Unemployment Rate Edges Down to 7.7 Percent as Job Growth Slows---Reminder we have a jobs crisis!

New job data is out (chart via Calculated Risk).  Its a good reminder that we have currently have a jobs crisis not a "fiscal cliff" crisis on our hands.  

CEPR has a rundown:

The unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent in November, its lowest level since December of 2008. However, the immediate cause was a drop of 350,000 in the size of the labor market as reported employment actually fell by 122,000. The establishment survey reported job growth of 146,000. With the prior two months growth revised downward by 49,000, this brings the average over the last three months to 139,000. This is somewhat worse than the 158,000 average rate of job growth over the last year.

The private sector accounted for almost all the November job growth, adding 147,000 jobs. Average growth over the last three months has been 153,000. All the loss in public sector employment over this period was attributable to decline in employment of 50,000 in local government education. Without the loss of jobs in this sector, government employment would have been essentially flat over the last year....

....On the whole, the data in the November report show pretty much the same picture as what we have been seeing over the last six months. The economy is creating jobs at a rate that is a bit faster than what is needed to keep pace with the growth of the labor market. At the current pace, we would not see the economy returning to full employment for another decade. Furthermore, there are more downside risks than upside -- for example, if there were to be severe deficit reduction as a result of the current negotiations between President Obama and Congress.

Paul Solman make a really important point when he takes a closer look at the numbers--Great Jobs Numbers? U-7 Says It Ain't Necessarily So

And at first glance, the "household" survey of actual people made a similarly upbeat proclamation: unemployment dropping to 7.7 percent.

But if the month-to-month payroll number means little, headline unemployment fluctuations may mean even less. Reported as "U-3" by the BLS, the headline unemployment percentage excludes anyone who didn't look for a job in the past 4 weeks. Counted as employed, therefore, is anyone who worked at least one hour in the past week, even if they said they were "part-time" for economic reasons and wanted, desperately even, full-time work.

That's why we tally U-7, which totals everyone who says they want a job -- the BLS asks this very question each month -- and adds everyone who is working part-time but tells the survey taker that s/he wants to work full-time. U-7 dipped from 16.69 percent to 16.60 percent in November, hardly the headline drop from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent. Without numbing you with the arithmetic, the U-3 drop is five times larger than what happened to U-7. So what explains the difference?

The answer lies deeper in the data. The US "civilian noninstitutional population" grew by a couple of hundred thousand but the labor force shrank by more than a quarter of a million. That's a whole lot of people who didn't die, didn't emigrate. So where did they go? Given the BLS definition of "labor force," they were no longer laborers -- presumably because they hadn't looked for work in the past four weeks.

This would jibe with another downbeat statistic. A full hundred thousand fewer Americans were reported as "employed" (even if only super-part-time, remember), though this could be Sandy related. And the shrunken labor force also corresponds to the "fact" that some 200,000 people were subtracted from last month's "unemployed" total. They are simply no longer "unemployed" by U-3 standards. But they almost surely consider themselves to be if you take seriously the "persons who want a job" number, which rose dramatically in November.

Bottom line, today's "healthy" drop in U-3, it would appear, is nothing to write home about. As for the payroll survey surge, relative to low projections in the wake of Sandy, I don't know what to make of it except to proceed with caution. I can't count the number of times, over the years I've been looking at the BLS data, that the payroll and household surveys have contradicted one another. As economist Dean Baker wisely counseled me long ago, look at trends, not the latest monthly blips.

A bad deal appears to be emerging on the "Fiscal Cliff"

As I've been saying for a while now raising the Medicare age is about the worst thing you could do for your friends, family, and local community.  

It is a shell game that shifts the cost burden onto individuals, businesses, and state Medicaid roles.  But does nothing in addressing the health care challenges we face over the long term--in both the public and private sectors. 

Its a terrible trade-off just to get what will happen with or without a deal--an expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

Ezra Klein reports on a deal that appears to be coming together that is going to do just that---The fiscal cliff deal comes clearer: a 37% top tax rate and a higher Medicare eligibility age

Talk to smart folks in Washington, and here’s what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That won’t raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions. 

