Somewhat painful Bruce Johnston interview in a Dutch magazine

[guitarfool2002]

My points stand and I stand by them - referencing the 8 hour work day is referencing something from a bygone era, let's say a mid-20th century mentality that assumed things about the American worker based on what you saw around you in your community and in your immediate circle of family and friends. It's as irrelevant as saying a majority of workers at any given factory or plant lived within 5-10 miles of that plant, if not in the same town, and most of the wages earned in those towns went directly back into stores and merchants from that town when goods or services were bought. That was explicitly true in the 50's...it's laughable now in 2012.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Should we get rid of the 8 hour work week?

The notion of exploitation of labor is a common thread in a lot of these talks. No one denies the horrors of child labor and the mining industries and unsafe factory conditions and "company stores" and all of that...and I will definitely, 100% give credit where credit is due and say those who fought to reform and change that should be credited and thanked.

That's not quite what I'm talking about. I mean, yes, the things you talk about are horrific and that's what happens in capitalist systems where the ownership class is unaccountable (the system the US Libertarian movement seems to want put in place) but all labor where the laborer receives a wage is exploitative. But, of course, there are forms of exploitation that are worse than others.

That, however, is a far cry from what happened to one very particular industry which was one of the major economic players in my state for several generations, and which ultimately shut down.

The steel industry.

At one point the organized labor workers in the steel plants included in their demands a 13 week paid vacation as part of the contract. Ultimately there were other factors in the demise and the exodus of plants like Phoenix Steel, Bethlehem Steel, any number of plants around Pittsburgh, those closer to my hometown, etc., but a major factor was that the cost of maintaining a labor force after pension and benefits and followed by ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation created a no-win situation where the costs outweighed the profit made from selling the goods, and it destroyed the steel business in Pennsylvania.

As far as a reference point, I'm using my father's own firsthand experiences of his generation of friends and the people around him who worked for places like Bethlehem Steel and saw this play out...a 13 week paid vacation even in 2012 seems like a joke, like a put-on, or like a totally manufactured number posted to sway a debate one way or another. But that is the fact, and it crippled that company.

So the full-circle point of this is: Would anyone consider the fight for safe work conditions, reasonable work schedules, and a liveable wage anywhere near the same universe as demanding 13 weeks of paid vacation from any employer?

13 weeks!

I don't know the specifics about Bethelehem steel but I do know that in the early 2000s, steel companies like Bethelehem were using bankruptcy courts as a way to break contractual obligations and cut pensions, benefits, and wages. Ultimately what happened to Bethelehem is that they were bought out by International Steel Group, making them the continent's largest steel company until they themselves were bought out by MittalSteel, which merged with Arcelor and become the biggest steel mill in the world. Consolidations liked these allowed for US steel corporations to compete with the European and Japanese steel industry at lower cost. If you think this bankruptcy was about vacations, and the greediness of organized labor, then you really need to investigate further.

This bit about vacation time does not come up so much in discussions of Bethelehem’s bankruptcy (the bit about the pensions does), from a cursory glance at online discussions on the matter. This may be more of a personal issue then, which isn’t all that surprising since many workers tacitly accept the parent-child model as a way of understanding the owner-laborer relationship rather than understand it for what it is – an inherently antagonistic relationship between power and labor, wherein labor power is at the disposal of ownership and ownership will buy as much labor power from workers at the lowest price possible. But it is crucial that people don’t see it that way – therefore this concept of parent-child gets put in place where people are reduced to showing off how good they are being and how good they are doing. This is why it is so enraging when people who actually understand how labor works, don’t follow this model and actually get something out of it because of their deviation.

And again, the notion of an 8 hour work day with paid vacation and paid benefits and pension plans and all of that is no longer reality for an ever-growing number of workers, and while most of what we do in life is ultimately a choice, as in the choice to work for yourself or work for someone else or even to join organized labor wherever you do work, there cannot be a generalization about the American worker in 2012 which is relevant to the times.

This, in fact, is not true. What we do in life is not really "ultimately a choice." People have more flexibility and are able to make more choices, the higher up they go in the economic hierarchy. Comparatively speaking, the United States is particularly bad for people having the ability to be upwardly mobile relative to where they start out, which indicates there is not much in terms of choice for a large portion of the population and this indicates to me that this means that the 8 hour work day is as important than ever. It seems that this idea that people have lots of choices is an idea that is held mostly by people who have the luxury to make these choices but this simply does not reflect reality in any serious way.

Point 1: You can't get rid of what is already an antiquated model that affects a much smaller minority of employed American workers than existed when the concept of an "8 hour work day" was commonplace. It's not even relevant in 2012 to mention it in a discussion of labor any more than it would be to make a direct reference to child-labor issues in American factories which were regulated many decades ago in a discussion about labor in 2012.

Point 2: The Bethlehem Steel issue is far from a personal one, in fact there is absolutely no shortage of information available online, anecdotal, debates, factual, etc...to get a thorough idea of the situation that helped speed the demise of many steelworkers' jobs when Bethlehem and others collapsed under the weight of operating costs and began shutting down American factories and moving operations elsewhere.

Your research is most often thorough and often interesting to read and soak in during the debate, I'm surprised there wasn't much on Bethlehem and the 13-week vacation issue, because it's pretty well documented. It should not be difficult to search and find plenty of talk on both sides. I happen to have a dad who lived in the area and knew personally some of these workers, including his uncle (my great-uncle) who worked at Bethlehem Steel in the 30's and contributed steel which went to build the Golden Gate Bridge. The plant(s) in this area closed, many, many jobs were lost, and a lot of the blame still goes (in my opinion, rightfully so) to the demands such as the 13 week vacation (after five years on the job, mind you, but still an absolutely ridiculous request).

The organized labor negotiators had an opinion that an industry giant like Bethlehem Steel was at that time in America "too big to fail", meaning they would more than likely concede to more and more demands instead of closing the doors and massive layoffs. The demands kept increasing, the 13 week vacation was one of the last straws, and the company pulled up its stakes and went elsewhere, laying off thousands...and the workers were what some would still consider a victim of that particular labor organization's bloodlust when negotiating the contracts.

The fact is, for the historical points about that vacation, the current entity of Bethlehem Steel has to be separated from the way Bethlehem Steel existed decades ago leading up to the massive closings and layoffs. A lot of people still blame the demands, and it is a sore spot that gets referenced often - again, I'm a little surprised at the lack of information when I found a bunch of Google entries on a simple search.

It was a classic negotiating strategy where an assumption was made that the place employing the workers would  A. never close and B. never lay off that many workers. And the strategy fell flat on its face at the expense of those workers, but then again when most places I've ever worked require 5 years of service to earn a few more days of paid vacation, that 13 weeks was probably very relaxing. If they didn't double-dip and grab some work elsewhere during those weeks (and that happened too...)

So the ideas of big corporations versus big labor have several facets, and the abuses of big labor should be reported just as often as the evils of big corporations, again when the criticism is warranted as many feel it is with the example of Bethlehem Steel.

(Note: The former site of Bethlehem Steel was the site of the Lehigh Valley's "Musikfest" concerts just a few weeks ago. They try to pump it up, it's a nice music festival which by all accounts is a lot of fun, but selling funnel cakes and corn dogs to music fans doesn't do a fraction for the local economy as having a steel plant running 3 shifts every day did for years.)

Point 3: The choice versus not a choice issue...I just fundamentally disagree with that in many ways, too many to list them. But when my choice to work and get paid for doing something I love to do and am skilled in doing versus my choice to punch a time clock and report for work which I hate but am forced to do for whatever reason should no longer be available, I'm done, I'll give up, and I'll pull an Eden Ahbez and go f*** off in the f***ing mountains or something with a hickory walking stick, unkempt beard, flowing robe, and my trusted dog Spot.

If you suggest "we" or people as a general concept have no choice, it plays directly into the worst elements of existentialism, collectivism, communism, relativism, and whatever other -isms define a philosophical bent that subscribes to that train of thought. It also seeks to remove *any trace of personal responsibility* for one's actions, and opens up a scenario where, when convenient, it's possible to assign blame to everything except that which is ultimately making the decision to do or not do something. If you tell me that someone 18 years old has no choice and is either predestined by environment, family history, or some other societal influence to choose a life of crime and despair over a life of education, work, dedication to a craft or skill, etc...I will right now agree to disagree and not travel further down this road. And to somehow suggest the United States as a country is somehow less conducive to someone becoming a success out of their own choice and hard work is too far outside my beliefs, I won't argue it any further because we're a few million miles apart.

