portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

election fraud | political theory

We Ain't Got No Workers No More Simply Demand Power!

Please forget about this "worker" shit. They are an historical artifact; They don't exist anymore. In the U.S. today, you are damn lucky to get $7.25 per hour, with no "benefits." And you're really lucky if it's 40 hours. But most of us don't really get even that. This is because, since Reagan and Clinton we have FREE trade, so we we get to compete with the Chinese Foxconn workers who have to be restrained from jumping to their deaths with huge nets. Do yourself and every one a favor, and give the power back to the masses. If you can't trust the masses who can you trust?
The supreme court? HAHAHAHAHA! They protect ONE minority the 1%, and give to gays on the same day that they take back from blacks, and vice versa. Get a simple type of score voting it really is that simple. Learn about and demand the simple (and well-known to some) score voting method. Get rid of single-selection voting. IRV voting, for example, has been funded by Soros, Rockefeller Bros., Carnegie-Mellon, Ford foundation, etc. Yet even Ralph Nader has been duped into supporting it! IRV makes artful (strategic) voting impossible. With that, if you "rank" Nader one notch above Gore (no "hero" for sure), and Gore gets 50% of the vote (but not quite 50% +1), then in the next cycle, the biggest loser's hero gets "eliminated" and their votes get advanced to their second (ranked) choice, and Nader gets 51% of the vote, but Bush gets 53%, and thus wins! (The percentages can add up to more than 100.) (And since you are not among the eliminated biggest losers, your second-rank choice is just tossed out anyway.) This is even worse than our current single-choice (so-called "plurality") voting method.

Compare simple score voting with all the other methods. you get to give from 1 to 10 votes to up to maybe 20 candidates. The votes are simply added up no computers needed. This encourages artful (strategic) voting. If you give some candidate 8 votes instead of 10, you know you will only sacrifice 20% of your vote for him or her. This eliminates the spoiler effect by at least 90%, which is far better than what any other (reasonably simple) method achieves. You don't need to be any mathematician to see how much simpler this is than all the other convoluted methods!

All the fancy election methods websites insist on artless ("honest," "sincere," "vote your conscience") voting. Only lowly voters are required to sustain such a level of absurd "integrity" by all the "election methods" websites (except mine). If you go to an auction, do you refuse to bid less that what you think an item is worth?

Political scientists have known about the power of simple score voting for hundreds of years. They have perpetrated the biggest conspiracy in history.

homepage: homepage: http://simplescorevoting.wordpress.com/simple-score-voting-the-real-solution/


educate yourself. 13.Sep.2013 05:27

hb

show me someone with a graduate degree in engineering, biotech, or the computer sciences who has been unemployed for over 1 year or making $7.25 an hour with no benefits.

plenty of art history graduates with no jobs or making $7.25 an hour.

plenty of people with social work and liberal arts degrees who can't find jobs. did any of them look in the newspaper classified the first day of their freshman year and find any jobs in the fields they were planning on majoring in? Or did they just listen to one of their psychology professors they really liked and figured there was a lot less hard math if they studied that instead of computer science?

If college isn't your gig, then go to a trade school. Electricians are pulling in good cash with benefits these days.

pick up a newspaper, use monster.com, and look at who is hiring, and who is not before you waste a lot of time and money on something that won't help you climb out of the rut.

Your Response Is Quite Pathetic 13.Sep.2013 06:14

blues

Simple score voting is certainly not about me and my life, and you have no business attempting to divert my assertions by pointlessly injecting negative notions regarding what you imagine to constitute my personal life.

I'm a retired engineer. What's it to you?

you offer whining, and I offered help. 13.Sep.2013 07:52

hb

crying about being paid shit never helped anybody. apparently you managed to earn a decent income as an engineer. from what you wrote you sounded like some high school grad who works part time grinding coffee at a starbucks who is disillusioned with his prospects.

crying is much easier than actually fixing the problem, but it won't help.

if you find the advice I gave to anybody interested in helping themselves you should say way instead of more whining. Is the advice in error? Do you know of a chemical engineer who wishes they would have gotten a degree in Elizabethan poetry?

blues is correct, hb 13.Sep.2013 09:02

Shaker

You have taken the whole gist of his post and turned it into a comment about what you feel is of worth to society. And just what is a good job in relation to power in society? Little more than a claim to comfort. It's surely not a claim to a right to power and nothing more than personal bigotry that doesn't allow an idea from an individual to have any power (which, by the way, is the idea behind universal suffrage) and rightful parity.

