OWS/99% want economic justice? What`s economic justice?

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
tayl44's picture

The answer for me is, for somebody with $1 to have equal rights with somebody who have a million dollars. A true democracy, all should have equal rights,but our voting rights have no equality to economic rights.That is a problem! Public bank is the solution! Any other ideas??


To me that isn't economic

To me that isn't economic justice.  That is democracy.  Economic justice, for me, is about the following:

1.  Potential economic outcomes are not demarcated by ascriptive qualities of humans.  IE - equal pay for equal work.  Women and minorities don't get paid 70 cents on the $1 white males earn.

2.  That all human beings have the RIGHT to a basic level of subsistence.  IE - the elmination of poverty.

Those I think are pretty easy to get on board with.  The next one may be more divisive:

3.  That NO ONE has the right to siphon profit from another person's labor.  IE the elmination of Capitalism and all other forms of indentured servitude or slavery.

I will have to think if there is more...


I'm glad that you mentioned

I'm glad that you mentioned this. I truly need an education in this area, because I simply do not get it. I don't understand the thinking or the reasoning.

1. Unless a position is a union position, there is nothing to prevent equal pay for all under our current economic system. Before you begin spouting statistics, I have seen them and I acknowledge that statistically women do make less than their male counterparts. What I don't get is, why would a woman or anyone else, who believes they are worth more, stand for making less? Why wouldn't you simply demand a raise and if you can't get one - quit? We are all free to do just that. I myself have done it a few times. I've found better paying employment, gave my current employer the opportunity to match it and then moved on when they couldn't match it.

Those that would like to write equal pay in to law concern me. What happens if I have a guy who's been with me for 25 years as an employee and can literally do every job in the company? For this advantage, I pay him a little more than I pay the other truck drivers. Now, business is up and I need to hire a truck driver. A female applicant is the most qualified, but I know under law I have to pay her the same as I do my 25 year guy who can step in to many other positions if I need him to. I think I'll skip hiring the woman and, in fact, maybe I won't hire at all. I'll subcontract the work and let someone else deal with the problem.

2. The average American has no idea what it means to be truly poor. Get out and see the world and you will quickly realize that if you have to be poor, be poor in the USA.

3. If you don't like "the siphoning" as you put it, go in to business for yourself, take a risk. But don't just sit back safely and demand more from the guy who mortgaged his house and worked 20 hour days to get the business started. And again, see item 1, go somewhere else if you are worth more.


Preach brother!

Preach brother!

tayl44's picture
Ah2,the point of the thread

Ah2,the point of the thread is to definition of "economic democracy"? We still have problems defining political rights,i could imagine the problems with economic rights.Example post #3,the view here of labor is the same as the master view of slavery during the confederacy. Half a million died to change that view,and we was the only country that had a Civil War over the issue,have we learn any lessons?? The 1776 revolution was about political equality,all was suppose to have a chance to "lead".(no matter what their position in society) The economic kings done replace the political kings now,seeing how Cons. think,they see themselfs as kings of the system,the workers have no say. We have a conflict here like before,we let the morality of "All men are created equal",the same should apply now. Whether i have a dollar or a million,that shouldn`t give me more rights then the next man. Have we learn anything Cons. ?? 

I posted #3. To compare

I posted #3. To compare today's workforce with slave labor is, at best, a stretch and, at worst, offensive to those who endured slavery and the subsequent aftermath of discrimination. Today's labor force enjoys a great deal of opportunity and protection. We, as a nation, are more productive than ever before and safer. Either through regulatory compliance or fear of financial implicaitons, today's corporations go to great lengths to insure the safety of their workers. I'm sure someone will cite an example of a company that grossly violated the previous comment. I don't doubt they exist. However, on the whole, today's companies do not want the hassle or the economic impact associated with  an injured (or worse) employee or an environmental catastrophe.

Further to your comment, can you provide a single, factual example of an instance where you (or anyone else) were denied a "right" due to their economic situation? The arguement that the wealthy get all the breaks strikes me as an excuse to underperform in any given endeaver. "I would be so much more successful, but the system is rigged to give all the advantages to the wealthy." That's a comment I've heard far too often. Yes, with more money, you can afford a better lawyer and fight a longer legal battle. Yes, with more money, you can afford a better safer car and therefore have a better chance of surviving a crash. Yes, with more money, you can afford a better, bigger, newer and safer home in a better neighborhood. You can get a better education. Better medical care. And so on. My question is, who is preventing you from having or doing these things. No one. Except maybe you.

