lt. Gov. Newsom, Speaker Perez, Mayor Lee, Ayatolla of Assembly Brown concur. Golden Gate Yacht Club, #1 Yacht Way, forevermore preempts jurisdiction bayshore. Public input disenfranchised, environmental review disallowed.
Everyone invited to view Americas Cup from rooftops of Pacific Heights.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 12:31 pm