For all of the success stories, for all of the people who have come to America and have carved out whatever piece of the pie made them happy, formed their legacy, and made their little corner of the Earth that much better as a result, to suggest the United States is somehow less than that...I don't see that at all and can't argue what I consider to be incorrect on basic principle.

Or, perhaps if someone - anyone - can point to a country or a society anywhere in the world where someone can become successful after arriving with barely anything in their pockets, no bank account, etc - and end up building or developing something successful from scratch - please point me in that direction.

I think those folks who would suggest America is somehow flawed in this way have not spent enough time speaking with people who have in fact built up something from nothing, as recent as immigrants who fled places like Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, China, parts of the Middle East, and who now own and operate successful businesses. They may not be glamorous, they may not be as high-profile as being a fashion editor in Manhattan, but to come from nothing and run a successful business...again, find me another place in the world where it happens more than in America.

I'm a sucker, I still believe in the so-called "American Dream", and no amount of philosophy or "-ism" is going to change that. No sale.

[guitarfool2002]

This, in fact, is not true. What we do in life is not really "ultimately a choice." People have more flexibility and are able to make more choices, the higher up they go in the economic hierarchy. Comparatively speaking, the United States is particularly bad for people having the ability to be upwardly mobile relative to where they start out, which indicates there is not much in terms of choice for a large portion of the population and this indicates to me that this means that the 8 hour work day is as important than ever. It seems that this idea that people have lots of choices is an idea that is held mostly by people who have the luxury to make these choices but this simply does not reflect reality in any serious way.

I wanted to extract this part from my overly long reply and zero in on it, if nothing else of value comes from my long-winded previous post.

The part in bold really upsets me, and if reflecting realty is the goal, again I'd ask anyone to point me to a country or society in 2012 that offers more in this field than America.

I was very moved and inspired by a story I saw on CNN about Snoop Dogg, who is now "Snoop Lion" but that's beside the point. It focused in on his humanitarian efforts and dedication to various charities and programs to help not only kids in his own neighborhood, but also charities around the world.

If you were to apply the philosophy of little choice, little opportunity in the United States to Snoop, we might have concluded that because of his neighborhood and his childhood around gangs and street crime, he was predestined to be a criminal or a failure. Society dealt him a losing hand before he could even play it, and his was a criminal life in the making.

Yet, look at him today. He is independently wealthy, he created a successful enterprise built around his image, he employs other people and has made others wealthy as a result, he was a talented rapper and musician who created what is now considered a classic body of work through his albums, and he's just one of those pop-culture guys who is always a presence. And his work in his neighborhood through his kids' football league has produced at least one pro player and has inspired and influenced many kids who, like him, may have been thought to be predestined or had no choice but to live in poverty and crime - in short, he's taken his good fortune and is passing it on to others who can do the same thing.

I used to think of Snoop as a novelty, as a joke almost, but one who was very talented at his art...recently I see him more as a truly *American* success story and one who can inspire others to make certain choices in life and try to carve out whatever piece of the pie they'd like to take and run with it.

If there is another country or society in the world that could take someone like Snoop Dogg from a criminal existence in his youth to create a humanitarian millionaire through not much more than his talent and drive, again point me in that direction.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Point 1: You can't get rid of what is already an antiquated model that affects a much smaller minority of employed American workers than existed when the concept of an "8 hour work day" was commonplace. It's not even relevant in 2012 to mention it in a discussion of labor any more than it would be to make a direct reference to child-labor issues in American factories which were regulated many decades ago in a discussion about labor in 2012.

Fortunately, I didn't bring it up "in a discussion of labor" nor did I bring it up in a discussion of 2012 labor. I brought it up to explain how anarcho-socialist political groups can change things within the United States. Nevertheless, I don't find your discussion about how much has changed to be at all convincing.

Point 2: The Bethlehem Steel issue is far from a personal one, in fact there is absolutely no shortage of information available online, anecdotal, debates, factual, etc...to get a thorough idea of the situation that helped speed the demise of many steelworkers' jobs when Bethlehem and others collapsed under the weight of operating costs and began shutting down American factories and moving operations elsewhere.

Your research is most often thorough and often interesting to read and soak in during the debate, I'm surprised there wasn't much on Bethlehem and the 13-week vacation issue, because it's pretty well documented. It should not be difficult to search and find plenty of talk on both sides. I happen to have a dad who lived in the area and knew personally some of these workers, including his uncle (my great-uncle) who worked at Bethlehem Steel in the 30's and contributed steel which went to build the Golden Gate Bridge. The plant(s) in this area closed, many, many jobs were lost, and a lot of the blame still goes (in my opinion, rightfully so) to the demands such as the 13 week vacation (after five years on the job, mind you, but still an absolutely ridiculous request).

The organized labor negotiators had an opinion that an industry giant like Bethlehem Steel was at that time in America "too big to fail", meaning they would more than likely concede to more and more demands instead of closing the doors and massive layoffs. The demands kept increasing, the 13 week vacation was one of the last straws, and the company pulled up its stakes and went elsewhere, laying off thousands...and the workers were what some would still consider a victim of that particular labor organization's bloodlust when negotiating the contracts.

The fact is, for the historical points about that vacation, the current entity of Bethlehem Steel has to be separated from the way Bethlehem Steel existed decades ago leading up to the massive closings and layoffs. A lot of people still blame the demands, and it is a sore spot that gets referenced often - again, I'm a little surprised at the lack of information when I found a bunch of Google entries on a simple search.

It was a classic negotiating strategy where an assumption was made that the place employing the workers would  A. never close and B. never lay off that many workers. And the strategy fell flat on its face at the expense of those workers, but then again when most places I've ever worked require 5 years of service to earn a few more days of paid vacation, that 13 weeks was probably very relaxing. If they didn't double-dip and grab some work elsewhere during those weeks (and that happened too...)

So the ideas of big corporations versus big labor have several facets, and the abuses of big labor should be reported just as often as the evils of big corporations, again when the criticism is warranted as many feel it is with the example of Bethlehem Steel.

Remember that I said I had taken only a "cursory glance" at the facts, which is why probably little turned up. I have done a bit more looking around since. It seems as if you are somewhat confused on this issue. Here is a former quote from yourself:

Ultimately there were other factors in the demise and the exodus of plants like Phoenix Steel, Bethlehem Steel, any number of plants around Pittsburgh, those closer to my hometown, etc., but a major factor was that the cost of maintaining a labor force after pension and benefits and followed by ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation created a no-win situation where the costs outweighed the profit made from selling the goods, and it destroyed the steel business in Pennsylvania.

If it is true that it was the "ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation" that seem to put the nail in the coffin for "the steel business in Pennsylvania", how do you account for the fact that Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt in 2001, roughly twenty years after Bethlehem steelworkers gave up the 13-week vacation plan.

In all you have said, I do ultimately agree with you on one point: That the union made a fatal flaw in assuming that the corporation would put people ahead of profits. In a corporate system run on a profit-model, you throw out your labor. So what ended up happening with Bethlehem is that to cut costs, the bosses made massive job cuts and as a result, they ended up creating for themselves a system in which they were paying a pension plan to 600,000 retirees while only have 124,000 employees, which was down from the 300,000 they employed in a given time in their heyday. Now, if this were a publicly-run system, there would be other options available than simply cutting jobs but that would be unthinkable to a privately run business.

This is far from the fault of labor. Like I said, in a system of an antagonistic struggle where the system is always already structured to disadvantage labor since labor power is at the disposal of ownership, then labor needs to get as much as they can from this relationship as possible, while knowing that they will never be able to get as much as is fair.

Point 3: The choice versus not a choice issue...I just fundamentally disagree with that in many ways, too many to list them. But when my choice to work and get paid for doing something I love to do and am skilled in doing versus my choice to punch a time clock and report for work which I hate but am forced to do for whatever reason should no longer be available, I'm done, I'll give up, and I'll pull an Eden Ahbez and go f*** off in the f***ing mountains or something with a hickory walking stick, unkempt beard, flowing robe, and my trusted dog Spot.