The harder question is what Republicans will get on the spending side of the deal. But even that’s not such a mystery. There will be a variety of nips and tucks to Medicare, including more cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments, and the headline Democratic concession is likely to be that the Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67.

Now is the time to start putting pressure on elected officials not to cut a deal that will hurt the middle class.  Now is the time to start pressuring your friends to do the same.  The GOP are pushing to "save money"[sic] in an inefficient manner and do so on the backs of hard working Americans.

Also see: Republicans think you are bad at math---or why raising the Medicare age of eligibility is a really really bad idea...

And:  If the Medicare age of eligibility is raised we will have no one to blame but ourselves...

If the Medicare age of eligibility is raised we will have no one to blame but ourselves...

As I noted two days ago, raising the Medicare age is about the worst thing you could do for your friends, family, and local community.  It is a shell game that shifts the burden onto individuals, businesses, and state Medicaid roles.  But does nothing in addressing the health care challenges we face over the long term--in both the public and private sectors.

Sadly Republicans are still pushing the issue as part of a "fiscal cliff deal".

Today the health care economist Austin Frakt has a good rundown on why increasing the Medicare age is not "Entitlement Reform" and that we shouldn't take the bait--This is not Entitlement Reform:

Nobody serious will claim it [raising the eligibility age] fixes Medicare. Of course it does nothing for the broader health system. At best it’s a tweak. Yet some speak of it as if it is the most important thing we can do on entitlements today. Really, it is not.

Moreover, it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to increase the efficiency of Medicare or the health system. Contrary to conventional wisdom and all the political hyperventilating, the real problems of the health system are not its cost to the federal government, but the degree of inefficiency of our spending on it, public and private. Shifting spending from one sector (public) to another (private) and piling additional spending on top of that — which is what raising the Medicare age would do — is orthogonal to efficiency enhancement. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Thus, it is not only small potatoes, it is huge distraction. It is not entitlement reform. In time, this will be proven. Mark my words, in no more than one year after a law is passed to raise the Medicare age, Medicare will be back in the spotlight. The words “entitlement reform” will be uttered again, and very soon. Will anyone mean it?

Dean Baker, over at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that part of the problem is media outlets such as the New York Times are not doing their job--NYT Promotes Confusion over Budget:

Politicians often try to obscure unpopular proposals in euphemisms. Reporters are not supposed to help them in this effort.

The NYT failed badly in this respect when it told readers:

"Republicans would demand deep concessions on spending and changes to Medicare and Social Security as a price to raise the debt ceiling a few weeks later."

Of course the Republicans are pushing for cuts to Medicare and Social Security, not generic "changes." They want the government to pay less money and for beneficiaries to get less money. The NYT should be pointing out this fact, not helping Republicans to conceal an agenda that polls consistently show is hugely unpopular even among Republican voters.

Clearly people who should know better an intentionally lying to voters, there are also those who simply aren't doing their homework.  

But I don't think reporters are the only ones to blame, as you too, my dear reader, have an obligation in this social project.  Efforts to scare and manipulate through fear and misinformation are taking place.  But you have a role in choosing to do your homework or stick to whatever "trustworthy" source satisfies your bias and prior commitments.

You can choose to start getting your friends and family engaged on theses issues or you can sit back and let the 1% do all the work--as they are funneling millions of dollars into efforts to slash spending on programs that helps you and your loved ones keep your head above water in times of crisis, programs that create a strong vibrant middle class.  

Between 2007 and 2010, the median net worth of U.S. households fell by 47 percent--the 1% caused this economic crisis and now they are busy working to slash programs more needed than ever.

You have a role to play.  So I join Teamster Nation's call to arms:

To all you hard-working Americans out there: Call 888-979-9806 TODAY and tell your Representative to make no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but end tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent.

I called my Senator's last week and will be calling my Congressman tomorrow.

Can I count on you to do the same? 

Republicans think you are bad at math---or why raising the Medicare age of eligibility is a really really bad idea...