I can personally name some very well-off and educated idiots with very serious personality flaws. There are societal horrors created by chemical engineers. There are abominations in law created by very intelligent lawyers. There are weapons of destruction created by mechanical engineers, very intelligent physicists, chemical engineers, and we've entered the age in which even biologists have a hand in creating insults, weapons, and unnatural monstrosities without foresight. I might ask you, too, what your life would be without those lowly laborers?

Wisdom is not the unique possession of those who may be comfortable or the education you may feel is behind that comfort. What blues stated was a simple fact of bigoted imbalance we as a society have allowed ourselves in relation to imagined value as a consequence of economic success. He gives a method of restoring that balance that is disconnected from that method of value. You may be intelligent and shown your pride in it by confusing the point to accent it, but, as many of the intelligent, you missed the point, whether intentionally or not.

shaker I missed it. 13.Sep.2013 09:55

hb

your correct. I completely missed his point. I guess because my brain isn't wired to fix the ills of the world or because I'm not the type to offer sympathy for the person with the nail in the head (youtube the video if you haven't seen it.) I'm solution oriented, as I would expect an engineer to be, retired or otherwise. Someone says they are sick and tired of working part time for $7.25 an hour with no benefits, I try and offer a solution that has worked for me and millions of others.

perhaps I'm still missing the point. I guess I haven't evolved enough to see the point.
Yes, you can find examples of people who have made the world a worse place. As I remember Hitler was an graphics art student. Pol Pot was a rice farmer until he went to school for radio electronics. The world would have been better off had he stuck with rice, but that's no reason to abandon technology. We can all sit around happy and ignorant and build houses out of our own poop and never bother anybody. How noble. It always amazes me how people who want nothing to do with a technological world continue to blog and surf the web, again I'm not evolved enough to understand.

watch the nail in the head video.

$15.50 or fight 14.Sep.2013 15:18

$15.50 or fight

Power yields nothing without a demand

What shall that $15.50 buy you? 15.Sep.2013 07:23

hb

At the risk of still not being up to speed of the subject of the thread, let me say that when I started working I was paid $2.30 a hour. That was Minimum wage. No benefits. Gasoline was 78 cents a gallon, a loaf of bread was 50 cents, a McDonald's cheeseburger was 49 cents and a head of lettuce was less than one dollar. A computer programmer was making $17,000 a year back then. Good salary for someone fresh out of college.

Once you are paid $15.50 an hour full time, the Federal Government will consider you rich and therefore you must pay your fair share in taxes. No longer will you be able eligible for EBT, food assistance, housing, utility assistance, etc. Your federal tax rate will be low, but you will be paying in and not collecting an earned income tax credit anymore.
Since everybody else will be getting this pay rate, the costs on all foods, energy, and goods will increase. By how much is anybody's guess. If you believe big corporations will take a hit and have to cover the costs out of their own profits, then please point to a moment in time when that has happened and they haven't passed those costs on to their customers?

Again, getting back to my main point. If I can train you in 15 minutes to do a job, then that job is always going to be at the bottom of the pay scale. Because if I can train you to do in 15 minutes, I can train anybody to do it in 15 minutes and I have nothing more than a few minutes invested in you, and you are easily replaced.
If it takes 4 or 6 years to train you, then perhaps that is job worth having, and worth being paid for. Again, if you spend those 6 years getting a masters in Art History, then you will have a hard time finding someone willing to pay you for your knowledge.

Half of the secretaries at my work have sociology, art and music degrees. The other have half have no degrees nor do those secretaries have $30,000+ in student loans to pay back at a secretary's pay scale either.

