Communist Party makes a comeback ... in Japan

dogtowner said:
refer to the state of education in America and its trajectory since the 60s. globalusm happened because what used to drive this country has been fading while being taken to heart by those outside our shores.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the state of education has to do with much of anything. If you are referring to the socializing of education, that would have to do with abortion, materialism, homosexuality, relativism, etc. If you are suggesting it has to do with an acceptance of socialism, perhaps. However, globalism has occurred due to greed, was promoted by Nixon, and to a degree Reagan, culminating with Clinton, and Bush, and now Obama. What is sad is that the so called "intellectual right" cannot see that it will destroy America as it once was.

Here is an article you might want to read. All of these conditions are now in place thanks to the Democrats, and Republicans.

http://www.gradesaver.com/communist-manifesto/study-guide/section2/

As for the suggestion that communists wish to abolish countries, Marx responds that this process is already occurring due to bourgeois efforts to expand free trade. Such globalization will continue as class consciousness develops across the proletariat of all nations. Marx even goes so far as to predict that antagonism between nations will vanish as class antagonisms fade away. Class defines one far more than nationality.

While Marx acknowledges that the revolution will be different in different countries, he includes an outline of its likely course in advanced capitalistic nations: (in Marx's words, 104)
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Kelo decision)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of the rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Federal Reserve, and the growth of its power in this latest recession)
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.(housing crisis pretty much did this)
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
 
Werbung:
OldTrapper said:
Admit to what? ?
Click to expand...


Not sure what the state of education has to do with much of anything.
Click to expand...

rewriting your own history ?

The state of education in the USofA is why we have to import labor / use robotics / outsource even minimally skilled labor. Our kids cant read, write, do math or science. But its some evil plot that the rest of the world is getting the business we cant compete at. Nah... education has nothing to do with nothing.
 
dogtowner said:
rewriting your own history ?

The state of education in the USofA is why we have to import labor / use robotics / outsource even minimally skilled labor. Our kids cant read, write, do math or science. But its some evil plot that the rest of the world is getting the business we cant compete at. Nah... education has nothing to do with nothing.
Click to expand...

You really have no clue as to how many IT's were fired by Microsoft alone so that Gates could import cheap labor from overseas. And somehow you think you are "informed" when you can't even read, or comprehend, the written word in this forum. Are you really so stupid as to think my asking you what I am to admit to is somehow "rewriting my own history"?

Yes stupidity is a problem as many of you are clearly demonstrating.

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/sto...es-bill-to-check-h1b-visa-fraud/1/193442.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

A few years ago, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer informed hundreds of tech workers at its Connecticut R&D facilities that they'd soon be laid off. Before getting their final paychecks, however, they'd need to train their replacements: guest workers from India who'd come to the United States on H-1B visas. "It's a very, very stressful work environment," one soon-to-be-axed worker told Connecticut's The Day newspaper. "I haven't been able to sleep in weeks."

<snip>

Of course, the big tech companies claim H-1B workers are their last resort, and that they can't find qualified Americans to fill jobs. Pressing to raise the visa cap last year, Microsoft pointed to 6,000 job openings at the company.

Yet if tech workers are in such short supply, why are so many of them unemployed or underpaid? According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), tech employment rates still haven't rebounded to pre-recession levels. And from 2001 to 2011, the mean hourly wage for computer programmers didn't even increase enough to beat inflation.

The ease of hiring H-1B workers certainly hasn't helped. More than 80 percent of H-1B visa holders are approved to be hired at wages below those paid to American-born workers for comparable positions, according to EPI. Experts who track labor conditions in the technology sector say that older, more expensive workers are particularly vulnerable to being undercut by their foreign counterparts. "You can be an exact match and never even get a phone call because you are too expensive," says Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California-Davis. "The minute that they see you've got 10 or 15 years of experience, they don't want you."

A 2007 study by the Urban Institute concluded that America was producing plenty of students with majors in science, technology, engineering, and math (the "STEM" professions)—many more than necessary to fill entry-level jobs. Yet Matloff sees this changing as H-1B workers cause Americans to major in more-lucrative fields such as law and business. "In terms of the number of people with graduate degrees in STEM," he says, "H-1B is the problem, not the solution."
 
OldTrapper said:
You really have no clue as to how many IT's were fired by Microsoft alone so that Gates could import cheap labor from overseas. And somehow you think you are "informed" when you can't even read, or comprehend, the written word in this forum. Are you really so stupid as to think my asking you what I am to admit to is somehow "rewriting my own history"?

Yes stupidity is a problem as many of you are clearly demonstrating.

