I hate to do it, I hate to comment on Glenn Beck, but this is a common argument against unemployment benefits, by people who absolutely don’t understand the way the market works. I’m responding to This this. It’s a common argument from what I’d like to call the ignorant douchebag right. I’d like to point out the irrelevant but kind of telling point that to him, a normal looking person, is a blonde, I don’t know why it just cracks me up. Also his idea that somehow socialists are not normal people goes against polls, during the election, polls pointed out that 1/5th of Americans and 1/3rd* of young Americans prefer socialism, now keep in mind that they didn’t explain actual socialist ideals in the polls, so what people had in mind is the socialism that the mainstream media portrays, which is a very negative image. When it comes to actual socialist ideals (which are almost the same as ideals of democracy), I’d venture to say that the numbers would be higher. But I guess in Glenn Becks world, your being a “Normal American” is political, i.e. you have to support the corporatist market (there’s not such thing as a free market).

But to the meat of it, why are people unemployed, because they don’t want to work? Considering that there are 5 applicants for every job, I don’t think that’s the problem. How about Jobs not hiring overqualified people, or even not hiring unemployed people, specifically, how about the fact that companies simply don’t want to hire, they’d rather work their employees harder and make more money. Here’s what Glenn and the ignorant-douche-bag right doesn’t understand, there is no free market, the market, is controlled by the richest people in the country, those are ultimately the people that decide if people get jobs or not, it’s not the unemployed.

This is Glenn becks solution to the unemployed, essentially (I’m paraphrasing) “shut up and deal with it, take what ever crumbs you can get if that, and don’t you dare do anything that might hurt corporate power.” That’s why it all goes to unions, what do unions do that Glenn Beck hates, I’d actually think he would like unions, since they work in the free market, they are workers using their collective labor power to get a better deal, I thought Glenn Beck would like that? After all isn’t it all about self-interest? Isn’t it all about what you can get for what you have? That’s the market? No Glenn Beck isn’t interested in THAT free market, Glenn Beck hate unions because they are a way for the poor to shift power from the rich, Unions are a way in which poor working class people can try and level the playing field, and have somewhat of a say over their economic lives, they are a way in which THEY can have a slight leg up so they are not totally subservient to the rich business class in America. Glenn Beck isn’t interested in any type of Market, if he was he would probably like unions, he’s interested in the power of the business class, nothing else. Glenn Beck wants the poor to take what’s dealt to them by the rich and shut up, deal with it them self, and just deal with the huge power imbalance, he doesn’t want them to act in their self interest, he doesn’t want them to organize, he doesn’t want them to try and shift policy in their favor.

Now he said something interesting, “here’s an idea … Merit.” Yeah, so what about the top bankers that destroyed the economy and made off with millions was that due to there “Merit”? What about the top CEO pay and bonuses going up and up while wages stagnate, was that due to “merit”? What about when a CEO makes a terrible business choice, keeps his job, and pay and just lays off some worker, was that due to his “merit?” NO, it has nothing to do with Merit, Capitalism does not reward merit, the corporatist market doesn’t reward merit, and it rewards economic power, nothing else. I agree though, we need an economy based on merit, so lets democratize the economy, so that if a CEO messes up, he won’t get away with it, lets strengthen the unions, so that workers can work less and more can work.

The ignorant-douche-bag right (that’s not all of them btw) don’t understand how capitalism works, but they understand one thing, the poor should get nothing, the poor should take it, the poor should shut their mouths and take what’s dealt to them, and the rich, should get their way. I think Glenn Beck needs to take an economics class.

In my opinion the solution isn’t more benefits (although I think those are needed), the solution is, democratize the economy, when you have everyone having a say on who has a job or not, and not just the rich, I’m pretty sure things would be different.

Also for the unemployed, theres nothing better you can do, than while looking for work, join a group, organize, don’t just take it laying down, fight for your interests, its NOT ok that the poorest in America suffer for the systemic failures that benefit the rich, that needs to change, and its going to happen when the poor make themselves heard and start attacking the powers that be.

*Poll 1
Poll 2
Poll 3

As we read in the NY times workers are having it tough. But as we can see in a case study by the AFL-CIO, executives are doing pretty well, and as the article points out, many companies that are actually growing, making profits, are cutting pay and/or laying people off to make a bigger profit. Now I’m not going to take these facts and start preaching about evil corporations or how bad these CEOs are, because it has nothing to do with morality it has to do with function and role. As a CEO of a company it is your job to maximize profits, your job is to have higher returns this quarter than last quarter, if you can’t do that, you failed as an executive. It’s also in the executives’ interest to take as much money out of a company as they possibly can, why wouldn’t they? Its business.

Part of that means class warfare, i.e. how to get the most out of workers while giving the least back, and making the conditions easier to do that. A CEO’s job is not to be reasonable, its not to compensate for actual value, its not to figure out what people have actually earned, its to maximize profits and get as much as they can out of the workers and the company. So this news shouldn’t shock us, this is the way Capitalism works. That being said, workers, and those who support workers interests need to stop playing by the business class rules. The business class is expected to work in their self-interest, they are expected to take as much as they can, its acceptable for them to wage class warfare against workers, but whenever workers want to fight back you always hear “Oh be reasonable” or “Don’t you get enough benefits and pay?” or “be happy with what you have,” why the double standard? Business is Business.

