Democracy

[LizzieMaine]

History has shown that capital will act collectively in any way possible, regardless of the law, in order to protect its privileged position, using the bourgeoisie as its instrument. Collective organization and action on the part of labor is a necessary act of self defense.

As far as the thread itself goes, we've all been conducting ourselves as adults so far -- which in this day and age is an act of astonishing rarity. So there is that, at least. Where else on the internet can a Browderite and a Randite have a civil, theoretical conversation without it turning into blood on the walls?

 

[Fading Fast]

...As far as the thread itself goes, we've all been conducting ourselves as adults so far -- which in this day and age is an act of astonishing rarity. So there is that, at least. Where else on the internet can a Browderite and a Randite have a civil, theoretical conversation without it turning into blood on the walls?

Agreed and I greatly respect that and you. And I enjoy our exchanges. I just also want to be respectful to FL's rules and other members as I view it a privilege not a right that I am allowed to post here.

 

[BlueTrain]

There are serious questions about exactly how much risk some of those entrepreneurs are actually taking. Not the little guys, but the big, big guys. There are government loans and bailouts. It gets complicated, of course, because there are so many people involved.

There is another point I'd like to make and this is social, not political at all. It might have something to do with democracy. It might have something to do with politics but not necessarily.

I believe the rich and especially the very rich, may have mistaken ideas about the way the rest of us live, think, and so on. Again this is not something new. It predates Marx (Karl, that is). Some of it may have been a little romantic, like the way Jefferson (Thomas, that is) viewed "yeoman" farmers. Supposedly some slave owners were astonished that former slaves left the old plantation as soon as they could. Ford (Henry, that is) was surprised when his factory workers went on strike and were a little violent and destructive. Likewise, some employers, but by no means all, think their employees should be grateful that they have a job. They probably are but not quite in the way the boss imagined. It's probably a good thing they don't really know what their employees are thinking.

But you can't go to jail for what you're thinking.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Old Henry, of course, had no problems at all with using the brutal thug Harry Bennett and his private goon squad to enforce the proper attitude of obsequious gratitude on his valued employees. Given the level of physical brutality imposed on the Ford workforce in the 1920s and 1930s, Henry was lucky he didn't get hauled out for a necktie party at the Overpass.

 

[Paisley]

I believe there needs to be better cooperation between the government (any and all government), unions and potential employers. But we've never had anything like that before, so it isn't likely we'll have it anytime soon. Perhaps part of the problem is that it's a big country and employers are far more mobile than workers, especially those with no jobs. It's like they are reluctant to leave the place where they were born and grew up and I can understand that, but the work won't come to them.

Companies certainly seem more willing to move today. I wouldn't say they're more able than individuals or families, who for the most part don't have to worry about anything but themselves. Yet I read recently that Americans move far less than they did a few generations ago. My ancestors didn't stay in one state for more than a generation; my parents moved some 30 times (Dad followed construction projects across the West in his younger days). I carried on the tradition when I moved to another state for purely economic reasons, but I'm one of only about three or four relatives my age to do so.

 

[BlueTrain]

Seems to me that it's more about society than government and politics. Didn't start out that way, though.

These things most recently discussed, like companies moving around, happens without any government involvement. At least in theory. It is true that local and state governments sometimes do things to encourage companies to locate there but that isn't politics. That's economics. Whether or not it's a good idea might be politics, though, so I won't talk about it.

Perhaps people have a longing for more stability in their lives than people have really had, historically, in this country. The larger a country is, the more people are going to move around, too. Why companies relocate their operations is another story, though, and probably the reasons are many and complex. Although it sounds logical for a company to relocate a plant to take advantage of cheaper labor, which is presumably the main reason company move operations overseas, there would probably not be any place with a lot of people looking for work with the right skills (and work habits). But perhaps there is. Typically, a new factory will draw potential employees from more than just the local area. It's even more true for things like mining and other extraction industries.

It has nothing to do with politics and, as far as I can tell, with democracy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Around here, the situation seems just the opposite -- people move now more than they did in the past. Traditionally, New England people are deeply deeply rooted to particular areas, and we don't give up those roots without a fight. I went to California when I was twenty, *hated* it, and came home after six months -- and I expect, one way or another, to die here. I don't expect it to be easy, especially as I get older, but it's my community, it's my *home,* and that's just the way it is.