Seems the GOP failed to notice that the middle class had their wealth wiped out after the last economic crisis created by the 1%.  Not only that, now the GOP in DC are busy looking for clever ways to give the 1% a free ride and are hoping you won't notice.

The GOP have decided that bad ideas are better than forcing multi-millionaires and billionaire to pay what would still be historically low tax rates.  

See, they want to increase the Medicare age and sell it to you as "savings" when in fact its going to cost all of us a whole lot more in terms of economic efficiency and quality of life.  The GOP won't talk about the drain on state budget's (this will increase Medicaid roles which state's have to help pay) and about hot this will hit private employers (who pay to subsidize their employee's health care).  They just want to talk "savings" and ignore reality.

Lets take a moment to breakdown the utterly obvious---increasing the age of eligibility for Medicare is a bad idea.  The GOP are running around saying "this will save us $5.7 billion dollars" as if this is supposed to impress you.

First, for those thinking like economists this is a giant waste of efficiency when it comes to analyzing the dollars and cents; the reason is Medicare is more efficient and has better outcomes than private insurance.  So shifting millions onto the private market when they could be tapping into Medicare is a net loss for the economy as a whole.

Secondly, the impacts for middle class families would be huge as people have to scrape together the money to pay for private insurance which--since many in the GOP seem to have forgotten--is astronomically overpriced (FYI...there is a lot of rent seeking and regulatory capture going on in the health care sector thanks to Nanny-State welfare queens with fancy degree's next to their name).

Finally the idea that we are going to increase costs for the middle class, employers (who are helping bear the brunt of our screwed up health care system), and state governments at a time when the 1% are doing just fine is utter lunacy.  

Supporting an increase in the Medicare age directly hits your local economy and the Medicaid burdens on the state budget.

 

So you need to hit Facebook, twitter, and email and make damn well sure your voice is heard right now because if not, you will see a drain of dollars flowing out of your local economy and into the pockets of CEO's; eventually you will likely see state tax increases to pay for the increased strain on Medicaid.

Raising Medicare's age of eligibility actually costs us more--via shifting costs to citizens, employers, and state governments.  Politicians in DC are hoping you aren't good at math and that you don't give a damn if your neighbor can afford to buy health insurance or not.  

Call your Senator and Congressman and tell them you aren't going to fall for the $5.7billion in "savings."  

No deal on the fiscal cliff is better than a bad deal---raising the Medicare age is about the worst thing you could do for your friends, family, and local community.  Its pathetic the GOP want to avoid an imaginary "Fiscal Cliff" by literally throwing seniors that you know and love, who are nearing retirement; off a very real financial one.

Any champion of free markets is a champion of ending government restrictions on organized labor

As is clear to anyone looking honestly at the situation Republicans are champions of the 1% (many Democrats come in a close second but I'll save that for another day).  

Republicans don't care about "free markets" or ending "Big Government" because if they did there are major points of convergence where they would be building coalitions with progressives and passing reforms which would create stronger free markets; which would at the same time have dramatic impacts on the quality of life of working people.  

The failure of a single elected official in Georgia Legislature to speak out in support of the For Respect movement this past Black Friday, was, for me, an obvious sign of the corrupting influence of the 1% on state and local politics.  

The reality is that the modern Republican party is a party attached to protecting the political power of a very narrow elite at the expense of quality of life of working people and the ability of local economies all over this nation to flourish and thrive.  The irony is the 1% doesn't tend to reside in Georgia so local Republican's are fighting, for the most part, for a group of people who not only don't reside within their districts but look down on the lifestyles and cultural beliefs of their constituents.     

The fact that Republican voters I know are pushing for policies that literally take money directly out of the local community and straight into the financial markets is something that drives me up a wall since this kind of "redistribution of wealth" is supposed to be frowned upon by Republicans.  This money then gets used for the types of needless speculation and risk taking which created the most recent economic crisis (requiring massive bailouts by taxpayers) and it should piss you off--especially those of you who are out of work, looking for a better job, or are struggling to keep your local small business running. 

