We working poor are powerless and voiceless -- except in our unity. We cannot depend on the good will of a system of exploitation run by our employers for anything but more of the same. We must organize and make our voices heard and our strenght felt. We who make the world have the power if we will just work together, as Joe Hill wrote:

If we workers take a notion

We can stop all speeding trains

Every ship upon the ocean

We can tie with mighty chains

Every farm and every factory,

Every mine and every mill,

Mighty armies of all nations

Will at our command stand still.

Millions are calling for help right now. They don't want a free ride. They just want a chance: a chance to work, earn overtime, buy a home, have basic health insurance, take care of their family, save for retirement, and live the American dream.

People can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps if you take away their boots. If you work hard in America, shouldn't you expect to earn a decent living without fear of impoverishment?

All workers have an INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to the following:

A minimum wage that is a living wage;
Full pay for all work performed;
Access to affordable, quality health care;
Access to affordable food, housing and transportation;
Quality public education;
Fully-paid childcare for working parents;
A dignified retirement;
Adequate time for full civil and family participation, self-improvement and recreation;
Human Rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Rights and natural law;
Democratic, effective trade unions.

The task of achieving these things is not as daunting as Bernhardt suggests. Civilized societies in Scandinavia, Western Europe, Japan, southern Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South and Central America and to a lesser extent the UK, Ireland and South Africa have achieved or realize that these conditions are fundamental to a decent human life based on honest labor.

Achieving these limited conditions is not a matter of goodness or charity, but of what it means to be HUMAN and what is RIGHT.

While most of these societies are wealthy and originally appropriated much of their wealth through imperial plunder, they are attempting to redress the global wealth/income imbalance, out of self-interest if not enlightenment. Internally they do a pretty good job of wealth distribution and meeting basic human needs.

The US is wealthier than all other nations - than most combined - yet we are unable to see the rationality or morality in human rights and the dignity of work.

Since we cannot imagine the concepts of human rights and dignity of work,we are doomed (among our other profound ailments)to be plagued by on-going class war (hidden behind the euphemism of "poverty") especially in urban and de-industrialized areas of our nation.

Unrelenting exploitation of the mass of humanity who must work to live, is intrinsic under capitalism. Especially under a capitalism that is in decline such as U.S. capitalism, remains "number one" only on the basis of massive military power.

Working people and their essential human needs are not a concern as they are considered merely "human resources" to be employed until cheaper resources can be found and then completely eliminated.

Thus corporations today are going bankrupt, moving to China, outsourcing and importing highly educated college graduates as workers from India,etc. that can be employed at one third of the cost of U.S. workers.

Since about 1500 Capitalism has ravaged humnity around the world through slavery, colonialism, wars, sweat shops and child labor. In the process capitalism has massively polluted and destroyed the planet resulting in Global Warming.

There is no "reform" of capitalism possible that wold correct it's intrinsic "faults". Global capitalism must be ended now if humanity is to survive.

Read daily the World Socialist Web Site:
http://www.wsws.org
and the excellent articles in Monthly Review magazine http://www.monthlyreview.org.

I think Jeremy Wells is exactly correct, but - as a nation - we cannot imagine the truth that he expresses so clearly. We cannot imagine the obvious.

Yes, Jeremy is correct. We have no-one but ourselves to rely on. Worker's Unite. The alternative is slavery leading to extinction.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news... but aren't most of these jobs going to vanish in 10 years and be replaced by robots?

It's already happening in Japan and Korea.

I think we're going to have to sit through a few years of market equilibrium as underdeveloped countries explode economically due to technological progress. If they can sweat it out a few more years and join the creative class/intellectual class then they'll be fine - because if they don't a robot will be doing their job.

Additionally, someone should tell Jeremy Wells that the food he eats, the water he drinks, the cell phone he uses, the car he drives, the bank he keeps his money in, the electricity that powers his life, the building that he lives in, the computer he uses, the clothes he wears, and everything he does revolves around capitalism. Let me know when socialism cracks the human genome.

All the devices and things you mention are produced by working people and not dependent on capitalism. You confuse technology with economics.

How are they not dependent on capitalism? They're made by corporations. Corporations which are fulfilling a demand with a supply of things people want.

Supply meets demand. There is your capitalism.

There is a demand for a certain product. A robot can make it faster and cheaper, and does not require health insurance, rent money, or human things, but requires electricity and maintenance. I'm gonna hire the robots, cause now my company can make more money. Now the company takes that money and puts it back into the economy cause they need things like electricity, desks, chairs, computers, cell phones, airline tickets.