But younger people, even those from families with deep local roots, seem to be more willing to just up and leave if they can't find exactly the circumstances they want. Which is not good for the communities they leave behind,because no community can survive very long with nothing but middle-aged people and retirees. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of destruction.

As far as the thread goes, theoretical/historical discussion has always been allowed, but specific current politics is not. Nobody here is discussing you-know-who, for example, but if he came up that would be deleted.

 

[Fading Fast]

Like BlueTrain, my goal here is to thread the needle and talk about social / economic issues not politics. One "funny" related thing is that I clearly remember the mid-'90s predictions that cities were going to "depopulate" as the, then new, internet would allow people to work anywhere, so why would one bother with the long commutes or higher living expenses of the city when one could live in the open and less expensive parts of the country without all the "hassles" of city living or commuting.

Well, twenty years later and we all know how that prediction worked out. Cities are more popular than ever as "STEM" workers / Millennials / etc. like to cluster in cities for the lifestyle (no car, restaurants, cultural stuff, etc.) and the jobs (companies - Hartford Insurance is a recent example - are moving their headquarters to major cities or at least opening up large offices in them to attract the young talent they need). And companies are reducing work-from-home initiatives as studies show (no idea if they are correct) workers are more productive when they interact face to face and the logistics costs of satellite workers is greater than the real estate saves (again, just what I've read).

The "depopulating" of the city argument seemed really sound at the time - and even looking back, it doesn't look silly, to me - but it was wrong. Another trend, though, is that even though the young are quite willing to move, as several above have noted, the country has become less mobile, presumably because the middle aged and elderly are less willing to move (creating the community risk Lizzie notes).

 

[Paisley]

My boss at Adidas was from a family who'd been in Massachusetts since their ancestors got off the Mayflower. He moved because because of the price of housing--$300,000 for a very average house. I moved because of the cost of housing, too, but I think we're the exceptions. Everybody thought I was nuts to move from Denver to Indianapolis, but financially, it was a good deal.

Young people in general seem to be flocking to expensive areas like Denver. My dentist there told me many of his patients who were retiring were moving to less expensive areas in the South and the Midwest.

Oddly, I see not only a lot of license plates from Illinois and Ohio, but New York.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Around here, the situation seems just the opposite -- people move now more than they did in the past. Traditionally, New England people are deeply deeply rooted to particular areas, and we don't give up those roots without a fight. I went to California when I was twenty, *hated* it, and came home after six months -- and I expect, one way or another, to die here. I don't expect it to be easy, especially as I get older, but it's my community, it's my *home,* and that's just the way it is.

But younger people, even those from families with deep local roots, seem to be more willing to just up and leave if they can't find exactly the circumstances they want. Which is not good for the communities they leave behind,because no community can survive very long with nothing but middle-aged people and retirees. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of destruction.

There is a part of me that buys into that mentality, but having married an Army brat who, literally, "grew up around the world," I have been reminded regularly for the last three decades how limited my 4th generation Chicagoan perspective can be. Thus, we plan on pulling up stakes in a few and retiring elsewhere. I'd never move to the American South or the Southwest, for a number of reasons. The last thing that we want to do is move to a region that draws the old fogies like flies: we prefer being around people of all ages. Crying babies may be a nuisance, but geriatrics crabbing about how terrible things have become are insufferable. And by golly, if that means higher taxes for better schools for those families with kids, so be it.

But we're looking forward to resettling to the Pacific Northwest. I intend to be active and fit, and to enjoy life to its fullest in a vibrant region in retirement, and having seen the PNW on there recent vacation to Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver BC respectively, I'm sold on the region. Don't get me wrong: if I ended up spending the rest of my days here and dying in Chicago I could enjoy every minute up to my demise. There is always something new to do and see, but if we stay here that will always be a drama unfolding on a familiar stage. I really believe that as you age, it's especially important to push yourself to learn new things and experience new horizons. We hope to find that even in "old age."