One place where "conservatives" and champions of free markets here in Georgia, and elsewhere, could prove me wrong would be in standing up to government interference with the rights of organized labor in the private sector.  

One of the results of the "Reagan revolution"--the neoliberal effort to undermine the political power of working people--has been to harness government's power to interfere in the efforts of organized labor.  Restrictions on organized labor have had a devastating impact on the quality of life of American workers and is one of the key culprits of the erosion of wages and the massive disparities of wealth we are now facing.

One easy long term solution which state leaders should be pushing, as we work to get our economy back in order, is to simply get government out of private sector negotiations between owners and workers.  

Lets let the market do what it does best, rather than having Government give mega corporations an un-level playing field, which allows owners to exploit their workers at the bargaining table--manipulating the market outcomes.   

When massive corporations like Walmart, McDonalds, and Starbucks no longer have the ability to harness the state to keep workers from utilizing their collective bargaining power; local economies throughout the nation will begin the reap the rewards, as profits which are currently shooting straight to the top are more evenly distributed throughout the company.  

When the political question of how to distribute profits within a corporation are decided, not by politician's in Washington and state capitals across the nation deciding they should pick the winner in advance, siding with the mega corporations in the process; but are decided within the company via contract negotiations, there will be major changes that will reverberate throughout the economy as working people harnessing market forces are able to put their hard earned dollars into their local economies.  

If we were able to get government out of private sector negotiations and corporate profits began to become more equitably distributed throughout the company we would not only see stronger local economies we would also see the burden on our Federal and State welfare/social safety-net's reduced.  This would be a win-win for any of the Republican's I know; at least if they are honest about their priorities and principles. 

Currently there are many hard working Americans who need to tap into safety-net programs just to stay afloat and if politician's no longer allowed corporations to rig the labor market we could change this state of affairs by simply letting markets do what they do best.   By skewing markets in favor of the political connected corporations--which is a top priority of Republican politicians--we indirectly increase the tax burdens facing our state and local governments.

Remember, government "picking winners and losers" is supposed to be frowned upon by Republican's but time and time again we see Republican's side with corporations and support government interference in the private sector. All at the expense of workers who live in their districts.  Apparently its more important to be seen as "anti-union" than it is to support free market policies which would have positive impacts on the local economies of their constituents. 

Dean Baker gives a good run down in his most recent book The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive (which you can download for free here) on ways government interfere's in labor markets resulting in skewed outcomes. 

This government interference ends up transferring millions of dollars of wealth from the hands of working people into the pockets of the 1%.  This is a situation where the "wealth creators" are having their pockets picked by the 1% simply because the 1% have the political clout to buy politicians to write the rules (interfering in the free market) so that they can enrich themselves.  Here is overview from Dean:

Restrictions on organized labor

Yet another area where the government intervenes in the market at the behest of the well-off to diminish the well-being of workers and the disadvantaged is labor-management policy. The accepted view is that progressives want the government to intervene to protect workers, while conservatives would rather let workers and management sort things out for themselves. That’s not quite the story. 

Though labor law provides protections to workers and their unions, it also constrains workers’ power in important ways. For example, it is illegal to organize or honor a secondary boycott. If the workers at a restaurant go on strike and then arrange for the Teamsters to refuse to deliver food to honor the strike, the restaurant can enlist the government to deliver injunctions and impose fines against the Teamsters. If Teamsters officials ignore the injunction (e.g., they don’t tell their members that they cannot refuse to deliver food to the restaurant), they can face imprisonment.[3] This is not the free market; this is the government intervening on behalf of employers. 

Another example of how labor-management policy is rigged away from market forces is the fact that 22 states currently deny workers freedom of contract with their employers. Under “right-to-work” laws, workers are prohibited from signing contracts with employers that require workers covered by a union contract to pay their share of the union’s costs. The law requires that everyone who is in a union bargaining unit – regardless of whether they are actually in the union – gets the same pay and benefits. The law also requires that the union represent workers indisputes with employers on issues covered by the contract, whether or not a worker is in the union. This means that if a worker who does not pay to support the union is fired, the law requires that the union represent the worker through any appeals process established under the contract.  