Just like there is a massive demand for good healthcare... but unfortunately people can't afford it, cause they're already getting half of their paychecks sucked out by bloated federal taxes that are paying for bombs and aircraft and NSA paychecks.

Anyways, hopefully the working poor can become robot repairmen? Unless the robots are smart enough to repair themselves. Then what?

They are not dependent because we can make the same things for their use value and make them better instead of overproducing crap for commodity value after we eat the capitalists for dinner (broiled with tarragon butter and a white wine glaze).

Jaded Prole:
we can make the same things for their use value and make them better instead of overproducing crap for commodity value

The truth is you can't. Plus this is an inherently flawed statement. I understand you can use this if you're going to take the luddite approach, but we don't live in the same world we did 200 years ago.

Use Value: Food we eat to survive.
Commodity: Food we eat because it tastes good.
Reality: It doesn't take much to make just about any food taste good.

Use Value: Telephone in case of emergencies only?
Commodity: Telephone to call people 'just for the heck of it'
Reality: It's pretty hard to operate in society without telecommunications, whether it be phone or internet.

Please make a better distinction of your argument, I don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say.

Now, a better argument for you would be instead of blasting capitalism and corporations and technology, to instead take out your beef on the American people for spending their hard earned money on crap that they don't need to keep up with the Jones'. That's called consumerism. The corporations are just giving people want they want - what they demand. Should you be pissed at Apple because they "FORCED" a million people to buy iPhones, or because they REALLY needed iPhones. No. Apple made a good product that people wanted. And they deserve to make every penny off of it.

Don't buy it if you don't want it or need it. End of story.

Use value - trains and public transport for the purpose of moving people efficiently

commodity value -- cars

use value -- shoes to wear

commodity value -- shoes made as cheapley as possible meant to fall apart but with glitzy logo.

Cuba makes medicines including some we don't have for use value.

Pharmaceuticals make meds they can sell and ignore the possibilities of those for rarer diseases

Use value - a medical system to deal with health

Commodity value -- Insurance for profit.

Knowledge and technology are NOT dependent on any particular economic system but the application of that knowledge and technology is. A more accountable, community oriented economy is less likely to squander technology (and the environment) for the personal gain of the few and more likely to use it for the public good.

As for us working folk, I, like the majority get nothing but slavery from this system and I firmly beleive that we could do much better if the profit motive was replaced by the motive of serving the public good. Back in the 19th century it was envisioned that machines would eventually do most of the work and people would be free to persue the better things, ie, arts, music, family, philosophy . . . That is still possible but under capitalism we are only freed from the ability to pay for the luxuries of food and shelter.

RE: "INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT[S]" - a PRE-911 IDEA

tj July 11th, 2007 1:11 pm
"All workers have an INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to the follo-"

Sorry, tj, the Cheney shadow govt's Supreme Court just overruled that Enlightenment view.

In the majority opinion, Americans no longer have the right to have rights.

RE: AS PROGRESSIVES FOCUS THEIR ENERGIES AGAINST THE IRAQ OCCUPATION, THE CHENEY SHADOW GOVT DOMESTIC AGENDA MARCHES ON.

And that may have been the plan - shut 'em up, distract them, engage attention w/a mega-f-up, while continuing to stack the high court w/Executive Privilege Uber Alles and ultra-right attacks on labor jurists.

luckingfame:

My mother always told me that it is very important to make a distinction between reality and make believe. For instance, "Corporations," a legal fiction have no existence whatsoever outside of man's imagination; therefore, in as much as dreams do not have initiative, they are not capable of "doing" anything. Life, of which people are a part, is real; it does exist outside of the Neverland of our dreams. It is people that actually produce they wealth that non-existant corporations claim as their own. Which is why the living have UNALIENABLE rights, and figments of our imagination(s) do not. Their presumptive rights can and will be alienated from them...one way or another.

luckingfame is not wrong, but is assuming that supply/demand, open markets, and capitalism are synonymous. They're not, as a moment's thought reveals. There's nothing morally wrong with profit motive, which is at its most basic the idea that a transaction must cover the living costs of the seller -- that is, you have to include this in the price. In a truly transparent, open market, this should lead to a general equilibrium and no great disparities in wealth. And supply/demand is a law regardless of political system. But capitalism is based on the dicey premise that capital is privileged over labour, and until we chop off that root, we will continue to be slaves.