If you suggest "we" or people as a general concept have no choice, it plays directly into the worst elements of existentialism, collectivism, communism, relativism, and whatever other -isms define a philosophical bent that subscribes to that train of thought. It also seeks to remove *any trace of personal responsibility* for one's actions, and opens up a scenario where, when convenient, it's possible to assign blame to everything except that which is ultimately making the decision to do or not do something. If you tell me that someone 18 years old has no choice and is either predestined by environment, family history, or some other societal influence to choose a life of crime and despair over a life of education, work, dedication to a craft or skill, etc...I will right now agree to disagree and not travel further down this road.

I never said people had "no choice." That being said, the choices that people have are essentially socially constructed ones. So, for example, in the United States, the way the economic system works, there is a far greater need for a large, subservient subordinate class than there is for an ownership class. In that sense, it would simply be impossible for everyone in the country to choose to not be a subordinate, working-class person. That choice is simply unavailable to everyone and if it was available, then you'd be looking at an entirely different economic system at work. So, again, let's take the United States as an example where there is something of a middle class between wealth and poverty. Well, why is that? Well, for one the 20th century was a period of unparalleled economic growth in the country and this is primarily the result of publicly subsidized industrial development - whether we're talking about the automotive industry, the steel industry, aviation, technology, computers, the internet, advanced weapons, etc. Now, because of this enormous growth, the US was able to take in a lot more money via taxation and shift some money into things like education, social welfare programs, etc. (I don't want to overstate this, the welfare state in the US is unquestionably for protecting the powerful but there has been some directed towards the population at large.) Now, because you had a more educated class, you had more people that were able to have some sort economic mobility, had a greater ability to run their own businesses, etc. Now this has nothing to do with personal responsibility - it has everything to do with economic policy and the general economic structure of the country. The reason why you have a particular class hierarchy in the United States is because the country is built that way. And there are some people who have the sort of freedom to navigate to and from the socio-cultural positions created by the structure of the country, but that freedom is typically held more by those who are already in a higher class position.

This might beg an important question which is, do you believe Bill Gates would have been as successful had he been born and lived his life in Sub-Saharan Africa?

And to somehow suggest the United States as a country is somehow less conducive to someone becoming a success out of their own choice and hard work is too far outside my beliefs, I won't argue it any further because we're a few million miles apart.

Well, on this we're talking about a matter of facts and the facts are that the United States has comparatively low relative economic mobility. Now you can not like the facts, but that doesn't alter their existence.

For all of the success stories, for all of the people who have come to America and have carved out whatever piece of the pie made them happy, formed their legacy, and made their little corner of the Earth that much better as a result, to suggest the United States is somehow less than that...I don't see that at all and can't argue what I consider to be incorrect on basic principle.

Or, perhaps if someone - anyone - can point to a country or a society anywhere in the world where someone can become successful after arriving with barely anything in their pockets, no bank account, etc - and end up building or developing something successful from scratch - please point me in that direction.

Well, it would be true of France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, to point you to seven countries with greater relative economic mobility than that which exists in the United States. The major achievement in the US is the fact that people are so heavily indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

I think those folks who would suggest America is somehow flawed in this way have not spent enough time speaking with people who have in fact built up something from nothing, as recent as immigrants who fled places like Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, China, parts of the Middle East, and who now own and operate successful businesses. They may not be glamorous, they may not be as high-profile as being a fashion editor in Manhattan, but to come from nothing and run a successful business...again, find me another place in the world where it happens more than in America.

Well, remember that a lot of people come from these countries justifiably because they are tired of being under the thumb of the oppressor and so move to the land of the oppressor, as there is no easier way to get out from their thumb!

Or is there? After all, studies typically show that the wages of first generation immigrants typically fall relative to non-immigrants in the United States. So this idea that people come and build "up something from nothing" is something of a myth too.

I'm a sucker, I still believe in the so-called "American Dream", and no amount of philosophy or "-ism" is going to change that. No sale.

How about the facts?

[guitarfool2002]

How about those facts? You don't understand what happened with Bethlehem Steel, and the facts about bankruptcy and all of that ignore what was the street-level reality of the situation. And that reality is that a major contributing factor of the plants being shut down in this area specifically was the union demands. However long the business itself survived under its name isn't the issue: They could have operated for decades longer in name and with non-American plants, it's irrelevant. The issue here was the plants in Pennsylvania could not be sustained when the costs of providing the level of benefits and perks which that particular union was pressing for, and the general opinion decades after all of this actually happened is that the union overstepped its bounds.

Of course there are plenty of blogs and whatnot from children and grandchildren of those workers who would suggest otherwise. People who remember this know what happened and can see the results whenever we drive past empty factories that previously ran 3 shifts a day.

Again, a simple request:

Please spell out a logical justification that any factory worker, or any salaried worker in general working for a paycheck coming from a larger business or corporation, should be entitled to as a condition of employment a 13 week long paid vacation, plus sick days, plus regular salary, plus overtime, plus pension, plus benefits. Please justify that, because to be quite honest about it, anyone who would think this sounds "fair" or "just" is painfully ignorant about the way everyday, ground-level business is done.

If this is considered a "fair" compensation for someone working an 8 hour shift on a production line, then the concept of such a worker's paradise will triumph over the actual opportunities to find this kind of work, because there is no business, short of a fraud like Solyndra which could exist on government handouts and bailouts, that could sustain itself under such a system. The labor costs alone, not to mention raw materials, would create a system where the cost of the finished product would need to be inflated to the point of pricing it right out of the market.

Of course in America the joke for years has been the willingness of the government to pay 100 dollars for a screwdriver which could be bought at a hardware store for 10, so maybe big government running the whole show is more of the goal than we ever dreamed.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, it would be true of France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, to point you to seven countries with greater relative economic mobility than that which exists in the United States. The major achievement in the US is the fact that people are so heavily indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

I think those folks who would suggest America is somehow flawed in this way have not spent enough time speaking with people who have in fact built up something from nothing, as recent as immigrants who fled places like Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, China, parts of the Middle East, and who now own and operate successful businesses. They may not be glamorous, they may not be as high-profile as being a fashion editor in Manhattan, but to come from nothing and run a successful business...again, find me another place in the world where it happens more than in America.

Well, remember that a lot of people come from these countries justifiably because they are tired of being under the thumb of the oppressor and so move to the land of the oppressor, as there is no easier way to get out from their thumb!

Or is there? After all, studies typically show that the wages of first generation immigrants typically fall relative to non-immigrants in the United States. So this idea that people come and build "up something from nothing" is something of a myth too.

I'm a sucker, I still believe in the so-called "American Dream", and no amount of philosophy or "-ism" is going to change that. No sale.

How about the facts?

This...

So this idea that people come and build "up something from nothing" is something of a myth too

...is total and complete bullshit, and I'll now without apology call it for what it is.

Either you have lived in a bubble, or have not spoken to or even have seen enough people who have in fact done EXACTLY what you said is something of a myth. Do I really need to list specific names or businesses? Do I need to gather a list of what we would call "successful" people in business or entertainment or sports or whatever other field we choose who literally came from nothing and became successful?

And feel free to interject the now-prominent topic of "you didn't build that yourself" into the words because much like that bit of nonsense, it again offers an image that those who have not been exposed to enough people whose life story may differ from their own have little understanding of what it takes to get a business running. And yes, damn it, they do it "from nothing" in many cases, and without the help of a government program.

It comes down to this: Suggesting that building something from nothing is something of a myth is closing your eyes to a number of people who did indeed start from little or no means, no benefit of a family name or trust like the Kennedys, and who in fact struck out in life perhaps many times before finally hitting on the right combination and becoming successful.

A story of someone starting a business "from scratch" does in fact go against many of those who believe that anyone successful attained that success from something other than their own work and dedication.

Why is it so difficult to see the reality and witness actual successful Americans who started out very low and worked their way up? Is it too painful to accept that something other than a government program or a big-state sponsored employment system could produce a successful and happy worker? Is it something about the inherent *freedom* and *choice* for someone to decide to follow a dream, become a success, and do it *on their own terms* rather than following someone else's plan?

I think it is a beautiful notion that exists more in America than anywhere else, including Europe, of someone taking a chance on their own and doing it. Simply doing it - on the notions of dedication, talent, innovation, instinct, street-smarts, passion, or the most basic concept of someone being *better* at a given trade than someone else...any combinations of those which have led to success beyond what sociologists would chart out based on background and environment. And one of the most common threads of those who we may consider successful is the fact that many of them failed, and failed miserably, yet got back up and tried it again, with the ultimate lesson being "LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES AND DON'T REPEAT THEM".