While the law requires unions to provide the same benefits to all workers covered by a contract, right-to-work laws prohibit unions from signing agreements with employers that would require workers to pay for the benefits they are receiving. It in effect guarantees representation without taxation. This restriction of freedom of contract is not consistent with a free market. “Right-to-work” laws are just another way in which the right uses the power of the state to reduce the power and income of workers. Free marketers are perfectly willing to deny the freedom of contract to accomplish this end.

Dean Baker. The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive (Kindle Locations 104-110). Center for Economic and Policy Research. 

So next time you are talking to a Republican who claims they hate when government picks winners and losers you should chime in and ask them if they agree with you that we should end government restrictions on organized labor.  

The more we start to call out Republican's for their support of the 1% the more we can begin to erode the power and control that the 1% hold over our state and local political elites (who truly have no need to build alliances with the 1% to begin with).  

By beginning the long term efforts to hold conservative's to their claimed principles and exposing the Republican Party for its unabashed support of the 1% the more we will begin to identify allies and build alliances of local politicians across the political spectrum who want to prioritize flourishing economies over picking winners and losers.  

Getting government out of private sector negotiations would be a sane, progressive, place to start.

A reminder that I really need to start working harder on my French and German...

Reasoning Is Sharper in a Foreign Language: Scientific American

How to spot a blame the union meme

Any time number crunchers and corporate wizards start blaming union's in the media for a business failure you know its a good time to look under the hood and see what's really going wrong at the company.  

Hostess is a great example of shoddy management running a company into the ground.

Hiltzik: Poor management, not union intransigence, killed Hostess - latimes.com

The company had known for a decade or more that its market was changing, but had done nothing to modernize its product line or distribution system. Its trucks were breaking down. It was keeping unprofitable stores open and having trouble figuring out how to move inventory to customers and when. It had cut back advertising and marketing to the point where it was barely communicating with customers. It had gotten hundreds of millions of dollars in concessions from its unions, and spent none of it on these essential improvements.

The true recent history of Hostess can be excavated from piles of public filings from its two bankruptcy cases. To start with, the company has had six CEOs in the last 10 years, which is not exactly a precondition for consistent and effective corporate strategizing.

The most recent and presumably final incumbent, Gregory Rayburn, had been with the company all of nine days before taking over in March when Driscoll, who earlier had been described in court papers as "key to … the future well-being" of the company, departed suddenly and without explanation.

Hostess first entered bankruptcy in 2004, when it was known as Interstate Bakeries. During its five years in Chapter 11, the firm obtained concessions from its unions worth $110 million a year. The unions accepted layoffs that brought the workforce down to about 19,000 from more than 30,000. There were cuts in wages, pension and health benefits. The Teamsters committed to negotiations over changes in antiquated work rules. The givebacks helped reduce Hostess' labor costs to the point where they were roughly equal  to or even lower than some of its major competitors'.

But the firm emerged from bankruptcy with more debt than when it went in — in with $575 million, out with $774 million, all secured by company assets. That's pretty much the opposite of what's supposed to happen in bankruptcy. By the end, there was barely a spare distributor cap in the motor pool that wasn't mortgaged to the private equity firms and hedge funds holding the notes (and also appointing management).

As management experts such as Peter Drucker have observed, the goal of a successful business must be to find and serve customers. Do that, and the numbers take care of themselves. The Hostess approach was entirely backward — meeting the numbers became Job One, and figuring out how to grow the business became Job None.

The post-bankruptcy leadership never executed a growth strategy. It failed to introduce a significant new product or acquire a single new brand. It lagged on bakery automation and product R&D, while rivals such as Bimbo Bakeries USA built research facilities and hired food scientists to keep their product lines fresh. At the time of the 2004 bankruptcy, Hostess was three times the size of Bimbo. Today it's less than half Bimbo's size. (Bimbo, which has been acquiring bakeries such as Sara Lee and Entenmann's right and left, might well end up with Hostess' brands.)

What Occupy Wall Street did in real time @ForRespect is going to do for real lives.

