cord jefferson - with 5.6 million people and counting, the 'move your money' campaign worked
i think this is so awesome, and partly because i also changed banks. i was with wells fargo and now i'm with onewest bank, which isn't the smallest bank, but it's still a lot more personable than wells fargo. it doesn't even have those bulletproof windows separating you from the tellers. and they always have coffee and cookies. :)
i switched from wells fargo for a few reasons, but mostly because they were going to start charging me a fee because i don't have direct deposit or a mortgage payment. i get that banks are business so they do need to make money. but it seems like they are making the most off of the people who can't afford it. tons of people (especially in this economy) can't afford to buy a house. and even if you do have a job, lots of places, including most small businesses, don't offer direct deposit. i also understand that they can / should reward their best customers (people paying loans (cause of the interest), those with lots and money invested...) with higher interest rates and waived fees, but the inverse is that you have the people with less money paying for the services provided for free to those probably have more money. which, duh, seems really unnfair.
Showing posts with label occupy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label occupy. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Saturday, December 3, 2011
occupy satire
i'm for the occupy movement. but this video is freaking funny. thanks to robert for the link!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
steve jobs and giving
for the last couple months, the occupy movement has been all over the news. and for a few weeks, so was steve jobs' death. what i find interesting about the occupy movement is that no individuals in the 1% have really been called out. and seeing how i just mentioned steve jobs, i think you know where this is going...
jobs had an estimated net worth of over $7billion at the time of this death. but did you know that "there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity" (source)?
did you also know that apple has more cash holdings than the u.s. government? and what are they doing with that money? not giving back to investors, that's for sure. nor, under jobs, were they giving to charities. within weeks of jobs returning to the helm at apple, he cut all philanthropic giving. the justification at the time was to save money since apple wasn't terribly profitable. but how come he never reinstated them? they're certainly profitable now. (tho tim cook did reinstate charitable giving at apple just a short time after taking over ::applause::)
i think it's incredibly weird that certain billionaires (gates, buffett, zuckerberg, walton...) get tons of flack for lack of generosity. yet, for whatever reason, society has given jobs a pass.
a lot of people say that jobs has already given a lot back to society in the form of technology and jobs (as in, work, not his name). and that's great, but just because you've done some great stuff for technology and job creation, that doesn't mean you can't go help others. tons of the extremely rich have manged to run their empires and think about others at the same time: rockefeller, gates, carnegie, winfrey, buffett, bloomberg, knight, koch... and these people have also contributed to society in general in no way less than jobs. to say jobs has already given back enough through his work trivializes what others have done.
also, if jobs' big concern was making great tech stuff for the general public, why didn't he price stuff cheaper? istuff aside, most mac stuff is really expensive! more people would then be able to buy his products and apple still would have been able to make a profit.
jacobs brings up a good point in her article for forbes that maybe jobs did donate, just anonymously. people donate anonymously for a ton of reasons, a major one being that they don't want to be badgered for more money later. and as one of the richest people on the planet, i can see why jobs would already be a target! another problem with donating, especially if you're giving away a lot, if that you want to make sure the receivers are actually worthy. otherwise you could be giving it to someone else who can enact more positive change. but how do you even decide who's going to do a better job? (tho lots of people create their own charities to make sure their money gets allocated to their liking) and some people just don't want the recognition. ...but how come jobs didn't reinstate apple's philanthropy?
(btw, i totally get why people don't want the credit. i do my drives and post about the results and my locks of love stuff, but i have declined to be put in the organization newsletters and stuff. i find that stuff embarrassing. [i realize that i more and more dislike being the center of attention. i won't shy away from doing things because of the attention, but i certainly never do anything for the sake of recognition.] but for all the lack of wanting credit, i still do stuff!)
the rich are certainly entitled to do what they want with their own money. but we, as consumers, are also entitled to our decision on where to spend our money. camping out and protesting the 1% is great and all, but maybe we should also look at how they became so rich -- we made them that way.
