(November 19, 2011 at 6:37 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: You're dwelling on single words amongst the whole, Shelly.

Not quite, kilic. I was responding to a particular statement I disagreed with.

Quote:I'm not stating it's about luxury cars or whatsoever.

You stated that was the impression you got of them.

Quote:I'm stating that the people there claim that they are "underpriviliged", or poor, unable to afford whatever they claim the rich have.
So, they propose....What?

*sigh* Not all of them state the same thing, but they are not quite complaining about being poor. Every country has its poor. They are complaining that the gap between poor and wealthy is getting wider and fewer and fewer people can reach the center. There are not enough jobs to keep average, hard-working people off welfare. There is not enough welfare to support the legitimately jobless, banks and credit businesses fuck people hard with ridiculous fees, impossible terms, etc. Then, the businesses that are so fucking the poor and middle class fund politicians, who in turn "owe" these companies and will push legislation that suits them. That cycle is a problem, kilic.

Quote:Not quite, kilic. I was responding to a particular statement I disagreed with.

Well, I gave the luxury car as an example. They simply might want something else that they see with the people they are protesting out there.

Quote:You stated that was the impression you got of them.

Well, it can go either way, as I explained in my previous post. How does one eliminate wealth inequality? Do you do it robin hood style? You can't do that in America, since capital is concentrated in the hands of the private sector. The only way that it can be given to the people, is for the government to buy that property, and make it public, and hire employees based on that account.
And this is not possible in the US, as it was not built on a system like that.
Welfare is one thing. So is healthcare.
However, this requires transcending the system in America altogether.
How would you suggest you do that?

Quote:*sigh* Not all of them state the same thing, but they are not quite complaining about being poor. Every country has its poor. They are complaining that the gap between poor and wealthy is getting wider and fewer and fewer people can reach the center. There are not enough jobs to keep average, hard-working people off welfare. There is not enough welfare to support the legitimately jobless, banks and credit businesses fuck people hard with ridiculous fees, impossible terms, etc. Then, the businesses that are so fucking the poor and middle class fund politicians, who in turn "owe" these companies and will push legislation that suits them. That cycle is a problem, kilic.

Well, the gap between the poor and the wealthy is almost always high.
And I think that you speak in your own words when you talk about the problems in America.
Besides, the Banks themselves are regulated by higher authorities such as the central bank of America(whatever it's name is, I just assumed it'd be named as such), that regulate the loans and interests associated with it. There is not really much you can do about it though, but to work hard to become someone that can rise within the cycle. It's simply the same here, with the notable exception that our healthcare and education(including university) is free, however our taxes are much much higher compared to yours(not including the income tax which is already high).

How can you work hard to rise above the system when there is no work, kilic? I apologize, but it sounds like you know very little about the issues.

America is founded on the right of protest. That is what people can do about it. They can protest and work to push laws that would keep politicians from getting corporate funding.

When you say I speak in my own words, you are right. However, what I am saying is what a huge percentage of the protesters are saying. People to choose to ignore it and latch on to the "they are all lazy bums that need to work harder" argument. I am not buying it. It sounds like they have FOX News in Turkey.

(November 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: How can you work hard to rise above the system when there is no work, kilic? I apologize, but it sounds like you know very little about the issues.

America is founded on the right of protest. That is what people can do about it. They can protest and work to push laws that would keep politicians from getting corporate funding.

When you say I speak in my own words, you are right. However, what I am saying is what a huge percentage of the protesters are saying. People to choose to ignore it and latch on to the "they are all lazy bums that need to work harder" argument. I am not buying it. It sounds like they have FOX News in Turkey.

Well, not all types of work are really worth something. Like you can't rise anywhere if you work in starbucks, or as a cashier in a grocery store, or you can't rise up in the system as a construction worker, electrician or anything that does not require higher education in a university.
You also can't rise anywhere with a degree in a branch like modern cinema, which is a department that I've only recently heard of, even if you can find work(unless you decide to stay in the university).