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/sto...es-bill-to-check-h1b-visa-fraud/1/193442.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

A few years ago, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer informed hundreds of tech workers at its Connecticut R&D facilities that they'd soon be laid off. Before getting their final paychecks, however, they'd need to train their replacements: guest workers from India who'd come to the United States on H-1B visas. "It's a very, very stressful work environment," one soon-to-be-axed worker told Connecticut's The Day newspaper. "I haven't been able to sleep in weeks."

<snip>

Of course, the big tech companies claim H-1B workers are their last resort, and that they can't find qualified Americans to fill jobs. Pressing to raise the visa cap last year, Microsoft pointed to 6,000 job openings at the company.

Yet if tech workers are in such short supply, why are so many of them unemployed or underpaid? According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), tech employment rates still haven't rebounded to pre-recession levels. And from 2001 to 2011, the mean hourly wage for computer programmers didn't even increase enough to beat inflation.

The ease of hiring H-1B workers certainly hasn't helped. More than 80 percent of H-1B visa holders are approved to be hired at wages below those paid to American-born workers for comparable position
, according to EPI. Experts who track labor conditions in the technology sector say that older, more expensive workers are particularly vulnerable to being undercut by their foreign counterparts. "You can be an exact match and never even get a phone call because you are too expensive," says Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California-Davis. "The minute that they see you've got 10 or 15 years of experience, they don't want you."

A 2007 study by the Urban Institute concluded that America was producing plenty of students with majors in science, technology, engineering, and math (the "STEM" professions)—many more than necessary to fill entry-level jobs. Yet Matloff sees this changing as H-1B workers cause Americans to major in more-lucrative fields such as law and business. "In terms of the number of people with graduate degrees in STEM," he says, "H-1B is the problem, not the solution."
Click to expand...


wake up on the wrong side of the bed again ?

fyi, most of microsoft's workforce is overseas and the reason being its cheaper. it people have become priced out of the market, happens. at least as significantly they t3nd to lag on technology while those countries who value education see to it that the hungry among them get what they need to compete. thank y2k for that as it drove normal countries to look for help anywhere they could find it. India anticipated this some years before andlaid a foundation that became the tech monster it is at a perfect time.

I gather you take issue with companies looking to compete by cost containment. but as most people know, failure to compete is death.
 
dogtowner said:
wake up on the wrong side of the bed again ?

fyi, most of microsoft's workforce is overseas and the reason being its cheaper. it people have become priced out of the market, happens. at least as significantly they t3nd to lag on technology while those countries who value education see to it that the hungry among them get what they need to compete. thank y2k for that as it drove normal countries to look for help anywhere they could find it. India anticipated this some years before andlaid a foundation that became the tech monster it is at a perfect time.

I gather you take issue with companies looking to compete by cost containment. but as most people know, failure to compete is death.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are mistaking MicroSoft with Apple. Not sure what your comment has to do with with the point being made though. One of you more "informed" people made the comment about how Americans had become lazy, and dependent on government, and just plain too stupid to do the job. I used Microsoft as an example of how cheap labor was being imported INTO the country by the corporations, and you come back with this insane comment?

Now you want to blame Y2K for it, and not the greed of the corporations. Without the US exporting its jobs neither India, nor China, would be the economic powers they are. It was our technology, our innovation, and our own ignorance, that created those "monsters", and now you would whine because Americans are becoming more dependent on government.

Do you even have a clue as to how much poverty there is in either of those countries? Is it your dream, as it is for many corporations, that Americans should work for 3 dollars an hour, or even three dollars a day? Do you take pride in seeing the economy of the US destroyed by the greed of the multi-national corporation?

Try proving something I said wrong for a change with reality, not your fanciful distractions, which is the usual manner in which people of your mentality do.

Oh yeah. Obama created Y2K now, along with the poor education we have in this country. Reagan with his DoEd, and Bush with his "No Child Left Behind", had nothing to do with it.
 
OldTrapper said:
I suspect you are mistaking MicroSoft with Apple. Not sure what your comment has to do with with the point being made though. One of you more "informed" people made the comment about how Americans had become lazy, and dependent on government, and just plain too stupid to do the job. I used Microsoft as an example of how cheap labor was being imported INTO the country by the corporations, and you come back with this insane comment?

Now you want to blame Y2K for it, and not the greed of the corporations. Without the US exporting its jobs neither India, nor China, would be the economic powers they are. It was our technology, our innovation, and our own ignorance, that created those "monsters", and now you would whine because Americans are becoming more dependent on government.

Do you even have a clue as to how much poverty there is in either of those countries? Is it your dream, as it is for many corporations, that Americans should work for 3 dollars an hour, or even three dollars a day? Do you take pride in seeing the economy of the US destroyed by the greed of the multi-national corporation?

Try proving something I said wrong for a change with reality, not your fanciful distractions, which is the usual manner in which people of your mentality do.