 

[Harp]

.... if I ended up spending the rest of my days here and dying in Chicago I could enjoy every minute up to my demise. There is always something new to do and see, but if we stay here that will always be a drama unfolding on a familiar stage.

I left Chicago as a teenager, saw the world, and now happily back in the 'hood, quite content.
I love this particular stage, though I have thought about relocating to New England, which has always interested me.

 

[Fading Fast]

I am a perfect example of moving for work. I grew up in Central Jersey, but if I wanted a career in finance, New York City was all but a requirement, especially back in the '80s when "The Street" was much more physical (paper transactions, physical securities, exchanges populated by people, not computers) and centered around Wall Street.

So after enduring 2-hour-each-way commutes, when I finally could, I moved into the city. Then, in the mid '90s, when Wall Street contracted hard, the firm I work for went out of business and the best opportunity I could find was opening up a trading department for a Boston-based bank, so up to Boston it was.

Then, in '04 - my entire line of business was shut down after said Boston bank merged three times in eight years (I kid you not) - I was offered a position running a wealth management trading and structured products area, but it was New York City based, so back to NYC I came (this move I loved).

I could not have the career I have, if I hadn't been willing to move. Did I love doing it, no, but job one for me is having a job. I now work for myself, in part, so that I don't have to move again (hopefully).

My mom is a perfect example of moving to improve one's finances when they retire.

She lived in New Jersey her entire life, but after my dad died, she asked me to handle her affairs (not that much there, but still plenty of work since she, until then, hadn't even balanced a check book - she can now, I have only so much time).

It quickly became clear to me that she had to get out of the house in Central Jersey (no mortgage) and move somewhere less expensive so that I could free up some capital to help her income while also reducing her overhead. She chose Phoenix which lead to me flying out to buy a condo for her in one hectic week.

It's now twenty five years later and that move was crucial as the house overhead by now would have overwhelmed her modest resources and the freed up capital wouldn't have had twenty-five years to grow. That move was key to her having a relatively comfortable retirement.

I would never have left NYC and my mom would never have left NJ except for financial need and, while hard, both moves were the right decisions for us.

 

[BlueTrain]

Access to transportation has always enabled people to move more easily if they wanted to. Better communication only adds to it. This is in addition to general trends in populations, which is this country, is mostly all about moving west. Even then, people, especially men, were moving around in an effort to make a lot of money or simply to be employed.

 

[Paisley]

When my mother became unable to take care of her finances, she had me take care of them. I got scam charges off her credit cards, switched a high interest rate credit card to a 0% interest one, recommended she have an estate sale after Dad died, and tried to protect her from predatory relatives. Unfortunately, I had relatives going behind, around and in front of me actively making messes and at one point accusing me of elder abuse. (The county found no basis for the accusations.) Mom tried to please everyone when she should have told them to &%(* off, because "family is everything!" I can't help someone who won't help herself.

Getting away from all that craziness wasn't the reason I moved a thousand miles away, but it's been a wonderful bonus.

 

[sheeplady]

In academia, many of the older generation (65+) have stayed relatively close to where they were from, often in the same state or a few hours away. This is particularly true for those working for less prestigious institutions and in less prestigious sub-categories of the profession (such as un-tenured lecturers).

Among those under 60, and particularly under 40, and want any type of job in academia you have to do a nationwide search. Even the less prestigious full-time jobs are often few and far between. And it will be your connections that get you the interview. Chances are you will land at an institution where you know someone well... or your advisor does.

While more mobility is great, it is difficult to be in a career where you know you will more than likely end up someplace away from social support, particularly if you want to have children.

 

[belfastboy]

There is a part of me that buys into that mentality, but having married an Army brat who, literally, "grew up around the world," I have been remiex pence gularly for the last three decades how limited my 4th generation Chicagoan perspective can be. Thus, we plan on pulling up stakes in a few and retiring elsewhere. I'd never move to the American South or the Southwest, for a number of reasons. The last thing that we want to do is move to a region that draws the old fogies like flies: we prefer being around people of all ages. Crying babies may be a nuisance, but geriatrics crabbing about how terrible things have become are insufferable. And by golly, if that means higher taxes for better schools for those families with kids, so be it.