So I've got final papers for class to write so I don't really have time to do the kind of in-depth structured/well-edited blog post I want to write on yesterday's historic Walmart strike and the solidarity picket lines held all across the country.  

Instead i'm going to throw out some of my thoughts and some of the pictures I shot from yesterday's action here in Atlanta.  Hopefully it'll come out clear and coherent enough for you.  Pardon my ramble...  

As someone who was watching the Occupy Wall Street movement quite closely from right out of the gate I can say that I'm feeling the same level of excitement with what transpired all across the nation yesterday that I felt with Occupy.

I remember sitting at the Occupy Atlanta General Assembly the weekend before OA voted to occupy the park being simply overwhelmed with enthusiasm. 

I also remember quite clearly driving back into the suburbs that evening to meet up for dinner with the wife and some friends and being struck with internal confusion about the fact that neither my wife nor friends could really care less, nor catch catch on from my slight pokes and prods about the reasons for my jovial excitement in regards to what was about to blow up here in Atlanta. 

I feel a similar sense of excitement about the efforts by employees at Walmart @ForRespect.

The corporate apologists and anti-union minions trying to cheer on the 1% by declaring yesterday to be a defeat for those trying to bring change to Walmart are showing their hand by clearly signalling they don't understand (or maybe want us to understand) the context of internal organizing in massive bureaucratic global institutions, the history of successful labor organizing, nor the impacts neoliberalism have had (structurally and culturally) on the ability of working people to stand up for themselves and mobilize their coworkers.

Opponents of yesterdays action see symbols of "defeat"  from the fact that the number of employee's didn't meet their level of expectation.  The slave master's expectation of their slaves capacity to do things like vote responsibly or run for public office weren't met either but that didn't mean the slave masters were correct about the human capacities of their "property".  It just meant the slave masters were using the wrong damn metrics for judging the potential of the human beings in front of them.

After I got off my shift at work I headed over to our picket here in Atlanta organized by Jobs with Justice.  I'm a Teamster, thats how we roll on Black Friday.  

Many customers took our fliers and decided to turn around in support.  I can tell you that the thumbs up and smiles from workers driving past our picket headed into work at a local Walmart here in Atlanta tell me that yesterday's action and the community support that showed up all across this country will inspire more leaders to arise within the ranks of Walmart to start the long hard process of internal organizing.  That is huge.

Internal organizing sucks.  As a union steward on the pre-load --we are the part timers who load up the big brown trucks early in the morning while you guys sleep--at UPS I deal with it every day.  I could go on and on about the the challenges/barriers of communication, the fear of retaliation for speaking up (let alone responding and fighting back) with others about harassment or working conditions, and the sense of futility that comes from the natural and to be expected setbacks and challenges.  I could go on and on--and I probably should be doing more blog posting on it because I think its something many outside of the labor movement can't quite accurately get the pulse of.  

But even beyond the challenges of internal organizing I can tell you from my own personal experience that the number of strikers who did walk out is quite impressive.  As a union steward I have the single largest collectively bargained contract at my back when I bring grievances to "the boss".  Despite this, I still find myself in circumstance where I feel intimidation and harassment from supervisors.  I still have major problems inspiring coworkers to stand up for themselves--even in circumstances where they can recite explicitly in the contact the violation  taking place.  Its just not east. 

Shit man, we have to face facts. Telling the boss they are wrong or have screwed up (or even worse that their boss did) is hard

Trying to expose and speak out about the fact that some number cruncher at corporate headquarters has poorly allocated resources leaving everyone in a bind when it comes to safety or production quality is really really hard to do.  Often times workers don't have the education or confidence to articulate their position so they respond in a less than productive manner.  But over time people can be taught how to stand up to the nitpicking and excuses management give, the intimidation and harassment.  They can be inspired to speak out about what they know to be wrong.

Over time people can learn productive ways to build internal alliance on the shop-floor and overcome the fear and intimidation they have to deal with every day.  