I just get really pissed off when someone suggests that something I have seen firsthand, and something which is readily available if examples are needed beyond common logic, is called in any way "a myth". It either suggests a basic misunderstanding of the individuals whose actions would prove such a statement false on the most basic level, or an unwillingness to accept that what can be deduced in theory and through certain philosophies is not the way it works on the street, in everyday life.

I have been very inspired recently by Daymond John, the founder of FUBU and a multi-millionaire businessman. I encourage anyone who doubts the ability of the individual to make "something from nothing" read his story. It is truly inspiring for those who believe in the American Dream as something more than mythology.

In short, part of how he built his business, coming out of Brooklyn the child of a single mother, involved hard work, innovation, and instinct.

This guy who some would call a "one percenter" worked at a Red Lobster, then would come home, sew his hats and clothing by hand, take orders and do marketing at home, sell some of the hats on the streets or in front of venues, then go back to Red Lobster the next day to work his shift. Hours of work, both for a paycheck and to build his own business - dedication and drive, pure and simple. Then later at a certain big trade show - where he and his co-workers could not afford to rent a booth but worked the rooms anyway - his brand FUBU was taken to the next level by those who saw the potential, and success followed from there.

So I might suggest at least looking into the life story and history of how Daymond John became so successful, and how he did actually build something from nothing. To be so cynical as to suggest this is something of a myth is living in a vacuum, I'm sorry to say. And there are many more Daymond Johns out there doing their own thing and working their asses off to be successful, on both small and large scales, and doing it on their own terms. The person taking your order at a restaurant or bar may be the next Daymond John, or may carve out a niche as the best server in that area and be successful in that field and be in demand for his/her skills - that's the American Dream.

I respect and admire that, and it's actually offensive to me and people I know personally to suggest the something from nothing in any way small or large a myth. That is simply wrong, and wherever that mindset originates I'm going to say it's just not correct.

I'm small time, I'm not on any lists of prominent citizens or anything like or close to that, but I did in fact build a full time business opportunity which sustains me, and it was built out of several other failures and a layoff, done on my own terms and doing what I am good at and enjoy - free of any bosses, and with the only requirements and tradeoffs being my taxes and buying my own health insurance.  So I did strike out on my own, and made something sustainable out of failure and a layoff on my own terms. If it were all a myth I wouldn't have been able to do either.

Unless, perhaps, I were to take advantage of the thriving economy in Europe and hang my shingle there...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How about those facts? You don't understand what happened with Bethlehem Steel, and the facts about bankruptcy and all of that ignore what was the street-level reality of the situation. And that reality is that a major contributing factor of the plants being shut down in this area specifically was the union demands. However long the business itself survived under its name isn't the issue: They could have operated for decades longer in name and with non-American plants, it's irrelevant. The issue here was the plants in Pennsylvania could not be sustained when the costs of providing the level of benefits and perks which that particular union was pressing for, and the general opinion decades after all of this actually happened is that the union overstepped its bounds.

But the union was not pressing for a 13 week vacation. I repeat: the steelworkers gave up that perk in 1983 as a sacrifice for the survival of the company and this was a good 18 years before the company went bankrupt. To in any way suggest that it was the 13 week vacation that led in part to the bankruptcy of the company is flat out false no matter what you claim the "street-level reality of the situation" was. I reiterate, Bethlehem Steel was one of a handful of steel companies that used bankruptcy courts in order to renege on contractual obligations and cut pensions, benefits, and wages. This, then, allowed for a very profitable buy-out - a 1.5 billion dollar deal - that was very good for the owners of Bethlehem Steel and very good for the new owners, and meant absolutely nothing to the hundreds of thousands of people formerly employed by them, and the even greater number of retired people who put in hard hours for the company. This incidentally, was during the period of increased profits for the steel industry with Bush's increase in tariffs on imported steel. The steel industry reacted to this by shedding more jobs despite the increased profits. All of this incidentally, is a common business move - it's referred to as accumulation by dispossession, wherein the assets of workers are taken away and placed into the concentrated hands of private industry. This was exactly what happened with Bethlehem Steel and its a routinely played out game in the business world. But unions have little to do with it. They can occasionally pose a difficulty in the company carrying out these actions, which should be illegal, but unfortunately in this case, they seemed to be complicit with the ownership of Bethlehem Steel.

Again, if this was "the general opinion" which I'm doubtful it was, then it's wrong, but if they existed would do so for some of the reasons I've already illustrated (the parent-child/owner-labor relationship). But it seems to me that the central motivating factor in all of this is profits and had nothing to do with "the union oversteppings its bounds." Indeed, there were solutions available to Bethlehem Steel, but unthinkable since they didn't allow for immediate profits.

Again, a simple request:

Please spell out a logical justification that any factory worker, or any salaried worker in general working for a paycheck coming from a larger business or corporation, should be entitled to as a condition of employment a 13 week long paid vacation, plus sick days, plus regular salary, plus overtime, plus pension, plus benefits. Please justify that, because to be quite honest about it, anyone who would think this sounds "fair" or "just" is painfully ignorant about the way everyday, ground-level business is done.

The way "everyday, ground-level business is done" is shameful and exploitative. What the worker should be entitled to is the fruits of their labor but that's not how a capitalist system works. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work. So, in that case, like I said, whatever labor can get is an achievement since until they actually get to control their own work, they will never exist in a fair system and they will always exist in a system that favors the owner at the expense of the worker. So, as far as I'm concerned, this question about what benefits a worker should be entitled to, when in fact they should be entited to the entire company, is so grossly insulting, I don't even know how to really answer it.

If this is considered a "fair" compensation for someone working an 8 hour shift on a production line, then the concept of such a worker's paradise will triumph over the actual opportunities to find this kind of work, because there is no business, short of a fraud like Solyndra which could exist on government handouts and bailouts, that could sustain itself under such a system. The labor costs alone, not to mention raw materials, would create a system where the cost of the finished product would need to be inflated to the point of pricing it right out of the market.

I think that's debatable but if that's the case then it makes you wonder why owners are so resistant to letting employees take control over the companies after they've been shut down.
As long as we're talking about steel, the US Steel Corporation in Youngstown, Ohio is a strong example of that.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This...

So this idea that people come and build "up something from nothing" is something of a myth too

...is total and complete bullsh*t, and I'll now without apology call it for what it is.

Either you have lived in a bubble, or have not spoken to or even have seen enough people who have in fact done EXACTLY what you said is something of a myth. Do I really need to list specific names or businesses?

I'm afraid, again, you've misread since you go on to talk about people like the Kennedy's and Daymond John who were not immigrants, which is what that quote was addressing.

Do I need to gather a list of what we would call "successful" people in business or entertainment or sports or whatever other field we choose who literally came from nothing and became successful?

I am aware of the stories that the media latches on to and spits out relentlessly in order to keep the myth going, so no, you don't need to "gather a list."

And feel free to interject the now-prominent topic of "you didn't build that yourself" into the words because much like that bit of nonsense, it again offers an image that those who have not been exposed to enough people whose life story may differ from their own have little understanding of what it takes to get a business running. And yes, damn it, they do it "from nothing" in many cases, and without the help of a government program.

It comes down to this: Suggesting that building something from nothing is something of a myth is closing your eyes to a number of people who did indeed start from little or no means, no benefit of a family name or trust like the Kennedys, and who in fact struck out in life perhaps many times before finally hitting on the right combination and becoming successful.

A story of someone starting a business "from scratch" does in fact go against many of those who believe that anyone successful attained that success from something other than their own work and dedication.

Why is it so difficult to see the reality and witness actual successful Americans who started out very low and worked their way up? Is it too painful to accept that something other than a government program or a big-state sponsored employment system could produce a successful and happy worker? Is it something about the inherent *freedom* and *choice* for someone to decide to follow a dream, become a success, and do it *on their own terms* rather than following someone else's plan?

I think it is a beautiful notion that exists more in America than anywhere else, including Europe, of someone taking a chance on their own and doing it. Simply doing it - on the notions of dedication, talent, innovation, instinct, street-smarts, passion, or the most basic concept of someone being *better* at a given trade than someone else...any combinations of those which have led to success beyond what sociologists would chart out based on background and environment. And one of the most common threads of those who we may consider successful is the fact that many of them failed, and failed miserably, yet got back up and tried it again, with the ultimate lesson being "LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES AND DON'T REPEAT THEM".