Unions that follow the Obama doctrine of ask nicely, and unilaterally disarm are going to keep loosing. If you put down your sword and say “let’s talk” the other side will kick you down, put his sword to your throat, and then say “ok, let’s talk.” Which way do you think the conversation is going to go? Unions need to stop allowing lay offs, pay cuts, unpaid leaves, and loss of benefits or pensions to be an option, right now they are the first option. The way unions can stop hurting the workers from being an option is by becoming militant, strike first, and then negotiate. Unions need to start to pay attention to the Haywood doctrine (i.e. Bill Haywood the Union organizer in the early 1900s) (rather than the Obama doctrine) which I would say is “The aims and objects of this organization shall be to put the working-class in possession of the economic power,” the objective should be economic power, not making things the best way for management, labor should negotiate from a position of power, not weakness.

CEOs should not have the option of squeezing more profit and more executive compensation out of the workers. If the executive wants more compensation, without the companies actual turnaround being higher, the profit is going to have to go down. If he wants the profit to go up without a higher turnaround he’s going to have to take a pay cut or less of Bonus. If he wants both, well then he better do his job and make a higher turnaround in the company, and if that happens the workers should demand a part of that money as well.

The right wing loves to accuse the left of inciting class warfare, but the fact is, whether or not the workers engage in class warfare its happening no matter what, management and the business class is waging class warfare, and in the words of Warren Buffet, in a moment of honesty “There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” So Unions and workers need to stop taking it laying down, they need to stop accepting the notion that they are the only ones that need to suffer when things go down, and they are never the ones to profit when things go up, they need to start fighting back, and seriously fighting back. In American history, or for that matter world history, working people only improved their stake when they fought for it and took it, it was never given to them by the business leaders, all the gains working people have had, the right to organize, the 8 hour workday, weekends, anything has been things that were fought for, and things that the business class gave up because they were afraid of a revolution. Its time for workers to fight back and take what is theirs rather than just asking nicely.

Anymore than Roman Cesar made roads, or Pope Julius II painted the Sistine Chapel. The right wing talking points defending the Bush Tax cuts center around not taxing the job creators, meaning the rich, which got me thinking, without filthy rich people, without a huge class divide, would everyone be unemployed? What about countries with a higher tax rate on the wealthy, like Norway, which has much higher taxes for the wealthy, yet only 3.3% unemployment?

The fact is the wealthy do not create jobs, they just control them. What I mean by that is that in a capitalist system demand is measured in wealth (rather than human needs which I think would be a better system), which means the more wealth you have, the more your demands matter, the more production is going to fit your demands. This is why the government needs to subsidies housing for the poor, but not the rich, because in the supply and demand market, the poor’s demand” for a place to live doesn’t matter, because they don’t have the money, the market won’t meet their needs, whereas the demands for an extra beach house in Malibu for the rich will always be met by the Markets. In any society there is going to be work that needs to be done, the question is for whose benefit. When you have a huge class divide, where the vast majority of the economy is controlled by a small class of rich people, then what you have is a small amount of rich people deciding what work is going to get done and who gets to have a job, and all of that is based on what it can do for their pocket books. Are the wealthy not giving people jobs because they don’t have enough money? Considering the rich are richer than ever in history I don’t think any one can make that argument. They aren’t giving people jobs because they can make more money by not giving people jobs, giving them more money is not going to change that, all its going to do is empower them and take away from other options that might give people jobs.

How would not giving people jobs make the rich more money? First of all, many consider it more profitable to invest money in derivatives, and other capital market schemes that don’t add to production at all, don’t give people jobs at all and are really just making money from risk. Second of all high unemployment helps the rich, if your company is growing, and you have 5 guys hired, before you hire a 6th guy your going to work the 5 guys as much as you can, you’ll make the 5 guys work harder before your going to hire the 6th guy, why? Because you can, they aren’t going to complain because there’s a 6th guy willing to take your job. 10% unemployment is a dream for the business class, because with 10% unemployment the threat of loosing your job will take away any bargaining power from employees, meaning employers can drive up productivity while keeping wages stagnant.

There are many things you can do to make jobs, one thing, what I wrote about before in another post, put workers representatives in the board room, I explained in the past post how that would make jobs. Another thing, a 4 day week, a 6 hour workday, without loss of pay, that way the rich will have to hire more people, productivity won’t keep going up in comparison to wages, just creating more and more wealth for the rich without seeing any of the extra wealth. Or you can give that money to the poor through tax refunds, unemployment benefits, supporting unions, social security, because the poor are going to spend that money, thus driving up production, they aren’t going to use that money in crazy dividend markets or just keep it, chances are they are going to move the market more toward their demands rather than just the demands of the rich.

Another thing you can do is build a strong public sector. The right wing always point to public sector jobs as not counting, why? If it’s productive and aids in the wellbeing of the country it counts, in my opinion more public hospitals more teachers, count much much more than more stock brokers. I say socialize the big industries, socialize the banks, and run them for the benefit of the nation rather than the benefit of the rich. Instead of having the big industries continue to outsource, socialize them, keep the jobs in America, and put it under democratic control rather than control by the rich. Have the banks lend out to small businesses, rather than make crazy bets for themselves while freezing credit.

The problem in America is that the rich control the economy, giving them more control isn’t going to magically make them worry about the unemployed, it’s not going to make employing more profitable for them, and the solution is to take that control away from them and give it to the people.