World News

Do you think the strikes that got us workers rights in the first place were legal at their time?

They were attacked by the oligarchy, sometimes with dozens of people killed.

You dont get anything done against an oligarchy if you play by their rules.

Unions aren't the sole proprietor of the strike. It's so disheartening to realize over and over again people like yourself have no imagination. No heart. No ingenuity and have to be constantly shown what is possible.

The first problem is people looking for problems, instead of signing up or lending support. You are the real problem.

Ha, like either of them would ever do that

It's not a both-sides thing. The right hates the left for identitarian reasons. We are the "other" and must always be hated. If the left takes a position, the right will oppose it, even if they supported it first. The left hates the right for their ideological reasons that would be largely irrelevant if the right actually called a general strike.

...which is very much by design. The "Ownership Class" have understood the value of "Targeted Divide and Conquer" for a while now. A line from Metallica's Master of Puppets comes to mind: Keep them tired it makes them well.

Vice versa if perceived GOP does this.

That logic really falls apparent when you consider that GOP is the one pushing unions out.

You make it sound like both parties have a strategy to help the workers… no… only one does.

It’s not like people need to even get into the streets. Everyone just coordinate to call in sick one day. Just one day to show yourselves the power you have, then go from there.

No, but they can burn...

self driving cars specifically because they can't strike.

Unless it's pedestrians, the backs of trucks, road signs, irregular barriers, animals....

I'm not ignorant. I know there are too many people like you who refuse to participate because they have no faith in themselves or others. I will now and forevermore count you as opposition. It's your short sightedness that will prevent meaningful change.

the second anyone was allowed to use houses as an "investment" to gain wealth we basically guaranteed this. obviously anyone with a lot of money tied up in housees is going to try and make their value go up. once we got multinational billion dollar conglomerates involved it became child's play for them to make that number go up through infinite methods of varrying complexity carried out by thousands of people working together with billions of dollars behind them.

this problem is inherent to a housing market that people are allowed to speculate on. we just need to make that stop entirely. limit house ownership. no one needs 100 houses. especially not companies. if that results in less rental houses than desired, we need to build more apartments. apartments are different beast, but if the cost of houses are lower then it will be harder to inflate rent if they can afford a house instead. this may result in some people who want to rent a house, but not an apartment, unable to find that. that's not a big problem. they might just need to rent an apartment instead. certainly it's much less of a problem then the current state of no one being able to afford housing.

the rich don't need this vector for growing their wealth. they have enough others and are doing quite alright at it. the world will function just fine without mult billion dollar corporations investing in buying properties for the sole reason that they think they can extract wealth without contributing anything. houses should be for living in, not for extracting wealth.

"Facing" sounds like its a bad thing

"Europe is responsibly decreasing their population "

Alas, it's not trivial to move houses from deserted villages into booming cities. Plenty of European cities already have anti-speculation and rent controls in place, it's not really helping.

Quickest and cheapest option would be to expand public transport actually, I think, spread out the pressure, combined with more remote work. Once you've got a steady, if overall tiny, de-urbanisation trickle going on urban prices are going to tank.

It’s governments that are responsible for a lack of housing: local governments through zoning policy. The homeowners in a given city are politically engaged and they vote to protect their own investment in real estate. Call it NIMBYism if you like but homeowners are never going to voluntarily agree to have their house go down in price. Doing so could put their mortgage underwater and result in losing their home and becoming homeless.

Japan does not have this issue to nearly the same extent because they have structured their governments differently. Zoning laws are set by the national government, not the local one, so problems like this can (and have been) set at the national level.

For other countries to solve their housing problem Japan style would require the national government to take power away from the local governments (and in the case of the US, this would put the federal government in a fight with state governments). It would be an extremely messy fight and probably not work out.

I've seen way too many one-days in Greece to get excited...