BoA and First Union are dumping employees .. the easiest and fastest way
to reduce expenses. They are still hiring, but mostly for positions
vacated by people they let go because said persons were not providing
results as measured by the budgets the companies have set. They are
also being *e
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM, GMoney wrote:
> Do you somehow doubt that corporations provide jobs? I mean, a corporation
> is nothing more than a collection of employed peopleright?
>
No, a corporation is a legal entity with stockholders and Board of
Directors, incorporated under law.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Ah, ok, no worries then. It's hard with email discussions because
> every contribution to a thread has to be a response to something
> else...even if it isn't exactly meant as one.
>
Yeah - it's a natural instinct on this list in particula
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> I also didn't say that we should stop companies from getting bigger.
>> You seem to be arguing with a straw man here.
>
>
> Meh - really not arguing as much as stating my posi
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> I also didn't say that we should stop companies from getting bigger.
> You seem to be arguing with a straw man here.
Meh - really not arguing as much as stating my position. Doesn't have to be
in opposition to yours.
-Cameron
...
~~~
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> The original question was on employment in big companies versus small
>> business and I just pointed out that one of the primary reasons for
>> big companies is efficiency of
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
> This is also true of technology. I've wrote some software that eliminated
> an entire department at a company once. They were redundant, the system
> literally did 100% of what they did in their jobs.
>
> So - is that also bad? I was j
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> The original question was on employment in big companies versus small
> business and I just pointed out that one of the primary reasons for
> big companies is efficiency of scale which means fewer people needed
> to produce the same output.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> By definition, the more efficiency you create in your business
>> execution, the less you need to staff.
>
>
> This is also true of technology. I've wrote some software that
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> By definition, the more efficiency you create in your business
> execution, the less you need to staff.
This is also true of technology. I've wrote some software that eliminated
an entire department at a company once. They were redundan
In general, the justification for larger businesses is efficiencies of
scale. By definition, the more efficiency you create in your business
execution, the less you need to staff. So fewer, larger, companies
will have a bunch of jobs but it will be, in aggregate, less than the
larger number of sma
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> But are those jobs from corporations, or from small businesses?
>
> Also, are those emails viable jobs, or just spam blasts from recruiters?
>
Couple have been spam blasts, but most have not been.
Some small businesses, several that were quit
But are those jobs from corporations, or from small businesses?
Also, are those emails viable jobs, or just spam blasts from recruiters?
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:25 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> >
> > Not lately. Which ones are you hearing that fr
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Not lately. Which ones are you hearing that from?
>
Lots of jobs in the KC area. I changed my status on DICE to "happily
employed", and still get emails several times a month..including 3 just last
week.
I'm just saying that corporations are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56CsYFrC0zU&feature=feedu
This was a short video I took about an hour or so before the march.
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:36 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Occupy Pers
is country and
our freedoms.
We had 2000+ people marching to Grant Park from the Chicago Board of Trade
on Saturday...it was pretty awesome.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Milo Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:18 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Occup
The protests were motivated initially by AdBusters. They aren't disclaiming
their role. The movement per se has no leaders, nor do they want any. The
media is baffled by the lack of mouthpieces since they find spinning an
issue so much easier when they have sound bites from so-called "experts".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-wallstreet-protests-funding-idUSTRE79D01Q20111014
Soros denies it and he never lies.
I'm starting to think this was a spoof and some folks didn't realize it.
.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> Having been on the groun
Having been on the ground at Occupy Boston, I can guarantee it is NOT
organized. By any definition of the word.
The only organization I can see is by big media companies to ignore it, and
coordination of police response across multiple cities.
I saw many _organizations_ participating, but none w
if true, that's still only the history of the *phrase*. The inequality
of income growth has been known for a while; the importance of Occupy
Wall Street is that it's a means to comment on that. Not everyone has
that, even in this day and age when we are all supposedly publishers.
Shrug. Or so it l
I was going to say Soros but then I just read this:
http://leestranahan.com/the-rich-white-kid-behind-owss-1-meme
The Rich White Kid Behind #OWSs 1% Meme
.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> so... who do you think is behind it? I think organized politics would
> have a more coh
so... who do you think is behind it? I think organized politics would
have a more coherent message. Unless we're talking about Republicans,
of course :)
> OWS is not about treading water, it'a politics and it's organized.
> Sometimes people are just tools.
>
> .
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:08
Yes, goods are cheaper, it's all crap being made in China and of
course plastics changed the game. As for food, milk went up, but I can
still by chicken and steaks for $2 or $3 # on sale. What was dinner in
the $70's? $12 for an entree and $2.25 for a beer? Now it's about $18
and $3.50. Or go to A
good are cheaper? Hadn't noticed. Granted I moved California during
this period and the price differential could have masked this for me,
but... gas is not cheaper, computers don't seem cheaper -- and you'd
kind of expect them to -- and I don't see a price drop in food either.
Not that I agree th
Misery levels have skyrocked during this admin.
Nobody gives a shit about real wages because goods are so much
cheaper. It balances out.