But we're looking forward to resettling to the Pacific Northwest. I intend to be active and fit, and to enjoy life to its fullest in a vibrant region in retirement, and having seen the PNW on there recent vacation to Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver BC respectively, I'm sold on the region. Don't get me wrong: if I ended up spending the rest of my days here and dying in Chicago I could enjoy every minute up to my demise. There is always something new to do and see, but if we stay here that will always be a drama unfolding on a familiar stage. I really believe that as you age, it's especially important to push yourself to learn new things and experience new horizons. We hope to find that even in "old age."

Washington and Oregon have wonderful small towns. College towns that are small but have that influence. And the house prices are attractive. We would move to one of them in a heartbeat save for expense of healthcare.

 

[Edward]

In academia, many of the older generation (65+) have stayed relatively close to where they were from, often in the same state or a few hours away. This is particularly true for those working for less prestigious institutions and in less prestigious sub-categories of the profession (such as un-tenured lecturers).

Among those under 60, and particularly under 40, and want any type of job in academia you have to do a nationwide search. Even the less prestigious full-time jobs are often few and far between. And it will be your connections that get you the interview. Chances are you will land at an institution where you know someone well... or your advisor does.

While more mobility is great, it is difficult to be in a career where you know you will more than likely end up someplace away from social support, particularly if you want to have children.

It's the same here in the UK. You either choose to progress up the ladder more slowly, or you do as little teaching as possible, work up all your publications, and move university every five or six years. I've known people make professor by forty (professor is a distinct rank here, it's not the equivalent of the US 'professor', which I think is closer to the UK 'lecturer' on the scale of permanent posts - lecturer - senior lecturer - reader - professor), but typically they've lived in six different cities in the UK in the last dozen years..... The real killer, though, is that since the better universities all now want a PhD as a base entry requirement for a full time post, it's really making it hard for younger academics to break in. If they can't afford to do a PhD, they'll never get anything other than a series of short-term research contracts, and even if they do, many institutions are now exploiting them as short-termist, zero-hours contract players - basically one step up from casual labour. It's a much harder sector to get into that in was twenty years ago when I started.

 

[sheeplady]

Our PhD work is funded- you either work for a professor doing research (on a government or occasionally privately funded grant), teach, or are working on tasks provided by an institutional line of funding (funding provided by the university to have a doctoral program). These provide tutition and a living stipend (you can live on it, but cannot aupport a family on your own). A select few have fellowships, which means you don't have to work for your tuition.

In our colleges we have two main streams: tenure track or non-tenure track. Tenure track involves the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor (We call this rank professor- similar to you).

If you get a tenure track position, you start as an assistant. After 7 years, you undergo a tenure review. This involves an institution decision, but also a vote by your peers. If you are successful, you advance to the rank of associate with a permanent position making you more difficult to fire. If you are unsuccessful, you have a year to find a new job, either way you are put. Full professor is a rank you apply for independently some time after your tenure review (at least 7 to 10 years later), this rank is technically a Professor.... it's referred to as full, but the title is Professor (as opposed to Assistant Professor).

Lecturers are on contract, with senior lecturers receiving more pay after a review, which is totally not standardized as to when or how it happens. Some are 1 or 3 uear contracts.

Then there are adjuncts, who are part time employees (often with phds) who are typically paid less to teach a course than a single student in the class pays to attend.

 

[Big J]

Well, now you guys are talking academia instead of politics, maybe I can post without getting deleted?

Degrees from U.S. colleges/universities aren't worth the paper they are printed on internationally, which is why I chose to do post-grad studies at a prestigious U.K. university with research at a Japanese university (where, being Japan, standards are as low as the U.S.), publishing non-stop along the way, making it relatively simple to become a professor in Japan before 40.

The U.K. is way more academically rigorous than the U.S., and it really pays to study in the U.K.

@Edward, are you an academic? I was under the impression you were a lawyer. All apologies if I am mistaken.

 

[Harp]

Degrees from U.S. colleges/universities aren't worth the paper they are printed on internationally,

The U.K. is way more academically rigorous than the U.S., and it really pays to study in the U.K.

With all due respect that is painting USA colleges/universities with a rather broad brush. I assume you never studied economics at either Illinois or the University of Chicago.