However, you can earn a good salary from jobs that result from high-tier education, like law, engineering, natural sciences(like, you know, physics, chemistry, biology and the like, but some will stay in the university, and research departments), economics and the like.

Truly, if you can't find work, it's not just due to the fault of the government, which is certainly at fault in America, however it also depends on the person itself.
I know that university education is not free in America, and it certainly isn't cheap either for good universities(whereas the good universities in Turkey are all free), however, I must say that this also serves a different purpose.
We in Turkey have a large army of unemployed, and well educated men.
We produce more educated people than the system requires, and therefore, many of our engineers, scientists, historians and etc. go to western countries to seek employment.
We are also short on intermediate staff, like technicians, whereas the system in America allows for the training of an amount of educated men to satisfy the need, and takes the rest from abroad, while the rest of the population are composed of the "working class". However, America, being the capitalist country it is, allows for much outsourcing of jobs, since the working class in manufacturing is declining, due to cheap labor in other countries.
I'm not saying that the people there are lazy bums. I'm sure they'd do well with a job that they're given according to their level of skill and education(on which I need some data to determine what exactly could be done to help them). All I'm saying is, that creating jobs is something that requires more money be spent by someone, and no one is willing to spend that money unless it's tied to something more lucrative.

And I want to add that this is not something that is done so lightly. Like, people cannot simply create jobs out of nowhere. The private sector cannot, unless they're expanding, and in the case they're not, they won't. And even in that case it may not be permanent, since competition can always drive you out of business in that area, and force more people to become unemployed. I'm sorry, but those are the hard facts of life.

Kilic, if there are 10 jobs and 20 people, 10 people will be without jobs, regardless of their work ethic, education and drive to succeed. It's simple.

Creating jobs requires a government that is not waylaid by indebtedness to big businesses. When politicians back companies that fuck the average American, the average American becomes more and more in debt because he can borrow, but cannot earn in this society. The money goes into big time lending that people cannot afford to pay back because of lack of jobs. Then, those lending companies can take everything a person has, leaving them destitute. They take much more than what the initial loan was worth. People then have absolutely nothing to show for the work they have done in their lives.

I keep hearing people say things like what you are saying and it baffles me. How hard is it to understand that you cannot find a job when there is no job? That's like telling a starving person that they just need to find food, as if they would not have already, if it was available.

I'm very lucky in my work. I can find work from any country in the world and quite often get jobs from abroad. I do not make six figures, but I am working, which is more than many here can say. When the work is coming in, I make decent money, but the recession will eventually hit my line of work and it does yo-yo. My point is that, if my work were limited to the U.S., I would be more fucked than most. These people are not bitching for the sake of bitching and they are not demanding jobs and welfare. They are demanding fairness. They do not want our government to be a bank for big corporations. They do not want their tax dollars to go toward corporate money lending. It's that simple, kilic.

Quote:Kilic, if there are 10 jobs and 20 people, 10 people will be without jobs, regardless of their work ethic, education and drive to succeed. It's simple.

As a matter of calculation, yes. However, in real life, it's not simply a matter of simple algebra. Indeed, if there is a single job, and you are more qualified, and more experienced, you are more likely to get that job than the other(unless it's a family business, or there is some sort of a driving force for the emploer to hire the less experienced/qualified one). This allows for the more experienced and better quality people to have jobs, and enjoy the benefits of their life's work.
Indeed, there are places which hire extensively, only new people, who are paid considerably less wages(lets say, for example, if you're a newly graduated chemist(with no extra degrees) who wants to work in a lab, you're going to get payed only 1500TL(820.951 USD) a month. However, an experienced chemist(or someone who has a masters or higher degree), may find work in the same company as a foreman, or higher.
I also stressed this fact in my post above. It is, at least partly, a matter of qualification. And in the case for people of higher education, I think this system is quite rewarding in America.