As some of you have previously stated. We are living in an epoch of change brought about by the introduction of digital electronic technology into production. The difference between the economic reality of this period of time and previous times is that every advance of technology into production now is labor-replacing rather than labor enhancing. The introduction of electronics into production replaces human labor. When production can increase without an increase in labor, the value of labor power – and the value of life – begin to fall toward zero. Employed workers globally are competing with a "robot" that is not paid wages. Thus, capital is able to drive workers in production like slaves, with extended hours, intense exploitation, and starvation wages.

The very same process of technological change and the restructuring of production is also creating a new global proletariat from the workers and potential workers replaced in production by electronic technology. The objective demand of this new proletarian class is for the distribution of the wealth of society according to the needs of the peoples of the world, and this is what we owe the working poor..

Speedster are you really that naive or are you speaking as an employer? This system pits us against each other on a global basis for the lowest wages. Your saying, "if you think your labor is worth more, don't take the job!" is as ludirous as the old addage that it is also illegal for the rich to sleep under bridges.

I work for relatively low wages because it is better than starving on the street and slightly better than stabbing you and stealing your wallet. Many in my area average $8.50 to $14.00 an hour but housing and rent goes up, insurance rates go up, utility prices increase and school expenses for children are outrageous and good jobs that don't move to China require education that is far too costly. You might say we should "vote with our feet" and we very well may when we can organize enough to march over the cynical defenders of this boss's paradise and establish a more socially responsible system.

Ok, I get what you guys are saying.

But this has always boggled my mind about the protesting socialist left...

If you guys are against corporations so much, why don't you buy stock in them.

For example: so many people in the environmentalist movement and left hate companies like ExxonMobil, right?

Why doesn't the movement band together and buy a whole mass of stock of a company, maybe enough so that you'd be able to pull strings voting wise?

I know it's kooky sounding, but personally, I feel more empowered over society and my life when I vote in a shareholder meeting as oppose to an election. So take a company like AT&T, or Exxon - band together and buy as much stock as possible, now you'd make money off of THEM, and you'd have voting control if you could get enough people to support it.

I owned a bunch of News Corp this passed year, made a killing off of them, and got to vote in one of their shareholder meetings... I even met Rupert Murdoch in person, weird. Needless to say, at only 25 dollars a share their stock was a bargain, and just think if enough people were able to purchase they'd be able to push around Fox News!!

What do you think?

Speedster's remarks are truly remarkable.

If the poor are so lavished with benefits, why are they poor?

If you think your labor is worth more, don't take the job!

...and I might add, lose your home and starve!

What kind of bubble is speedster living in! Marie Antoinette didn't even say such stuff!

PJD...

Perhaps the reason they're still poor even with all the benefits is because they've grown accustomed to living under a welfare state, which sucks out the economic benefits they'd get in a country with a less-bloated government.

Not for nothing, but somehow I think people who are living in Section 8 housing and paying $100/month for rent aren't going to be very motivated to work hard, save, and move out into a place where the rent is going to be $1000.

It's just common sense from the poverty perspective. Let's see, if I stay in subsidized housing, It costs me pennies... but if I work hard and save money, it's gonna cost me even more. What would you do in that situation. Then if they make MORE than 8k a year, they no longer qualify for Medicaid/Medicare, which I believe is targeted to the over 60 crowd anyway.

You get 'Locked' into poverty, because simply put: you rise slightly out of poverty, and you're gonna get knocked back down again. It's a trap.

If I had subsidized housing, I'd never move out, and live there for as long as I could, and then pass it down to my other family members. Not because I'm a jerk, or don't have a good work ethic, it's just the plain and simple bottom line.

If you get something for free, why would you bother paying for it?

Luckingfame: That idea has been around for awile. However,

1, Not enough stocks ever come up for sale to gain a controlling block.

2. The stock market is a shell game played by rubes.

The Corporate Overlords have rigged the game. Certainly takeover is technically possible at times, but with the shenanigans going on in corporate high places. I wouldn't want to own any of them.

huckleberry...

then how can you have someone like Carl Icahn who can single handily boss around major corporations? He knows how to play the corporate game, and that's why he's worth billions.

Hedge funds boss around corporations on a daily basis.