Call me simplistic, but in my world there are only two kinds of people. There are those who see others and think, how do that? How do I get that wealthy, how do I get that successful, how do I paint a picture, write a novel, build a home or how do I live my dream whatever it is.  And then there are those who look and simply say, that person has too much and should give some to me. No thought of trying, no thought that maybe that person went through the same struggles that you currently have and he/she might be able to give some insight. Just, what don't I have and when will they give it to me.




Conservative_Thom_Fan wrote:

Further to your comment, can you provide a single, factual example of an instance where you (or anyone else) were denied a "right" due to their economic situation? 

Yes, with more money, you can afford a better, bigger, newer and safer home in a better neighborhood. You can get a better education.

Yes. I live in Los Angeles.  There are only a handful, perhaps less than 20 communities where it is safe to raise a family and send your kids to a decent public school. That wasn't true 30 years ago.  Don't get me started on public parks and beaches.

Luckily, I can afford to live in one.  I am highly educated, highly skilled, and highly compensated. And my home is a hovel.

Economic injustice is changing the rules.

tayl44's picture
Conserv.you see what you want

Conserv.you see what you want to see,you put whatever label you want on it. It`s a real waste of time to try to communicate with people with a limited view of reality. Keep believing 1% vs 99% is normal,may God have mercy on you!  

chilidog, While I understand


While I understand your point, and in fact, agree with you on the economic injustice aspect you describe, I can't make the leap that your "rights" have been infringed. While a community may not be safe or offer good schools, those communities still provide basic services, police, fire and free education. And I think you've touched on possibly the stickiest of issues, education. Both parties are so intrenched in their views of what is necessary to fix education that I can't see a resolution in my lifetime. The Dems are far too attached to the teacher's unions to allow meaniful change. The Republicans, too much in love with vouchers in my view. Throwing money at the present system is not the answer. Education is such a personal experience and we have created this blanket system that is failing. Until we, as a nation, can acknowledge that some schools require more because they lack the community/parent support and that some teachers are just incompentent, I see no cure.

I really wonder if increased teachers salaries haven't been part of the problem in some cases. Not that long, teachers were grossly underpaid to the point that many worked second jobs or summer jobs to get buy. If you wanted to teach, you really needed a calling because the financial benefits weren't there. Now, salaries have risen and in some states, like mine, you can make a very nice (even six figure) salary as a teacher. So maybe, the person that should be working in the private sector is now teaching. Why not, the salary is competive, benefits are great and you get summers off. Now, before I'm blasted for suggesting salaries be reduced, I'm not. I think they should be paid a professional salary. I think we need to do a better job hiring and evaluating throughout their careers.

Thank you for the kind

Thank you for the kind blessing. May God bless you as well.

I will review my earlier posts, but I do not believe I made any reference to the 1% being a state of normal. In fact, if you do look at some earlier posts, I have no objection to raising taxes. I do have concerns regarding wasteful and misguided spending. I'm not a 1%er, and I have no issue with taxes increasing provided we spend wisely. Unfortunately, wise spending does seem to be something that Washington can handle.

I hope you do want to pursue

I hope you do want to pursue some self-guided education on economics and society so you can find a better way of seeing how things work.  It will help relieve you of the bipolar "go getter (maker) v. whiner (taker)" meme that infects your perspective.

If you are talking about those who see other people making money and decide that they want some of that action, I would suggest investment banking rather than writing a book.  Do not practice a musical instrument or hope that a career in art will give you Warholdom.  Talent is only a small part of celebrity, must as business smarts are only going to make billiions if you get a consciencectopy.

The Progressive vision is shared prosperity, not enforced austerity.  Good economics tells us that money must circulate through the economy (and the economy must include the society) to stay healthy and in balance.  The idea that social programs and good ecological investments deprive "commerce" of the capital it needs to create jobs ignores all the jobs and savings made by efficiency and not having to clean up the wastes.  Public and private are interactive economically, and commerce needs a state maintaining the infrastructure for transportation, communication and finance.  If the point is to have a democracy, then the economy must not sabotage the politics.