I just get really pissed off when someone suggests that something I have seen firsthand, and something which is readily available if examples are needed beyond common logic, is called in any way "a myth". It either suggests a basic misunderstanding of the individuals whose actions would prove such a statement false on the most basic level, or an unwillingness to accept that what can be deduced in theory and through certain philosophies is not the way it works on the street, in everyday life.

I have been very inspired recently by Daymond John, the founder of FUBU and a multi-millionaire businessman. I encourage anyone who doubts the ability of the individual to make "something from nothing" read his story. It is truly inspiring for those who believe in the American Dream as something more than mythology.

In short, part of how he built his business, coming out of Brooklyn the child of a single mother, involved hard work, innovation, and instinct.

This guy who some would call a "one percenter" worked at a Red Lobster, then would come home, sew his hats and clothing by hand, take orders and do marketing at home, sell some of the hats on the streets or in front of venues, then go back to Red Lobster the next day to work his shift. Hours of work, both for a paycheck and to build his own business - dedication and drive, pure and simple. Then later at a certain big trade show - where he and his co-workers could not afford to rent a booth but worked the rooms anyway - his brand FUBU was taken to the next level by those who saw the potential, and success followed from there.

So I might suggest at least looking into the life story and history of how Daymond John became so successful, and how he did actually build something from nothing. To be so cynical as to suggest this is something of a myth is living in a vacuum, I'm sorry to say. And there are many more Daymond Johns out there doing their own thing and working their asses off to be successful, on both small and large scales, and doing it on their own terms. The person taking your order at a restaurant or bar may be the next Daymond John, or may carve out a niche as the best server in that area and be successful in that field and be in demand for his/her skills - that's the American Dream.

I respect and admire that, and it's actually offensive to me and people I know personally to suggest the something from nothing in any way small or large a myth. That is simply wrong, and wherever that mindset originates I'm going to say it's just not correct.

I'm small time, I'm not on any lists of prominent citizens or anything like or close to that, but I did in fact build a full time business opportunity which sustains me, and it was built out of several other failures and a layoff, done on my own terms and doing what I am good at and enjoy - free of any bosses, and with the only requirements and tradeoffs being my taxes and buying my own health insurance.  So I did strike out on my own, and made something sustainable out of failure and a layoff on my own terms. If it were all a myth I wouldn't have been able to do either.

Unless, perhaps, I were to take advantage of the thriving economy in Europe and hang my shingle there...

As far as I’m concerned there is a befuddling contradiction at the heart of your claim. The first thing you claim is that it is in America more than anywhere else where people can build “something from nothing” (a claim, incidentally, that is blatantly false no matter how strong the rhetoric is that you choose to use because again, in the United States, people are less able to have economic mobility than people who live in other industrialized countries) and the second thing you claim is that they do this “without the help of a government program.” I might ask you then, if these things are achieved only by personal, independent struggle without outside help, then why is it that they are able to do it in America more than anywhere else? Doesn’t your very premise suggest that the economic structure of a society is what creates opportunity or lack of opportunity, rather than some story about individual get-up-and-go-ness? So, let me ask you the same question again and use the example you give – Daymond John. Would Daymond John have been as successful had he been born and lived his life in Sub-Saharan Africa?

[guitarfool2002]

America is not perfect, it has its share of problems as does any society or any person, that's common knowledge: I simply get tired of reading posts, specifically your posts, that are trying to convince the general readership of this forum that the United States is rotten to the core. Statistics, studies, and reports do not usurp living people and their words and experiences. I have seen too much good in America, and have seen, heard, and interacted with too many good Americans to allow someone to endlessly bash and degrade America without a challenge.

You still insist that certain aspects of the so-called "American Dream" are false, are a myth...do you get this from news articles, from data, from academic studies and analysis of such data, or have you actually known or spoken with anyone who has in fact come to America from somewhere else in the world and found success or what they would consider part of the "American Dream"?

I also knew you would shoot down the Daymon John example - To be frank about it, any time a specific example is given that directly contradicts any of the so called facts coming from that anti-capitalist philosophy, every attempt is made to shoot holes in the example and discredit it rather than discuss the actual *point* of the example. Classic tactic of shifting the discussion or discrediting the example instead of discussing it. I'll call bullshit on that every time, as I do and did here.

I guess if the sheltered academics, social engineers, and raving anti-capitalists were to have found Daymon John sewing his FUBU hats late night at his place in Brooklyn back in the early 90's, they could have told him not to bother pursuing a dream because he already has the sociological deck stacked against him - single parent background, poverty-stricken neighborhood, etc.

I think for him and all of the people who he employs, it's a great thing he ignored all of that bullshit and followed his dream.

As far as Europe - the end of the day financial reports Thursday headlined the failure of European leaders to act on the impending financial meltdown of the European economy as a reason for uncertainty and a drop in the markets overall. And we have Romney on the campaign trail blaming Europe's "socialist" system, and Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama blaming the plans of "austerity" in Europe for the impending financial doom...

In this case the thing they seem to agree on is that Europe is on the brink of a financial collapse. So at least the reality of the problems with the European economy are one issue where the R's and D's would seem to agree. So I'd be careful about looking too out-of-touch with the realities of the present global economy when suggesting Europe offers something greater at a time when their own economic infrastructure is teetering on collapse.

To conclude, I'm curious: What exactly is the end game here? We could easily zero in on any number of societies in the world and point fingers at a long list of mistakes, digressions, and outright violations of basic human rights. Yet it's always the cliche "blame America" or better yet "blame capitalism" for whatever is wrong.

I'm familiar with that, it's a mindset that I have encountered often and beyond postings on a message board.

However, the part about suggesting there is no American dream with continued claims like this: "The first thing you claim is that it is in America more than anywhere else where people can build “something from nothing” (a claim, incidentally, that is blatantly false no matter how strong the rhetoric is that you choose to use because again, in the United States, people are less able to have economic mobility than people who live in other industrialized countries)"

What is the greater purpose of this tactic? Is it an attempt to convince others who may have a notion of creating their own success that it's all a myth, and not to bother? Is it an attempt to again tarnish an image of America which some hold very close for personal reasons or subscribing to a larger movement trying to influence those ignorant of the facts? Is it playing into those methods prescribed by Alinsky or the Cloward-Piven strategies, among them creating and maintaining a permanent dependency within society where the solution is assistance and aid?

Again, what is the ultimate goal of trying to convince people, anywhere but specifically here on this forum, that a notion of the "American Dream", or creating something from nothing, is a myth?

Your opinion is *not* fact, and again it is continually contradicted by real people in America (not numbers or data) who did exactly what you suggest is a myth, and created something from nothing.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

America is not perfect, it has its share of problems as does any society or any person, that's common knowledge: I simply get tired of reading posts, specifically your posts, that are trying to convince the general readership of this forum that the United States is rotten to the core. Statistics, studies, and reports do not usurp living people and their words and experiences. I have seen too much good in America, and have seen, heard, and interacted with too many good Americans to allow someone to endlessly bash and degrade America without a challenge.

Well, we can do one of two things here. We can either believe the empircal and extensively documented facts on relative economic mobility which I've been discussing and which can be easily verified (if you want the statistics, I'll provide them) or, what guitarfool says he heard from somebody. Which can't be checked. And to be honest, I think it's telling that you're trying to move this to a discussion that uses unverified anecdotal information as the primary evidence to reinforce our points because at that point it simply becomes a game of rhetorical prowess or who can feign the most righteousness, rather than a discussion about real facts.

I also knew you would shoot down the Daymon John example - To be frank about it, any time a specific example is given that directly contradicts any of the so called facts coming from that anti-capitalist philosophy, every attempt is made to shoot holes in the example and discredit it rather than discuss the actual *point* of the example. Classic tactic of shifting the discussion or discrediting the example instead of discussing it. I'll call bullsh*t on that every time, as I do and did here.

Perhaps you could explain how the example contradicts any of the facts I gave?

As far as Europe - the end of the day financial reports Thursday headlined the failure of European leaders to act on the impending financial meltdown of the European economy as a reason for uncertainty and a drop in the markets overall. And we have Romney on the campaign trail blaming Europe's "socialist" system, and Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama blaming the plans of "austerity" in Europe for the impending financial doom...

In this case the thing they seem to agree on is that Europe is on the brink of a financial collapse. So at least the reality of the problems with the European economy are one issue where the R's and D's would seem to agree. So I'd be careful about looking too out-of-touch with the realities of the present global economy when suggesting Europe offers something greater at a time when their own economic infrastructure is teetering on collapse.