The stock market, granted, has certain corporatists who are violating laws of our free economy, and they ARE brought to justice, but the MAJORITY of investors in the market are people who know that there is a world of wealth out there if you just take some time to educate yourself in the ways of the economy and stock market.

When you buy stocks, you are actively participating in the economy on such a direct level.

The poor CAN become rich if they are willing to educate themselves and are motivated to become so. I think a big part of it, especially blue collar workers (I come from a blue collar family) is plain ignorance. They think the economy and stock market are scams and insist on hiding their cash under their mattress so that inflation can slowly take it away. Like my aunts and uncles, who have a hatred for the rich, simply because the Rich DESIRE to be rich, and work their asses off to make it happen. But my blue-collar kin would rather sit back and judge the more wealthy and despise them, simply because they've done something that they haven't. They want it, but they don't at the same time.

Heck, LAST year, if you had 200 bucks, you could have bought 4 shares of Apple, and turned it into over 460 bucks... simply for holding the stock of a growing company.

Here's an easy way for some poor folk to turn around their situation and provide for their family in the future: Save up a few bucks, maybe 100 dollars... fuck, collect cans if you gotta - whatever it takes. Then take that money and put it into an Oil Fund, an ETF, or a giant like BP, Exxon, or Chevron. Then... forget about it and hold onto it for 10 or so years.

This way, when the oil crisis finally hits hardcore, the stock skyrockets, also not counting that it will probably split, too, you now own stock in one of the most limited and valuable resources. Turn around and sell the stock. You're now rich, just because you waited for something inevitable, and capitalized on it.

Just an idea. I can come up with more though.

I think that we have a definite clash of worldviews here. On one side, those who believe that life should be about competition, and that it is the responsibility of the individual and only the individual to care for him or herself; on the other side, those who believe that life should be about cooperation, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to care for himself, his family, his neighbor, and his country, and in turn to receive that care. Organizing society and production in order to benefit all of us is radically different from organizing society and production so that the most competitive one wins. Social-welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps acknowledge the fact that our lives are interdependent -- and no matter how pure your intentions, no matter how hard you work, no matter how smartly you compete, tomorrow it could be you needing help from the rest of us. That's called compassion -- seeing yourself in someone else, and caring for someone else as you care for yourself.

Thanks, textGuru.

I think that it needs to be pointed out that the US ongoing orgainzation of a society based on utter sefishness represents an unprecedented experiment with very dangerous consequences. The only possible previous example was England in the 1800s as documented by Dickens and Blake. Fortunately, they changed direction.

luckingfame, it is clear that you've never met a poor person in your life. The poor I know work 80 hour weeks, and any extra $100 goes to rent or food.

When you buy stocks you are just playing a ridiculous ponzi game and not producing a single physical thing for society. You are lazy, decadent parasites.

Amen, TextGuru.

Bernhardt's report is a very good read. Our aging population means that there will be more demand for home care workers in the future. I know a few home attendants and their jobs aren't easy. If we treat their work as run-of-the-mill, then we may risk endangering the well-being of those for whom they're caring. I wouldn't want that for my parents or myself if any of us find ourselves in that position one day.

I think many of us would do what we can to take care of our elders before enlisting the help of an outsider, but in case we can't, we'd want someone who's focused on providing the best care for them instead of worrying about making enough to put food on the table. We have to take care of those who take care of us.

PJD,

---When you buy stocks you are just playing a ridiculous ponzi game and not producing a single physical thing for society. You are lazy, decadent parasites.

Resorting to name calling, eh?

No, the fact is I am educated, and I realize that when I buy stock in a company I am putting money into the economy and into a corporation that is providing valuable services. Does it infuriate you to realize that I own stock in Exxon, too?

I'm putting my money to work for me. Simply put, you're jealous.

And since you've resorted to throwing out assumptions regarding people who smartly invest their money, I'm gonna throw out an assumption about you.

You probably believe in a "pie", and that there is only a fixed amount of money, and people who are rich are somehow 'robbing' the others. WRONG. We all create wealth on a daily basis.

Probably the most injust thing we can do as a society is force people into controlled wealth and redistribute our money under the veil of 'compassion'.
Wealth redistribution is communism -one of the most flawed and unjust government systems. Ask a Russian immigrant how much they loved communism. Ask a Swede how they feel about having 70% of their paychecks redistributed.

---luckingfame, it is clear that you've never met a poor person in your life. The poor I know work 80 hour weeks, and any extra $100 goes to rent or food.

How would you define poor?