I had to laugh at "teachers' salaries" being part of the problem.  I wish.  Just go to the investment banker category and find them all "overpaid" for doing what balances out as harm rather than good.

Check the corporate lawyer, particularly tax and stock specialists.  Good at fiduciary, but not at much more in the responsibility category.

I think there are padded salaries and deadwood in public institutions, but mainly where they serve the corporados rather than the public.  

Try David Korten AGENDA FOR A NEW ECONOMY to clean out some old lint.

I make the leap that my

I make the leap that my rights have been infringed, because my family's quality of life should be better than that of our parents.  And it isn't.  Neither of our mothers worked, both of our fathers worked at unskilled jobs, both of us were raised in neighborhoods that were working-class but clean, safe, and had acceptable public schools.  Those neighborhoods are slums today, the neighborhoods that used to be middle class are either as bad as the neighborhood I grew up in, or they've remained middle class with large majorities of Asian immigrants. (Not that there's anything wrong with that - the public schools with large majorities of Caucasian kids are abysmal.)


tayl44's picture
Cons.if you was bless,you

Cons.if you was bless,you would need no mercy.But with your close mind,you need all the mercy you can get. You think capitalism that create 1% & 99% is ok,you turn a blind eye to reasons for capitalism failures.When one have their head in the sand with a truck coming at them,i might want to turn a "blind eye" or say "R.I.P."!    Drc2, you know what the 1% representatives going to do with your wise/intelligent post,they will nitpick one little thing and take it out of context to start a "rope a dope" argument. I wonder how have the 1%/representatives become so "insane"?? Is it the money?

drc2 wrote: I had to laugh at

drc2 wrote:

I had to laugh at "teachers' salaries" being part of the problem.  I wish.  Just go to the investment banker category and find them all "overpaid" for doing what balances out as harm rather than good.

Check the corporate lawyer, particularly tax and stock specialists.  Good at fiduciary, but not at much more in the responsibility category.

I think there are padded salaries and deadwood in public institutions, but mainly where they serve the corporados rather than the public.  

You've missed my point and I never said teachers were overpaid. Our education system is not improving and yet we spend more money on it every year including increasing teacher salaries. Again, perhaps the spending is misguided. There was a time when you had to have a real calling to teach because the financial gains just weren't there. Maybe the answer is to raise the salaries even higher, increase the competition for the jobs and then only select the best and the brightest. The current plan is not working.

Comparing corporate lawyers and investment bankers to public sector teaching jobs? I don't see the correlation. What a private firm chooses to pay is really not within my control or my concern.

Choco's picture
Conservative wrote

Conservative wrote


Comparing corporate lawyers and investment bankers to public sector teaching jobs? I don't see the correlation. What a private firm chooses to pay is really not within my control or my concern.

The problem stems from the dark side of capitalism. The ability and incentive to make a profit for a corporate CEO, board members and stockholders no matter the costs to others. So when profits are the primary goal, then environmental standards, labor standards, civil rights standards, are all sacrificed in the name of Almighty Profit. This sociopathic blind pursuit of money and the power and social status that comes with money has become a worldwide religion. Pursuit of profit is sacrosanct and others with more equitable ideas about the economy are targets of the financial inquisitors. Those who do nothing, who make nothing, who simply exchage other people's hard earned money and collect a percentage on the volume are now at the top of the food chain. To make matters worse, they wage war on the middle class producers of goods and services even while leeching off their labor and applied inteligence. Capitalistic parasites have always been endemic in society, now they are an infestation, ubiquitous, a pestilence upon the world. The working class is begrudged of a living wage by the parasites, no discretionary income any longer. Small business die as a result throwing more people to the wrong side of the financial fast tracks. The parasites consume the host they feed upon.