I'm perfectly aware of what's happening in Europe and I agree that austerity in the midst of recession is economic suicide, as well as a brutal form of neo-colonialism. If the Republican camp is blaming Europe's socialist system then they simply don't have even the most elementary understanding of basic economic principles. But none of this changes what I've said. The question is, will it? Will there be a time in the future when American economic mobility is higher than it is in much of Western Europe rather than lower, as it has been almost permanently for years. It might but that doesn't change the fact that Europeans, for decades upon decades, have had far greater opportunities for economic development than American citizens. Personally, I have my doubts. After all, the European austerity plans basically do what's being done in the United States - shift the burden onto the working population. So, in the United States, corporations are recording record profits in the last year while simultaneously slashing jobs in the name of financial crisis. So, it seems to me that in both cases you have societies that typically shift economic burdens onto the working population, while concentrated wealth and power gets to reap the rewards. So I ultimately would find it hard to believe that the average US citizen is going to be faring much better than the average European citizen. And more over, this would hardly be a great success since the economic mobility in the States would essentially remain the same, while other countries would drop (in this hypothetical scenario that hasn't happened). The point should be for the US to raise the economic mobility numbers to be as high as we know they could be.

To conclude, I'm curious: What exactly is the end game here?

For me, it's a simple one: telling the truth.

We could easily zero in on any number of societies in the world and point fingers at a long list of mistakes, digressions, and outright violations of basic human rights. Yet it's always the cliche "blame America" or better yet "blame capitalism" for whatever is wrong.

Well, I'm not interested in manipulating the factual evidence so that we can be more fair in handing out blame. If you want to "zero in", be my guest. It seems to me that one, however, has a moral obligation on "zeroing in" on the things that he or she has the capacity to do something about - otherwise, it's just vacuous back-slapping. We could zero in on the crimes of Genghis Khan but it hardly matters.

However, the part about suggesting there is no American dream with continued claims like this: "The first thing you claim is that it is in America more than anywhere else where people can build “something from nothing” (a claim, incidentally, that is blatantly false no matter how strong the rhetoric is that you choose to use because again, in the United States, people are less able to have economic mobility than people who live in other industrialized countries)"

What is the greater purpose of this tactic?

Again, simply: to tell the truth and you can learn a lot about people who don't want you to tell it.

Your opinion is *not* fact, and again it is continually contradicted by real people in America (not numbers or data) who did exactly what you suggest is a myth, and created something from nothing.

It's not my opinion that Americans have lower relative economic mobility than many other industrialized countries. Those are indeed the facts. And like I said earlier, you can like the facts or dislike them but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Furthermore, I suggest you look back on the last few pages of the thread since you seem to think that I've said somewhere that no one could ever create something from nothing in the history of time in all of America ever. Since you'll find that I never actually even alluded to a remark that stupid, I hope we can put this matter to rest.

[guitarfool2002]

Do you expect me to list names and addresses and contact information? Seriously? So don't take my word, as someone who you've actually interacted and dialogued with, but rather believe your anonymous "statistics" over an actual person describing real people.

Seriously, are you that stubborn or that distrusting of people that you'd doubt the accuracy of something I'm posting here? Do you seriously suggest I'm making this up?

If that's the case, let me know now and I'll have a two word response that begins with the letter "F" and ends with the word "you".

I hope that's not the case, because if you want to call into question my honesty or truthfulness I'll respond in kind.

I'm sure it does sting a bit to see firsthand evidence presented to challenge one's notion of "the truth" as found in data and statistics, so I'll duly note that your opinions are exactly that - opinions, and any notions of the truth will continue to come from what I see directly as an American citizen interacting with Americans who have shown your "truth" to be somewhat less than advertised.

Short of listing by name and contact information a sampling of the people who would immediately disprove this notion that the "American Dream-something from nothing" concept is a myth, why not go to the direct participants? In my area, I can easily find businesses owned by and/or staffed by immigrants from Egypt, China, Vietnam/Cambodia, Cuba, India, Greece, Poland, England...pick a region. It's a phone call or a drive away to interact with someone who actually did "the impossible", according to the previous posts. Personally speaking, I have had co-workers in the past who had come from several of those areas, in one case a company who employed a number of Vietnamese workers, and saw who managed to carve out a decent American existence and have a steady job with benefits and a good salary. Some were first generation immigrants, some were their children. Go to any major city, find areas like Chinatown or Little Havana or areas with a large Haitian, Cambodian, Greek, or any number of areas where immigrants who have settled in America have chosen to live and work, a good number of those having arrived with little or no money.

Add my own background to the list, my grandfather actually arrived in the early 20th century from Poland not speaking English, and we were able to track his name to a ledger from the boat he took to arrive in America to where he would eventually reside in Philly. So part of my own existence as an American is due to a man who - literally - started something from nothing in a new country.

Of course if this is not a life experience that is shared by everyone, or if a major city in America that has specific areas where residents settle after immigrating from specific areas is not nearby and not a part of everyday life, then I suppose it would not be as easy to see firsthand examples of this "American Dream".

But I wanted to restate that my strong reaction to certain comments might be more understandable if seen from the perspective of reacting to someone telling me that these things I have seen firsthand and can verify with a few phone calls or emails are somehow untrue, or a myth, or anything else other than what I know to be true, and what I know to be an experience shared by more than a few individuals. So this "reality" I have seen multiple times, firsthand, is in fact reality and not mythology as suggested.

So congratulations on once again shifting the discussion from the topic to questioning my word. I thought you were above that but maybe protecting the beliefs of one's political ideology does in fact win out over the idea of a robust debate between acquaintances.

In other words, feel free to put statistics and numbers over individual people as a general rule, it would make Saul Alinsky and any number of collectivist thinkers proud.

My name is Craig, btw.

[guitarfool2002]

And if I get out of line, someone please remind me that "the truth" isn't what I have seen, heard, or experienced firsthand, but rather what someone who has reviewed pages of statistics and data has told me from afar. 

Ahh, the glorious state of political discourse in 2012.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Do you expect me to list names and addresses and contact information? Seriously? So don't take my word, as someone who you've actually interacted and dialogued with, but rather believe your anonymous "statistics" over an actual person describing real people.

Seriously, are you that stubborn or that distrusting of people that you'd doubt the accuracy of something I'm posting here? Do you seriously suggest I'm making this up?

Do I believe that you know enough people to show that the facts are wrong and that America, in fact, has the highest economic mobility in the world despite what studies have shown? No, I don't believe that and you certainly haven't given me any information that would lead me to reasonably consider such a position.

I'm sure it does sting a bit to see firsthand evidence presented to challenge one's notion of "the truth" as found in data and statistics, so I'll duly note that your opinions are exactly that - opinions, and any notions of the truth will continue to come from what I see directly as an American citizen interacting with Americans who have shown your "truth" to be somewhat less than advertised.

It doesn't sting at all since I don't find your anedotal evidence to be at all convincing.

But I wanted to restate that my strong reaction to certain comments might be more understandable if seen from the perspective of reacting to someone telling me that these things I have seen firsthand

What precisely did you see in Denmark?

In other words, feel free to put statistics and numbers over individual people as a general rule, it would make Saul Alinsky and any number of collectivist thinkers proud.

Don't forget it also does proud anybody who respects factual evidence.

[guitarfool2002]

Nor do I find your reliance on statistics enough to lessen my personal "anecdotal" evidence. So, once again, I suggest if you don't want to take what I say as truthful, shame on you for not trusting what someone else says and casting doubt on their word, and I'd appreciate it if my "word" were at least given some level of respect in the discussion and not dismissed as "anecdotal".

I suppose to take it outside of my word which you seem to look down on, I could copy and paste a few dozen online articles with immigrants to America telling the story of their experience and success in America, but what's the point? You have the blinders on, and your statistics are the foundation of your wishing to believe or not believe a real person who tells you something other than what the numbers suggest.

How many stories from people would it take for you to not only listen but *hear* these things? At this point, it feels like nothing would outweigh the data.

I believe there is a fundamental difference in outlook at work here, and a reliance on statistics and numbers as part of a greater mindset that much of society can be engineered through use of data and statistics. I'm not against the concept or the field of social engineering in all cases, but at the same time I personally feel it too often reduces individual human beings with vastly different personalities to numbers and lumps them into groups or demographics, and seeks to remove the concept of individual behavior and individual choices when confronted with a certain situation.