I can tell you for every person that walked out yesterday there is someone who was gong to walk out but just didn't do it--out of fear, frustration that no one else would, or simply not needing the headache.  Hell, I can't blame them. There have been many a day that I threw up my hands, shut my mouth, and did my job when I knew I should be standing up to violations of the contract.  You don't take on a corporation by yourself.  Many times you must stand down to fight another day.  That's why yesterday was a major success.  All across this nation communities came out to let Walmart workers know they support them and will stand with them.

Yesterday was a major success and a major step in efforts to improve working conditions at Walmart and I can't wait for the next time @ForRespect asks for community support.

I'll be there.

What Occupy Wall Street did in real time @ForRespect is going to do for real lives. That sounds pejorative and condescending to those who took and held Zuccotti Park.  I don't intend it to be and I know this broad generalization won't fit many of those involved in Occupy.  But think about it.  In many ways Occupy Wall Street and efforts and @ForRespect are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  

Where Occupy was putting its focus on very abstract questions of debt/high finance @ForRespect is focusing on very basic real world questions of safety, working conditions, and wages.  

Where Occupy had a small army of extremely educated young people with time and skill sets bubbling out their ears, sitting together in one specific area, @ForRespect is facing a nation of Walmarts dispersed across the wastelands of the Reagan revolution--where education levels, time able to put into organizing, and skill sets needed to communicate and coordinate alliances are limited.  

These challenges cannot be addressed in one Facebook update or 4 hour general assembly debate.

Where Occupy wants a radical revaluation of our entire political and economic system @ForRespect just wants equity.  @ForRespect doesn't want revolution they are just workers within a corporation who want a Walmart that flourishes for everyone rather than just the Walton's.

In many ways @ForRespect is to the neoliberal era's Main Street what Occupy is to Wall Street.

What Occupy Wall Street did in real time @ForRespect is going to do for real lives. Sure its gonna take longer... but stay tuned, we haven't even reached our Brooklyn Bridge moment yet!

Georgia Senate District 17 Candidate "Party-Switcher" for more bigoted climates...

What a really strange way to misread last nights election results across the nation.  Especially for a state that is trending blue.

This without further comment.

Dr. Nelva Lee Switches Party

First, let me say a hearty thanks to all of my supporters. Those who prayed for me, volunteered, and donated to my campaign, thank you!

While this was my first campaign for elected office, I have been a political junky all of my life and have known that I would run for office someday as I believe that political service is my life’s purpose. I ran as a conservative democrat because that is what I have always considered myself. I was disappointed when conservative democrats became a dying breed in Washington and even in Georgia. However, since the primaries, the Democratic platform has become even more liberal, embracing views that are different than my conservative values of pro-Life and anti-gay marriage. So it is with a heavy heart that I leave the Democratic Party for the Republican effective today.

I want to also take the time to congratulate my opponent Rick Jeffares on his win, and to inform him that he will most likely see me again as his challenger in the 2014 Primaries. I am encouraged in this endeavor by many republicans who wished to see me run as a Republican in this past race and who pledged their support if I chose to run again on the Republican ticket.

Georgia Senate District 17 Candidate "Party-Switcher" for more bigoted climates...

What a really strange way to misread last nights election results across the nation.  Especially for a state that is trending blue.

This without further comment.

Dr. Nelva Lee Switches Party

First, let me say a hearty thanks to all of my supporters. Those who prayed for me, volunteered, and donated to my campaign, thank you!

While this was my first campaign for elected office, I have been a political junky all of my life and have known that I would run for office someday as I believe that political service is my life’s purpose. I ran as a conservative democrat because that is what I have always considered myself. I was disappointed when conservative democrats became a dying breed in Washington and even in Georgia. However, since the primaries, the Democratic platform has become even more liberal, embracing views that are different than my conservative values of pro-Life and anti-gay marriage. So it is with a heavy heart that I leave the Democratic Party for the Republican effective today.

I want to also take the time to congratulate my opponent Rick Jeffares on his win, and to inform him that he will most likely see me again as his challenger in the 2014 Primaries. I am encouraged in this endeavor by many republicans who wished to see me run as a Republican in this past race and who pledged their support if I chose to run again on the Republican ticket.