Quote:Creating jobs requires a government that is not waylaid by indebtedness to big businesses. When politicians back companies that fuck the average American, the average American becomes more and more in debt because he can borrow, but cannot earn in this society. The money goes into big time lending that people cannot afford to pay back because of lack of jobs. Then, those lending companies can take everything a person has, leaving them destitute. They take much more than what the initial loan was worth. People then have absolutely nothing to show for the work they have done in their lives.

I understand, but how is this somewhat related to creating jobs?
Do you suggest that the government opens up more places in civil service sectors or government owned businesses?
Besides, how exactly do the "companies" effect the money lending affairs of banks? The banks, and the interest rates are regulated by the central bank. Why not complain to the central bank instead(besides, I have already mentioned in a thread here that I resent the FIAT currency. People have mocked me for it, however the FIAT currency is also at fault here, even more so)?

Quote:I keep hearing people say things like what you are saying and it baffles me. How hard is it to understand that you cannot find a job when there is no job? That's like telling a starving person that they just need to find food, as if they would not have already, if it was available.

Well, I'm telling you that it's not as you say it is. Certain sectors lack jobs.
And this affects certain parts of the society, that are not really well educated, or even not skilled to find work as a construction worker, electrician, hair dresser, or something that involves a learned trade.
Even if so, how do you propose we bring about more jobs to absorb the unemployed?

Quote: They are demanding fairness.

And what exactly is fairness, according to you?
Tell me, because I have no idea on how to actually interpret this.

Quote:They do not want our government to be a bank for big corporations.

And what exactly does this mean? Referring to the bail-out of the banks after the crisis hit the scene? Well, under normal circumstances, the government probably wouldn't had intervened, however the circumstances were not quite what they should have been.

Quote:They do not want their tax dollars to go toward corporate money lending. It's that simple, kilic.

Are you referring to the one time event of the bailout?
Or are there things that I don't know about. It can be, I can't really know.

(November 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: As a matter of calculation, yes. However, in real life, it's not simply a matter of simple algebra. Indeed, if there is a single job, and you are more qualified, and more experienced, you are more likely to get that job than the other(unless it's a family business, or there is some sort of a driving force for the emploer to hire the less experienced/qualified one). This allows for the more experienced and better quality people to have jobs, and enjoy the benefits of their life's work.

Yes, if you are more skilled, you may get the job, depending on how much the company wants to pay. Nothing in what you just said explained how there being no jobs does not mean there are no jobs, which seems to be what you are trying to convey.

Quote:Indeed, there are places which hire extensively, only new people, who are paid considerably less wages(lets say, for example, if you're a newly graduated chemist(with no extra degrees) who wants to work in a lab, you're going to get payed only 1500TL(820.951 USD) a month. However, an experienced chemist(or someone who has a masters or higher degree), may find work in the same company as a foreman, or higher.
I also stressed this fact in my post above. It is, at least partly, a matter of qualification. And in the case for people of higher education, I think this system is quite rewarding in America.

How much a job pays has nothing to do with how many jobs there are. Now, you are making it sound as if people are not finding jobs because they are not condescending to work lower paying jobs. That is not the case.

Quote:I understand, but how is this somewhat related to creating jobs?
Do you suggest that the government opens up more places in civil service sectors or government owned businesses?

*sigh* No, kilic. I am suggesting that our financial situation be more conducive to small businesses that open up local jobs.

Quote:Besides, how exactly do the "companies" effect the money lending affairs of banks? The banks, and the interest rates are regulated by the central bank. Why not complain to the central bank instead(besides, I have already mentioned in a thread here that I resent the FIAT currency. People have mocked me for it, however the FIAT currency is also at fault here, even more so)?
[quote]

In this scenario, the banks are some of the companies of which I speak. A bank is a company. At any rate, people are complaining to the banks. Where are you getting your information about OWS?