As fro Jobs, ask his kids if they agree, and all the charities he gave to..
.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Unfortunately what their
Unfortunately what their angry about has no more to do with this administration
than any other since the 70s. Real wages haven't gone up since 1973 and the
wealth gap hasn't been larger since the 30s.
Put simply, America can no longer lead itself no matter who's in government.
OWS is a harbi
Business Insider is right wing. :P
What I find funny is these idiots need someone else to write a huge
article to explain their position and I guarantee 90% don't even know
it. After all didn't Soros set up OWS?
Haha a bunch of stupid dupes :)
Anyway, after reading this I'm shocked they aren't
> I wonder how long before the right wing readers of this list go all
> rat shiite to discredit it?
I for one have no beef with the concept of banking where the customer
gets the best ROI, regardless of whether it's at a bank, credit union
or whatever other options might be out there. I'm not go
I wonder how long before the right wing readers of this list go all
rat shiite to discredit it?
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> That's an awesome but scary link.
>
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Casey Dougall
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Maureen
That's an awesome but scary link.
On Oct 14, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Guess you missed the link at the end of the video.
>> http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/
>>
>> And they were not protesting in the bank. They we
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Guess you missed the link at the end of the video.
> http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/
>
> And they were not protesting in the bank. They were sitting quietly
> holding
> a sign waiting for a bank staffer to let them close their account.
>
>
Th
> I haven't seen anything from the movement
> encouraging people to move their bank accounts and showing clear
> alternatives.
^^ This.
A couple years ago, Chase was "forced" to buy Washington Mutual by the Feds.
As soon as the announcement was made, I told my wife we were moving
our accounts.
Guess you missed the link at the end of the video.
http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/
And they were not protesting in the bank. They were sitting quietly holding
a sign waiting for a bank staffer to let them close their account.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> I ca
Not lately. Which ones are you hearing that from?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:34 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
>
> How about "come work for us" ???
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-An
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Actually, one of the planks of this movement is to move money from the big
> banks. A couple of protesters in Santa Cruz went into the BoA branch there
> to close their accounts and were not allowed to do so. They were told that
> they could n
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> I haven't seen a lot of clear messages from Occupy either, but I haven't
> seen any from the Corporations either, other than "give us your money".
>
How about "come work for us" ???
~~~
They seemed to be sitting quietly holding one sign when she approached them
and demanded that they leave. She came across as a tight-assed bitch for
sure, but was likely acting on corporate orders and afraid she was gonna
screw up. Bad position to be in and she did not handle it with grace. I'v
I can understand the bank's position here. If the protesters had walked
in with no signs and no camera, there wouldn't have been an issue, but
they were looking to cause a scene one way or another.
The manager handled it poorly. She should have said that protesting on
bank property is trespa
Actually, one of the planks of this movement is to move money from the big
banks. A couple of protesters in Santa Cruz went into the BoA branch there
to close their accounts and were not allowed to do so. They were told that
they could not be customers and protesters at the same time.
http://w
hehe. OK that makes a little more sense.
Interesting that you have to mash the two rants together to get to the
truth.
I wonder what her field of study is. The economy has swirled further
down the toilet in the last 4 years. If she was an Art History major or
has a degree in Medieval Studi
I am fairly certain that the link Cam posted was a direct rebuttal to
this: http://bit.ly/n2vTw6
Who's fault is it she chose a field of study where there are no jobs?
Who's fault is it she has $40,000 of student loan debt? Surely it
cannot be anyone's fault but her own.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at
On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
> I haven't seen a lot of clear messages from Occupy either, but I haven't
> seen any from the Corporations either, other than "give us your money".
I think it would be more productive to start a movement encouraging everyone to
move away from the big
heh. I am glad they are used to working their ass off at a minimum wage
job, because the cynic in me tells me that's what they will continue to
do after graduating.
Self-righteous ass. They should consider themselves fortunate and not
just the product of their own making. Congrats to them f
Argh!! Massive ignorance. Hopefully, he's the exception and not the rule.
Also, hopefully, he's not a plant from the opposition to make the protesters
look bad. Considering that National Review is the source of that video, the
later wouldn't surprise me. Not exactly an unbiased source.
I haven'
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Maureen wrote:
> I haven't heard "anyone" in the protests ask for someone else to take
> responsibility for them, so I stand by that word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc
I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with Wall Street or corporate
America, I j
I haven't heard "anyone" in the protests ask for someone else to take
responsibility for them, so I stand by that word.
Also, you are making a pretty broad assumption that many or most don't know
what they are protesting. I would ask how many of the protesters you have
heard speak directly as to
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Maureen wrote:
> the assumption that anyone in the
> Occupy protests is asking for someone else to be responsible for them is a
> vast distortion.
I think maybe I would use the word "everyone" instead of "anyone".
There is a pretty wide variation in what people
Wonder who funded his scholarships. And the assumption that anyone in the
Occupy protests is asking for someone else to be responsible for them is a
vast distortion. What they are asking is that corporations be held
responsible for legal and ethical misconduct. I fail to see the problem
with th
48 matches
Mail list logo