We could, through statistics, attempt to assemble the ultimate team in any given sport. Take into account previous performance, future potential, physical fitness, skill sets, etc. and engineer a "dream team" that would ensure success. On paper, running all the numbers in as scientific a process as would be possible, such a dream team could in fact be created.

However, I feel that you cannot engineer such a process to ensure results, or even predict results. The human factor will always be the key part of the equation. No matter what statistics are analyzed and calculated, the ultimate factor becomes the performance and actions of the individual. You cannot engineer the possibility of the individuals in that group to either outperform or under-perform the expectations.

I believe - and I know many will disagree - that the main flaw I see with attempting to engineer anything where humans are involved, from society to forms of government to sports teams, is that people are not numbers and cannot be managed in a controlled scientific environment. And I see that such social engineering appears to be a component in a number of solutions or plans for change being suggested by those who disagree with a capitalist system.

If the suggestion is offered that statistics suggest the improbable notion of, say, creating something from nothing, it dismisses and ignores the drive and desire of the individual, and suggests failure is the expectation over success.

It is fortunate that many who are successful were inspired even more after being told they couldn't succeed.

Statistics and analysis have their place, but in more limited ways than I think some apply them to real life.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I suppose to take it outside of my word which you seem to look down on, I could copy and paste a few dozen online articles with immigrants to America telling the story of their experience and success in America, but what's the point?

Indeed, since a few dozen online articles in no way would be comparative to a major research study that examined income mobility by nation.

You have the blinders on, and your statistics are the foundation of your wishing to believe or not believe a real person who tells you something other than what the numbers suggest.

No, it's is simply understanding what is perfectly true - that I alone cannot compare economic mobility amongst nations without carrying out a major research project. Certainly no firsthand observations would allow me to come anywhere near finding anything of substance nor would it give me anything resembling an accurate represenation of reality.

How many stories from people would it take for you to not only listen but *hear* these things? At this point, it feels like nothing would outweigh the data.

Stories wouldn't tell me anything. I would need to measure the income of a sizable chunk of people over a period of time to measure to movement between economic quintiles and then compare it to the same chunk of people in other countries. But since doing that would more than likely give me the same results as shown by the data, I hardly see the point.

I believe there is a fundamental difference in outlook at work here, and a reliance on statistics and numbers as part of a greater mindset that much of society can be engineered through use of data and statistics. I'm not against the concept or the field of social engineering in all cases, but at the same time I personally feel it too often reduces individual human beings with vastly different personalities to numbers and lumps them into groups or demographics, and seeks to remove the concept of individual behavior and individual choices when confronted with a certain situation.

We could, through statistics, attempt to assemble the ultimate team in any given sport. Take into account previous performance, future potential, physical fitness, skill sets, etc. and engineer a "dream team" that would ensure success. On paper, running all the numbers in as scientific a process as would be possible, such a dream team could in fact be created.

However, I feel that you cannot engineer such a process to ensure results, or even predict results. The human factor will always be the key part of the equation. No matter what statistics are analyzed and calculated, the ultimate factor becomes the performance and actions of the individual. You cannot engineer the possibility of the individuals in that group to either outperform or under-perform the expectations.

I believe - and I know many will disagree - that the main flaw I see with attempting to engineer anything where humans are involved, from society to forms of government to sports teams, is that people are not numbers and cannot be managed in a controlled scientific environment. And I see that such social engineering appears to be a component in a number of solutions or plans for change being suggested by those who disagree with a capitalist system.

If the suggestion is offered that statistics suggest the improbable notion of, say, creating something from nothing, it dismisses and ignores the drive and desire of the individual, and suggests failure is the expectation over success.

It is fortunate that many who are successful were inspired even more after being told they couldn't succeed.

Statistics and analysis have their place, but in more limited ways than I think some apply them to real life.

Okay. I can't really say much further to you on this point. If you don't like the factual evidence, then fine. It's up to other people to decide for themselves what they think. I certainly don't need to explain the value of legitimate, factual evidence that comes as a result of major research programs being carried out. All I can say is that before when you didn't like the statistics you tried to undermine them by undermining the source. This time, you have simply chosen to undermine statistics as a valid form of proof altogether. It's fairly clear that you simply don't accept proof if it happens to prove you wrong and you resort to discrediting the source or discrediting the proof entirely as a counter-argument. But the facts are what they are, and like I said above, you can learn a lot from people who don't want you to regard the facts at all. I don't think there's much more productive that can be said in this particular discussion but I'd be happy to talk to you about other matters.

For anyone interested, there are some very good articles/reports on the matter:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/05/useconomics-morton

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf

[guitarfool2002]

The art of undermining a source of news or information instead of confronting the issue is something you've done so often on this board, I remember a few cases of "Fox News" being cited and denigrated around an older man who shot a burglar, I guess it's a new tactic to now point the finger at someone else with the same accusation. I'll repeat what I said earlier: If I were to post such an eyewitness, firsthand report from an outlet like Fox or the Washington Times that challenges your own data, the immediate response would be to attack the source of that report and make *that* the issue over the actual topic at hand.

Trust me, I've seen enough political hacks from James Carville to Donna Brazile to Karl Rove to Ed Rollins do the same thing over the years while working the media circuit.

I all but gave up on the notion of finding any trace of a willingness here to see beyond the fact sheets and the research, or anything of the sort in favor of listening to people and what they are saying. Because there is often the scenario where hearing from actual people contradicts what the extensive studies and polls and research-grant funded think-tanks can conclude on pages full of data.

Ultimately it feels like the end result is more about changing minds and shaping opinions among the small minority of readers here actually following this stuff in this thread. If that's the case, do it no-holds-barred and go all out - full disclosure. Reveal what is at the heart of the attacks on the American way of life and government, what is behind the attempts to talk up anything around the notion of an anti-capitalist agenda. Spell it all out, from the pages of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals text to the Cloward and Piven strategy for expanding a welfare state in America. I'm not being facetious, I'm being 100% serious: I wish instead of discussing ideology and expressing view after view criticizing the American structure and capitalist system in general, maybe an attempt to educate the audience on the specifics of a viable alternative would be more welcome.

Anyone can critique and criticize from afar - let's suspend personal biases for a moment and hear what exactly would happen under either an anarchist, socialist, communist, or any other form of government to replace the capitalist system in America. Specifics are good - I don't think we hear them enough. Again, it is easier to point fingers and criticize than it is to offer viable solutions which would make the lives of the masses of Americans living under capitalism better.

I attempted to present examples - they were derided as "anecdotal" and dismissed in favor of research projects, statistics, and data. Very, very disheartening, and again I'll repeat that if I were to put 3 dozen people on a plane, fly them to your house, and have them explain one after the other how they started something from nothing in America, you (rockandroll) would still not believe it happens that often, so hard and fast are you dedicated to the statistics and words on a page based on numbers, it's not possible for you to open up to the possibility that research, polling, and analysis of data does not tell the whole story.

Remind me to see how many entrepreneurs or self-made successes who built something of their own have originated in any of the European countries listed above and have told their story, compared to those in America.

And I stand by the idea that facts and data are only more important than the individual person within an ideology that seeks to transform the individual into a statistic, a number, or part of a demographic.  Ring a bell?

[guitarfool2002]

What precisely did you see in Denmark?

Most likely what you saw in Southeast Pennsylvania.  

My grandmother traveled to Denmark in the 70's, and brought back a pencil case which I remember taking to kindergarten. That's my connection to Denmark, although I'm sure it's a very lovely country.

Unfortunately it doesn't offer much to me if there isn't a thriving popular music scene for me to make a living, Italian-style hoagies made on Amoroso rolls to eat, or a local baseball team to follow. And I also like to keep more than half of what I earn to spend as I please, unlike what the average tax rates take from workers in Denmark.

Although, if there is a popular band from Denmark, let me know if they have an active message board and fan community and I'll post there regularly with comments bashing their system of government, their economic structure, and pointing out all their flaws as a nation while blaming them for various problems facing Europe.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The art of undermining a source of news or information instead of confronting the issue is something you've done so often on this board, I remember a few cases of "Fox News" being cited and denigrated around an older man who shot a burglar, I guess it's a new tactic to now point the finger at someone else with the same accusation.

That’s patently false. In that case, I was not dismissing the story on the basis of the source. And I suppose the perfect evidence in this case is that the story that you bring up was not a Fox News story. It was from an online zine called The Stir, and I never once said a single, solitary thing about The Stir, online zines, or anything about where the story came from.