Oh yeah. Obama created Y2K now, along with the poor education we have in this country. Reagan with his DoEd, and Bush with his "No Child Left Behind", had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Apple does as well and both followed IBM opening offices there. Its my line of work so Ivw been keeping up with this for some time. I was the more informed one you refer to. And you are correct in that assessment. May want to rethink motherjones as an unbuased presenter of fact since you cat discern whether what they state is real or not.
 
dogtowner said:
Apple does as well and both followed IBM opening offices there. Its my line of work so Ivw been keeping up with this for some time. I was the more informed one you refer to. And you are correct in that assessment. May want to rethink motherjones as an unbuased presenter of fact since you cat discern whether what they state is real or not.
Click to expand...

Just as a question, and since the board is dying a slow death, do you have any idea of what ethics are when it comes to running a business? Do you have any idea of what actually stifles, or destroys, free markets? How about competition? People speak of bringing back "{shame" in regards to welfare, etc. How about bringing back "shame" when it comes to greed?

MotherJones, like any other site, gets somethings wrong, and other things right. In this case it is right.

You might try reading this entire article.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/

The old notion was that a relatively affluent middle class would contribute to the creation of profitable businesses because average people could afford to buy consumer goods, own their own homes and take an annual vacation with the kids. That “middle-class system,” however, required intervention by the government as the representative of the everyman.

Beyond building a strong infrastructure for growth – highways, airports, schools, research programs, a safe banking system, a common defense, etc. – the government imposed a progressive tax structure that helped pay for these priorities and also discouraged the accumulation of massive wealth.
After all, the threat to a healthy democracy from concentrated wealth had been known to American leaders for generations.

A century ago, it was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who advocated for a progressive income tax and an estate tax. In the 1930s, it was Democratic
President Franklin Roosevelt, who dealt with the economic and societal carnage that under-regulated financial markets inflicted on the nation during the Great Depression.

With those hard lessons learned, the federal government acted on behalf of the common citizen to limit Wall Street’s freewheeling ways and to impose high tax rates on excessive wealth.

So, during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency of the 1950s, the marginal tax rate on the top tranche of earnings for the richest Americans was about 90 percent. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top rate was still around 70 percent.

Discouraging Greed

Greed was not simply frowned upon; it was discouraged.

Put differently, government policy was to maintain some degree of egalitarianism within the U.S. political-economic system. And to a remarkable degree, the strategy worked.

The American middle class became the envy of the world, with otherwise average folk earning enough money to support their families comfortably and enjoy some pleasures of life that historically had been reserved only for the rich.
 
OldTrapper said:
Just as a question, and since the board is dying a slow death, do you have any idea of what ethics are when it comes to running a business? Do you have any idea of what actually stifles, or destroys, free markets? How about competition? People speak of bringing back "{shame" in regards to welfare, etc. How about bringing back "shame" when it comes to greed?

MotherJones, like any other site, gets somethings wrong, and other things right. In this case it is right.

You might try reading this entire article.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/

The old notion was that a relatively affluent middle class would contribute to the creation of profitable businesses because average people could afford to buy consumer goods, own their own homes and take an annual vacation with the kids. That “middle-class system,” however, required intervention by the government as the representative of the everyman.

Beyond building a strong infrastructure for growth – highways, airports, schools, research programs, a safe banking system, a common defense, etc. – the government imposed a progressive tax structure that helped pay for these priorities and also discouraged the accumulation of massive wealth.
After all, the threat to a healthy democracy from concentrated wealth had been known to American leaders for generations.

A century ago, it was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who advocated for a progressive income tax and an estate tax. In the 1930s, it was Democratic
President Franklin Roosevelt, who dealt with the economic and societal carnage that under-regulated financial markets inflicted on the nation during the Great Depression.

With those hard lessons learned, the federal government acted on behalf of the common citizen to limit Wall Street’s freewheeling ways and to impose high tax rates on excessive wealth.

So, during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency of the 1950s, the marginal tax rate on the top tranche of earnings for the richest Americans was about 90 percent. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top rate was still around 70 percent.

Discouraging Greed

Greed was not simply frowned upon; it was discouraged.

Put differently, government policy was to maintain some degree of egalitarianism within the U.S. political-economic system. And to a remarkable degree, the strategy worked.

The American middle class became the envy of the world, with otherwise average folk earning enough money to support their families comfortably and enjoy some pleasures of life that historically had been reserved only for the rich.
Click to expand...


A lovely fantasy you have there trap.

America thrived for so long because we were home to innovention. This was born of freedom. When govt chose to interfere that ebbed to where we are mostly lost in that area.

Govt is never the solution and is almost 3xclusively the problem.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top