If your goal is to get $15.50 an hour, its highly doable. If your goal is to double your buying power, then that's going to take some work.

getting it out of my system 15.Sep.2013 10:09

Shaker

This seems an issue, outside of generally smaller, closed societies, that is the norm. I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist, so correct me if I'm wrong. The idea of having what is necessary to some measure of comfort is one thing, but what we're seeing destroyed is a method to accomplish availability of essential services in our increasingly urban and corporate-controlled environment. Somehow even the most lowly must have access to food, medical services, and fulfill the need to stay warm and dry. One can choose the manner in which that happens in this land where it's not actually that availability that's the problem but how to give value in return for those services. Demanding a higher wage is one manner in which that is accomplished. It's going to get interesting, that's sure, if, for example, fast-food workers demands distinctly change society's desire to eat fast-food and we're right back where we started from. But, again, that's the situation, as I see it, that we've as collective society have been in forever and it's obvious that an answer is elusive. It's forced some societies to accept such practices as exposure (leaving a baby to the elements) to nunneries. (The fact that these practices generally were applied to female babies as well as the generally deformed is the product of philosophy in exercise of choice rather than need, not a matter of the value of the strength or intelligence of males and that value in our generally contentious dealings with others. The Roman historian Tacitus distinctly mentions that, of the Germanic tribes, the vaunted legions feared female warriors just as much, if not more, than the male.)

I won't remark about education as value, though I made a decision as a young man to not pursue such interests as music and literature (which are now as before working age continued, deep interests and dedicated hobbies) precisely because of that consideration of value. I chose a trade so that I could continue those interests without intellectual conflict from a career that required, beyond the initial apprenticeship and the effort to become competent, constant affirmation of value. I produce something that one can hold in their hand that is durable and of material value. But that hardly gives one an escape from philosophic consideration of what is produced, and really feel that in individual philosophy and actions that conform to that philosophy is the measure of true value to society and of an individual's ethical value. I've been confronted with that choice through producing parts for the defense industry. Fortunately there were few cases that I felt were directly associated specifically with weapons, and also fortunately, I knew that I was good enough to avoid doing that without repercussions that had great impact. I've packed my tools and walked at much less provocation.

As I've said before, I don't believe that one's education is paramount to one's intrinsic value to society. Actually, some of the best managers for whom I've worked did not have MBAs, but a well-rounded and comprehensive education, understood the system they administered, and made responsible decisions within that framework. Honestly, I think that all of us that might be comfortable above necessity and believe that it's the outcome of our education and efforts don't do enough homage at the altar of plain damned luck. Personally, I believe, for instance, in the financial industry of today, that the education is creating a monster that is detrimental, serves only an individual truly (as value that comes from some of their practices is simply second-hand), that they aren't smart enough to recognize that it's going to blow up in their faces, and that actually the philosophy demands that it do so. They're short-sighted and expedient by that education, and damn if sometimes I really think that they all believe that they'll the be the ones left with the biggest guns, the most bullets, and the best luck. It's the reason that at higher levels that industry is nothing but a cabal of insiders and insider knowledge and manipulation. Any other order to it, and especially the order their stated philosophies would bring, would destroy them all. As for those who feel they're educated so well, my comment is that we have not been very smart at all with the fruits of our labors through pension plans, 401Ks, etc. and have given the financiers I have described above the power to create the mess in which we seem to be mired. It may have been a bit smarter and responsible to pay attention to the direction of things outside of financial statements, especially politically, pay your taxes, and maintain the infrastucture for your comfort. But maybe you like armored mercenaries on the streets, fearing to walk outside at night, or you live in a gated neighborhood or can commute from your gentleman farm in the country for your needs.


As for myself again, I would rather my tax money go to welfare queens in the deepest part of our cities than some of these kings of industry such as financial and defense, or any other number of industries (pharmaceutical and electronic come quickly to mind) that really have made the gains that they have piggy-backing upon what is and was originally research and development paid for with our taxes. I'm continually apalled that it is left to the economic philosophy of financiers for recovery of society's investment. I also realize that in some cases what I've said isn't responsible, and so generally keep my mouth shut about it. But if you'd ever worked in defense at the prototype level as I have you'd surely understand what I'm talking about.