Respectfully, I must disagree

Respectfully, I must disagree with your position. Your stereotypical description of corporate American, while popular is simply inaccurate. The rhetoric of "Wall Street" and the demonizaiton of "Corporate American and CEO's" may be deserved in some cases, but it is not the norm. I can agree that profits are the primary goal of most businesses. However to say that profitablity comes at the sacrifice of environmenta, labor and civil rights is highly inaccurate. First, much of this is regulated. Secondly, no corporation wants the negative attention associated with a failure to meet theses standards. It's bad for profits. Describing corporate leaders as "do-nothing", "make nothing", "money changers" is also inaccurate. In order for a company to be profitable, those corporate leaders must put a company in position to be profitable. Countless decisions must be thoroughly evaluated and implemented to do so. You've clearly never sat in a board room and had to make the difficult calls to cut spending, close facilities or layoff workers. Or, taken the risky calls of expanding production, building new facilities or hiring. Having said that, even I believe the pay levels for the top are extreme. However, currently this is dictated by the market.

As for the "war on the middle class", there may be a war, but it is not being driven by corporate America. The corporate world needs consumers in order to survive. Destroying the middle class doesn't make good business sense. If you want to look for a villian with an incentive to hammer the middle class, look at your state and federal government. The rich don't need them and, in fact, push them around, the poor are highly dependant on the government, the middle class is a problem for them. Take a look at history. Disent has always arisen from a strong or strengthening middle class. Frankly, who else would resist? The rich are clearly satisfied with the status quo - their rich!, the poor are more concerned about their next meal or light bill - no time for revolution. It's the middle class that has always been at the forefront. Look back as recently as the 60's. The social revolution that took place was driven by the middle class unhappy with the status quo.

You know, there was a guy in the 30's and 40's who convinced his country the all of their problems were because of one wealthy segment of the population. If we could just get rid of that segment of the population, your life would be better.

tayl44's picture
Cons,you keep living up to

Cons,you keep living up to your limited view,you don`t expand or free your mind,your problems will get "bigger"! Whose the problem,the 1% or capitalism?? You say government is the problem? If that`s the right answer,why cannot you solve it?

I think we've all been trying

I think we've all been trying to solve the "government problem" for a long time and largely without success. That is precisely the reason the Tea Party started. I'm not talking about today's new and improved, slicker version. In the very beginning, the Tea Party was trying to tell Washington, we've had enough. You aren't taking another penny and spending it on some misguided adventure. Sadly, I think that's changed. However, having tried other means, I now subscribe to the "starve the beast" theory to some degree.

And for those of you who still believe that government is on your side. Who were the first people/jobs cut when county, state, city and federal budgets were slashed? Did they cut the Director of Parks and Recreation or did they cut programs and the custodial staff? Did the Director of you DOT take a pay cut or did they layoff highway workers and subcontract the work? Did Superintendents and Principals lose jobs or did they cut the teaching and support staff?

So, tayl44, YOU keep believing YOUR limited view.

rigel1's picture
ah2 wrote: 2.  That all human

ah2 wrote:

2.  That all human beings have the RIGHT to a basic level of subsistence.  IE - the elmination of poverty..

1) Where do you find this "right"? There is no right to have others take care of you. No human being has a "right" to someone else's income. If that is the case, I should be expecting a check from Micheal Moore any day now.

2) Who decides? Who gets to make the decision regarding what a basic level is? Can I do it?

3) There are people in this world who do not want to take care of them selves. Is it up to us to assure that they have an easy life? No! If someone has six kids with  five different baby daddies things should not be easy for them. Decisions have consequences.

4) If a poor person cannot fill up his gas tank, and you have a credit card, shouldn't he have a "right" to use your credit card?

5) If the government decides that everyone deserves an easy life, then what is the incentive to go out and be productive? Sorry, but someone working at Walmart or not working at all should not expect to be middle class. If you want to pay someone the who is not working the same amount of money that a hard working auto mechanic is making then why in the hell would anyone bother to get a job?

Equal opportunity is not

Equal opportunity is not equal results!

tayl44's picture
Cons,i have a solution to the

Cons,i have a solution to the government problem,you don`t,that mean your limited view cannot see the solution. You want the soulution,"free/expand" your mind!   Rig, you love that "dog eat dog" morality,you people need to go back to the "stone-age" or live in one of these modern "stateless nations". You guys should be "right at home",nobody to worry about,just yourselfs.