[quote]
Well, I'm telling you that it's not as you say it is.

I live here, kilic.

Quote:Certain sectors lack jobs.
And this affects certain parts of the society, that are not really well educated, or even not skilled to find work as a construction worker, electrician, hair dresser, or something that involves a learned trade.

I can't do anything but shake my head at this. What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of skilled people out of work. I know a licensed electrician with 14 years of experience who cannot find work in his area and has not been able to for two years!!

Quote:Even if so, how do you propose we bring about more jobs to absorb the unemployed?

I'm sorry, but there is no "we." Don't you live in Turkey? I typically do not bring up borders, as it is kind of silly, but there really is nothing *you* can do to create more jobs in the U.S. What I suggest this country does to create more jobs is to restrict the reach of the federal government. The federal government outlaws a number of things that should be handled on the state level. These things could open up jobs in several states. That is just one example, but a good one.

Quote:
And what exactly is fairness, according to you?
Tell me, because I have no idea on how to actually interpret this.

In this case, separating the government from the businesses, so we are not voting for politicians who are not working for us.

Quote:And what exactly does this mean? Referring to the bail-out of the banks after the crisis hit the scene? Well, under normal circumstances, the government probably wouldn't had intervened, however the circumstances were not quite what they should have been.

The government should not have intervened, no matter the circumstances. Furthermore, it has been shown that the money was very poorly spent. The government had no right to intervene. The federal government overstepped.

Quote:Are you referring to the one time event of the bailout?
Or are there things that I don't know about. It can be, I can't really know.

No, not just the one time bailout. Our government is virtually inextricably linked with corporate money.

Quote:Yes, if you are more skilled, you may get the job, depending on how much the company wants to pay. Nothing in what you just said explained how there being no jobs does not mean there are no jobs, which seems to be what you are trying to convey.

Well, there is a job shortage, which is why there is unemployment.
It's also not always tied to your education, which explains the unemployment of educated people in my country.
As I said, what I'm trying to find out is where exactly the employers see a surplus, and where a demand.

Quote:How much a job pays has nothing to do with how many jobs there are. Now, you are making it sound as if people are not finding jobs because they are not condescending to work lower paying jobs. That is not the case.

Well, that's not what I said. Lower paying jobs are generally demanding people of fewer experience, or fewer qualifications. Like you can't be the CEO of a company just with a bachelor's degree.
People who seek work in their respective sectors often have to start somewhere, and move up from there, if their trade actually offers such an opportunity.

Quote:*sigh* No, kilic. I am suggesting that our financial situation be more conducive to small businesses that open up local jobs.

Well, that's what we have in Turkey. However, small businesses also hire enough as to fulfill their demand. Unless there are more people who start up businesses(which is also a risk, as there is the risk of the business going downhill...).
Again, here, how do you propose the government helps here?

Quote:In this scenario, the banks are some of the companies of which I speak. A bank is a company. At any rate, people are complaining to the banks. Where are you getting your information about OWS?

I know. But I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same stuff. Complaining against banks isn't really productive, though. Banks do not force you to accept loans. And people are depositing money in those banks, so.

Quote:I can't do anything but shake my head at this. What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of skilled people out of work. I know a licensed electrician with 14 years of experience who cannot find work in his area and has not been able to for two years!!

I did not say that all skilled workers actually have a job. I already said that certain sectors have surplus of people that work there.
It's not like they're not hiring him even though there is a place for that job.

Quote:I'm sorry, but there is no "we." Don't you live in Turkey? I typically do not bring up borders, as it is kind of silly, but there really is nothing *you* can do to create more jobs in the U.S. What I suggest this country does to create more jobs is to restrict the reach of the federal government. The federal government outlaws a number of things that should be handled on the state level. These things could open up jobs in several states. That is just one example, but a good one.