Anyway, as far as $15.50 an hour, I say go for it. You might not be hurting society in general anymore that some of these financial managers and their extremely overvalued sense of worth or investments in what they feel has worth. Eventually there will be some equilibrium, even if there is chaos beforehand. Somehow, sometime, something good has got to happen.

hb 15.Sep.2013 12:41

kl;

just ignore hb or ask a moderator to remove her posts. she is a moral prostitute.

Shaker 15.Sep.2013 14:18

hb

You are talking about demanding a higher salary, I'm talking about commanding a higher salary. They are two distinct things.

While I don't disagree with your objectives, I believe the path has never produced anything but suffering for the masses and great power and wealth for the few.
How many yachts can you water ski behind was once asked in the film Wall Street. I understand what you are saying, but some humans aren't wired to stop. The game is too important to them. History has shown the only thing that stops these types are other similarly wired types just like them taking their place.

We are human beings, not Honey bees. We don't and won't all work for a better purpose of the common good forsaking free will and engaging in self-sacrifice. In fact enough of us will go out of our way to fuck it all up if we can't be the big dick in charge. What did Milton say about reigning in hell versus serving in heaven?

It didn't work in 1917. It just got millions killed, starved while a select few got fat and drunk on power. For every Trotsky there is a Stalin waiting to clean your clock.

It didn't work in 1949, It just got millions killed and millions starved making everything "equal and fair".

It didn't work in 1959. For every Che there is a Fidel waiting to seize power

Somehow, sometime, something good has got to happen? The broken clock scenario? What is it called when you try the same tactic over and over expecting different results?

A great middle eastern philosopher said 2000 years ago that there will always be poor pathetically struggling and to look at the good things you have. I can't say it any better.

Kl, how embarrassing 15.Sep.2013 14:28

hb

Are my views that solid and your opinions that intellectually fragile that you must run and cry brain rape for the thought police to disappear my views?
I'll consider that a victory because the last thing in the world you seem to want is an honest debate of ideas. Ok, I'm sorry, go hide in your thought cocoon where you're always right and live is happy all the time.
Shaker, maybe your right. Perhaps Kl's only hope is someone handing him free and easy stuff.

Well, I agree hb 15.Sep.2013 17:55

Shaker

And the plain fact is that I don't have a solution to the issue. It's obvious that changing a personal track in one's life to strive for more relative value is a good choice, but it seems that equally obvious that someone's got to do the job left behind. I know what choice I made, and I might point out that choice was reaction to the philosophies that made the circumstance of that choice as well as personal bent of my nature. Outside of an initial period, I had others seeking my skills. I could 'command'. But that choice, and what seems your personal choice, may have taken you or I on an altogether different route under different circumstance.

I somehow feel that I could also have been one of those that society assigns a drasticly lower value, and have seen first-hand how in some cases it could be the result of circumstance that is or has been unremittingly caustic to their betterment and relative comfort, so I'm sympathetic. Of the cases you cite, we equally share disdain. But there is some degree to which that is seen in history and today, and I don't believe it's the unique property of politcal systems or beliefs. Might I cite the indigenous population here and elsewhere, or slaves in history, or those today who manipulate circumstance to the detriment of others?

The thing that I think is obvious is that we as a society have some choice in the way things proceed in that we create through our philosophies. One manner in which that happens is through education and the ethics and reactions to ethics that are taught. While I do believe that all aren't equal concerning intellectual ability, some by choice and some by circumstance, we all are equal in that we share this life.

As for the eastern philosopher, maybe it's the simple recognition that in this particular material dimension creating a light one creates shadows. It isn't, though, Milton's Protestant predestination, and on that you and I again agree. We, though, have a choice of moving that light to diminish the monstrosities that the shadow becomes.

A form of that idea may also exist in demanding a greater wage. It's going to impact the industry in some manner as well as the lives of those making the demands. But it is their choice and, I might say, their right and won't discourage that right. But I also won't change or try to influence their obligation to live with the impact of those demands. If the reaction is a great shadow and they put themselves out a job, so be it. They don't have to make the mistakes of say, the auto workers, which I might believe was much greater than wage demands, but a lack of realizing and being complacent of choice in the circumstance in which those demands were made. They sealed their fate back in the late '70s and early 80's when they didn't commit themselves to meeting the abandonment of a third of the market share and not working with management in meeting that challenge. So be it.