jobs said in a 1993 interview with the wall street journal that “being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful … that’s what matters to me." well, steve, you definitely did do something wonderful, but you could've been someone really wonderful too.
jobs had an estimated net worth of over $7billion at the time of this death. but did you know that "there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity" (source)?
did you also know that apple has more cash holdings than the u.s. government? and what are they doing with that money? not giving back to investors, that's for sure. nor, under jobs, were they giving to charities. within weeks of jobs returning to the helm at apple, he cut all philanthropic giving. the justification at the time was to save money since apple wasn't terribly profitable. but how come he never reinstated them? they're certainly profitable now. (tho tim cook did reinstate charitable giving at apple just a short time after taking over ::applause::)
i think it's incredibly weird that certain billionaires (gates, buffett, zuckerberg, walton...) get tons of flack for lack of generosity. yet, for whatever reason, society has given jobs a pass.
a lot of people say that jobs has already given a lot back to society in the form of technology and jobs (as in, work, not his name). and that's great, but just because you've done some great stuff for technology and job creation, that doesn't mean you can't go help others. tons of the extremely rich have manged to run their empires and think about others at the same time: rockefeller, gates, carnegie, winfrey, buffett, bloomberg, knight, koch... and these people have also contributed to society in general in no way less than jobs. to say jobs has already given back enough through his work trivializes what others have done.
also, if jobs' big concern was making great tech stuff for the general public, why didn't he price stuff cheaper? istuff aside, most mac stuff is really expensive! more people would then be able to buy his products and apple still would have been able to make a profit.
jacobs brings up a good point in her article for forbes that maybe jobs did donate, just anonymously. people donate anonymously for a ton of reasons, a major one being that they don't want to be badgered for more money later. and as one of the richest people on the planet, i can see why jobs would already be a target! another problem with donating, especially if you're giving away a lot, if that you want to make sure the receivers are actually worthy. otherwise you could be giving it to someone else who can enact more positive change. but how do you even decide who's going to do a better job? (tho lots of people create their own charities to make sure their money gets allocated to their liking) and some people just don't want the recognition. ...but how come jobs didn't reinstate apple's philanthropy?
(btw, i totally get why people don't want the credit. i do my drives and post about the results and my locks of love stuff, but i have declined to be put in the organization newsletters and stuff. i find that stuff embarrassing. [i realize that i more and more dislike being the center of attention. i won't shy away from doing things because of the attention, but i certainly never do anything for the sake of recognition.] but for all the lack of wanting credit, i still do stuff!)
the rich are certainly entitled to do what they want with their own money. but we, as consumers, are also entitled to our decision on where to spend our money. camping out and protesting the 1% is great and all, but maybe we should also look at how they became so rich -- we made them that way.
jobs said in a 1993 interview with the wall street journal that “being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful … that’s what matters to me." well, steve, you definitely did do something wonderful, but you could've been someone really wonderful too.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
occupy
 |
| sourc |
i asked a few people what they think of the occupy movement and they all said that they don't see the point because the protesters don't seem to have a very clear plan of action. as in, when does this end? what change do you need to see happen in order to stop protesting?
i don't think it's pointless at all. this isn't like a union strike where you're protesting for something. the occupy movement is against something. and everyone, including the protesters, know that this something cannot be easily be changed. but that's fine, because the movement is to bring attention to the issue: the unfairness of massive financial inequality.
this reminds me of the sit-ins and the rallies of the 60's for desegregation and 70's against the war. did the protesters think that by sitting in a diner suddenly there would be change? of course not. they were looking for media attention (and not in a stupid kardashian way), and they got it. which led to others around the country also starting protest movements. and eventually there was change.
with the occupy movement, there may not be drastic change, who knows? those in charge are generally in, if not the upper 1%, at least the top 5%. but this movement is about money and unemployment. and since a lot of those occupiers don't have jobs to go to anyway (largely thanks, in their mind, to the upper 1%), theoretically, they could sit there forever. part of the occupy movement is to shame the fat cats. remind them of the 99% many of them don't seem to give a shit about even though we power the world they hold temporarily hold power over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)