I didn't mean that by saying "we". I know that I can't do anything to increase the supply of jobs in the US.
What exactly is the federal government doing wrong?
We have a centralized government(meaning no individual states or autonomous regions), so I don't know how this would differ if the states and federal government would handle this any different.

Quote:In this case, separating the government from the businesses, so we are not voting for politicians who are not working for us.

Well, that's what the US government is all about. Capitalism does not allow for state owned enterprises...However, that's not what you're talking about, is it.
You mean the lobbying that the corporations have running in America?
Well, lobbies do not just exist for corporations, they exist for many things, so I suggest that you outlaw these aswell(which would actually benefit my country in more than one ways). Even without the lobbies, corporations will always have some sort of a hand in the government, since corruption cannot be halted, and politicians are in one way, and the other, tied to corporations.

Quote:The government should not have intervened, no matter the circumstances. Furthermore, it has been shown that the money was very poorly spent. The government had no right to intervene. The federal government overstepped.

And this should have probably sparked an investigation by the supreme court.

Quote:No, not just the one time bailout. Our government is virtually inextricably linked with corporate money.

On what level, to be exact?

(November 20, 2011 at 10:41 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, there is a job shortage, which is why there is unemployment.
It's also not always tied to your education, which explains the unemployment of educated people in my country.
As I said, what I'm trying to find out is where exactly the employers see a surplus, and where a demand.

They do not see a surplus, kilic.

Quote:Well, that's not what I said. Lower paying jobs are generally demanding people of fewer experience, or fewer qualifications. Like you can't be the CEO of a company just with a bachelor's degree.
People who seek work in their respective sectors often have to start somewhere, and move up from there, if their trade actually offers such an opportunity.

What happens when you go to school for six years, get out and your trade has collapsed? Because we are seeing so many useless college educations now, there is a problem with this, if you educate it, jobs will come, idea.

Quote:Well, that's what we have in Turkey. However, small businesses also hire enough as to fulfill their demand. Unless there are more people who start up businesses(which is also a risk, as there is the risk of the business going downhill...).
Again, here, how do you propose the government helps here?

Yes, there is a risk in starting a small business. Right now, in many areas, it is not a risk, it is a given. The government doesn't need to help. It needs to STOP helping.

Quote:I know. But I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same stuff. Complaining against banks isn't really productive, though. Banks do not force you to accept loans. And people are depositing money in those banks, so.

In the U.S., I would say roughly 50% of my transactions have to be made through a bank or they cannot be made. I cannot stay at a hotel without a credit card. I cannot rent a car without a credit card. I cannot buy a house without involving a bank, in some way, even if it just to write a check.

Quote:I did not say that all skilled workers actually have a job. I already said that certain sectors have surplus of people that work there.
It's not like they're not hiring him even though there is a place for that job.

Then what is your point? These people are protesting because there are no jobs, despite their educations, etc.

Quote:What exactly is the federal government doing wrong?

Again, overextending its reach. We have prohibition, corporate bailouts, etc.

Quote:We have a centralized government(meaning no individual states or autonomous regions), so I don't know how this would differ if the states and federal government would handle this any different.

It differs in that one state can legalize gambling and have a booming casino business if the federal government does not have laws against it.

Quote:Well, that's what the US government is all about. Capitalism does not allow for state owned enterprises...However, that's not what you're talking about, is it.

No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about small government, small businesses, back to basics kind of stuff.

Quote:You mean the lobbying that the corporations have running in America?
Well, lobbies do not just exist for corporations, they exist for many things, so I suggest that you outlaw these aswell(which would actually benefit my country in more than one ways). Even without the lobbies, corporations will always have some sort of a hand in the government, since corruption cannot be halted, and politicians are in one way, and the other, tied to corporations.

It has not always been that way. People are protesting widespread, blatant corruption spoonfed to the masses. Pissing and calling it rain?

Quote:And this should have probably sparked an investigation by the supreme court.