Here’s the thread in question:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12554.0.html

If you read the thread you’ll note that the basis of my critique of the story had nothing to do with the source but rather that the story was, in my opinion, rhetorically disingenuous. This is why I wrote this:

Now, let's get to the facts of this story, some of which guitarfool has pointed out. The initial article posted by the OP states that a "New Hampshire grandfather has been arrested and is facing a possible prison sentence for firing a shot into the ground and holding a burglar at gunpoint until the cops could arrive." What the article doesn't mention is that this incident occurred in the afternoon probably 20 minutes or so after Fleming noticed his house had been broken into and occurred well outside of Fleming's home, down the street. The point that he was "holding a burglar at gunpoint until the cops could arrive" is misleading since Fleming himself didn't actually call the police. He simply grabbed his gun and went patrolling the neighborhood, saw someone coming out of someone else's house who he assumed was the same man who broke into his own house, shot his gun, and then held him at gunpoint. Is this reckless behavior? Yes. Did the police have a right to charge him? Yes. Should the charges have been dropped? Yes, and that's exactly what happened. Outside of a man patrolling the neighborhood with his gun looking for someone that he never identified in the first place, this is a perfectly reasonable chain of events.

Think too about how we're being conditioned by this story because of rhetorical tricks. There is the aforementioned "until the cops arrived" line which misleads us into thinking that Fleming knew the cops were coming when he held the man at gun point when in fact not only did he not know, but instead of him calling the police when he witnessed a crime had taken place in his home, he instead grabbed his gun and went on a vigilante-style hunt for a man he never saw. Also, what's with the terms, "Grandfather arrested for holding a burglar?" Grandfather? What does his status as a grandfather have to do with this? How would we read this story different had the title been "27 year old held at gunpoint by a 61 year old man"? I'm not saying that's a reasonable headline either - merely pointing out that we are being conditioned from the very beginning to be sympathetic to this "grandfather."

Now if that to you looks like undermining a source rather than “confronting the issue”, then you simply don’t know what it means to either undermine a source or confront an issue. What I did do in this case was suggest that this kind of rhetorical acrobatics is conventional for Fox News, which is why my first post in the thread was “Classic Fox News Story.”  But that doesn’t mean that I was dismissing the story because it was a Fox News Story (because it wasn’t) or even because it sounded like a Fox News story, as should be perfectly obvious when reading the rhetorical analysis that I did on the story, which I provided in the quotation above. It should be absolutely clear that it was the things that made the story sound like a Fox News Story that I critiqued, not the source.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: If I were to post such an eyewitness, firsthand report from an outlet like Fox or the Washington Times that challenges your own data, the immediate response would be to attack the source of that report and make *that* the issue over the actual topic at hand.

I urge you then to find one real example where I’ve done that. Just one.

Ultimately it feels like the end result is more about changing minds and shaping opinions among the small minority of readers here actually following this stuff in this thread.

Not at all. I respect people enough to believe that they can make up their own minds on these issues. However, I do believe that in order to make up one’s own mind it is important to look at a variety of perspectives and I am offering one. This is why I’ve urged others on this board to contribute here if they want to because the more voices there are the better. So all I’m doing is offering my perspective and if people want to come away reading this agreeing or disagreeing with that perspective, that’s perfectly fine. If they want to investigate the things that I’ve said for themselves and make up their own minds based on those investigations, even better. But my goal is certainly not to shape opinions.

Reveal what is at the heart of the attacks on the American way of life and government, what is behind the attempts to talk up anything around the notion of an anti-capitalist agenda.

It’s actually quite simple. In both my personal and public life, the lion’s share of my political and activist work does not concentrate on the United States at all because I feel my responsibilities lie elsewhere. I talk about it here because I happen to be joining conversations (never starting any) that are talking specifically about American politics and the political culture in the U.S. I happen to have done a lot of research on that subject and therefore lend my voice because I feel it might be useful in the discussion. Since the majority of the posters posting political information seem to be most familiar with the political situation in the United States, it seems that it is far more productive to discuss those matters than to discuss matters in which people would not be able to participate to a large degree because of their general lack of information on the subject.

Furthermore, it is a central anarchist principle to interrogate power and authority, holding it accountable to the people, and finding out whether or not it provides the burden of proof to justify its existence. Now, if this is a central principle then it makes sense first to concentrate on the power you can do something about, and second to concentrate on the power that is dominant. In terms of the latter, it seems to me that the dominant power of our times emanates from the capitalist structure and it also is apparent that the most powerful country in the world both in terms of wealth and strength is the United States. In that sense, there is a certain moral obligation to make that a focus of my attention if I am at all serious about interrogating power.

I'm not being facetious, I'm being 100% serious: I wish instead of discussing ideology and expressing view after view criticizing the American structure and capitalist system in general, maybe an attempt to educate the audience on the specifics of a viable alternative would be more welcome.

I give alternatives all the time. For instance in this very thread, in the discussion on Bethlehem Steel, I gave one very obvious alternative – let the workers run it. Now here I run into difficulties with you because it is impossible to give that alternative and not be simultaneously critical of the capitalist system. The very alternative is itself a critique of capitalism.  But regardless, I give alternatives frequently. There was a discussion on the drug war where I gave nothing but alternatives (legalization, education, etc.) and you, while producing no alternatives of your own, systematically attempted to dismiss all of them. So, yes, there are alternatives, I am quite open about them, but you don’t like them, so therefore they don’t count.

Anyone can critique and criticize from afar - let's suspend personal biases for a moment and hear what exactly would happen under either an anarchist, socialist, communist, or any other form of government to replace the capitalist system in America. Specifics are good - I don't think we hear them enough. Again, it is easier to point fingers and criticize than it is to offer viable solutions which would make the lives of the masses of Americans living under capitalism better.

Again, that’s something I’ve discussed elsewhere too. But here’s the thing, it’s not up to me to specifically draw up a proposal of an anarchist society. The very thought of doing something like that is entirely out of line with anarchist philosophy. What is far more crucial than one guy explaining what society “should” look like, is working together with as many people as possible through communication and community-building to work out a system that is agreeable . This is really a crucial step. I am not so egotistical as to think that it is I who have the best idea for a society and that everyone should listen to me and do it. Rather, I have a basic belief in genuine freedom and independence and believe that people should ultimately work together to decide the kind of society they would like to see and that doing this would demand from everybody (not just a select group of rulers) ongoing day-to-day work in terms of organizing that society on just about every level.

I'll repeat that if I were to put 3 dozen people on a plane, fly them to your house, and have them explain one after the other how they started something from nothing in America, you (rockandroll) would still not believe it happens that often, so hard and fast are you dedicated to the statistics and words on a page based on numbers, it's not possible for you to open up to the possibility that research, polling, and analysis of data does not tell the whole story.

So, your last suggestion was copying and pasting "a few dozen" immigration stories to counter the statistics and now you’re suggesting that flying 36 people to my house will work to undermine the statistics? You can’t possibly believe what you’re saying here.

Remind me to see how many entrepreneurs or self-made successes who built something of their own have originated in any of the European countries listed above and have told their story, compared to those in America.

You’re right – because the American Dream myth is a familiar narrative – it is as entrenched in American culture as the cowboy story – it is a narrative that audiences are receptive to and thus gets told a lot. Other countries do not care about this narrative as much, it’s not part of how they identify themselves, these imagined communities were not based on these narratives, and as and thus they have no need to flaunt these stories as relentlessly as they are flaunted in the United States.  But again, I reiterate that self-made success is impossible, at least the kind that you are describing. I will ask the question again: Would Daymond John have been as successful had he been born and lived his life in Sub-Saharan Africa?

What precisely did you see in Denmark?

Most likely what you saw in Southeast Pennsylvania.  

Exactly. However, I’m not the one claiming you need to have firsthand experiences of something before you can talk about it legitimately. I’m saying that using the very methodology you privilege, you are entirely incapable of making the suggestion that it is “more in America than anywhere else” where people can build something out of nothing, since in order to do that you would need to have firsthand experiences of a large variety of nations, not just the United States, including countries like Denmark that have better economic mobility than the U.S.

And, of course, the ultimate point should be that no one on planet Earth can possibly ever have the kind of firsthand experience to objectively make claims about comparative national upward economic mobility – not me, not you, not anyone. That’s why in cases like these it is crucial to examine the facts that are available, not to simply trust the interpretations of our limited experiences.