There were "investigations," carried out by government offices, if I remember correctly.

Quote:On what level, to be exact?

What do you mean what level?

Quote:They do not see a surplus, kilic.

Meaning, they have a demand for labor, but they're just not hiring?
This does not really make sense. You need employees to keep a business(that is in need of employees) running.
They will hire enough to get things to work. No less, no more.
If there are more people that they need, they'll hire the ones that they deem to be fit for the job.

Quote:What happens when you go to school for six years, get out and your trade has collapsed? Because we are seeing so many useless college educations now, there is a problem with this, if you educate it, jobs will come, idea.

Well, that might also be the case, in which case you need to seek a counsel at school before applying to a university. Indeed, there are many useless college degrees now, but I personally wouldn't try for a college education if I knew that such a degree wouldn't bring me a good job(like african-american studies and etc.).
This of course is the fault of the parents, wheras the parents in Turkey are heavily involved in the education of their children, and generally seek counsel from the school and other people who know things before sending their children to university.
And I also said that not all education can bring you a good job, that's why I did not opt to go for a degree in history although that was a primary interest of mine and chose to go with my father's wishes of becoming a chemical engineer.

Quote:Yes, there is a risk in starting a small business. Right now, in many areas, it is not a risk, it is a given. The government doesn't need to help. It needs to STOP helping.

Meaning that people just refuse to invest their money into something they can profit from? Perhaps they do not have the money to do so.
Most people who want to expand need to use loans for that. Starters, even more so. And I think that simply because you think that every business will take a hold, won't make it that way.

Quote:In the U.S., I would say roughly 50% of my transactions have to be made through a bank or they cannot be made. I cannot stay at a hotel without a credit card. I cannot rent a car without a credit card. I cannot buy a house without involving a bank, in some way, even if it just to write a check.

Well, do you not have master cards which directly access your reserves in the bank account? Why use a credit card for that? Either you have the money to pay for that service, or you don't. IF you don't, then simply do not use a credit card.
I personally use no credit card in anything, and prefer to handle everything in hard currency.

Quote:Then what is your point? These people are protesting because there are no jobs, despite their educations, etc.

Well, if they had a job, they wouldn't be there in the first place. Indeed, they may, or may not have a degree or a license in something. However, I don't have any knowledge on what kind of education these people have to actually benefit from it. You cannot expect a sociology student to find a job as quickly as a law student(lawyer, prosecutor etc.). Or find it at all, like what are sociology degrees good for anyways, but in research?

Quote:Again, overextending its reach. We have prohibition, corporate bailouts, etc.

So you mean that the government is doing something illegal. So where is your supreme court?

Quote:It differs in that one state can legalize gambling and have a booming casino business if the federal government does not have laws against it.

Well indeed, but does the (US)government have any laws against gambling?
And personally, I think that gambling only serves to impoverish people even further(and thankfully, gambling is prohibited in Turkey).

Quote:No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about small government, small businesses, back to basics kind of stuff.

Well, that is too much of a simple solution. I don't think how it's going to work out.
By small government, do you mean small government interference(en general), or small government as like in regional government with no federal interference?
And small businesses have already passed in America. Here, they work fine, yes, but America is home to many large, international corporations. Do you think of shutting them down somehow?

Quote:It has not always been that way. People are protesting widespread, blatant corruption spoonfed to the masses. Pissing and calling it rain?

Well, I'm not saying that people shouldn't do anything, however is this the fault of a particular(the current) government, or is it a part that is inherently within the system?

Quote:There were "investigations," carried out by government offices, if I remember correctly.

There isn't much to investigate, actually, since it was public.

Quote:What do you mean what level?

The link to corporate money. I know that they finance elections and etc...
But other than that, their only ties to corporate money could be in the form of taxes, at least on legal terms.
Or are they affiliated in one way or the other with your politicians?
Either in legal terms, or in terms of corrupt behaviour, like bribes and etc?