corporations find their dream worker under massive for profit prison system

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/592378358626791424

china and russia also no where near US. this is also as crime has been dropping. but private prison profits must continue to rise!!!

New York State DOCS is consolidating and closing down prisons.

 

[wkmac]

New York State DOCS is consolidating and closing down prisons.

I would cross check that to see what the number of private prisons that are operating/have opened in NY State as the state prisons close up. What if there is a correlation? Hmmmm!

On another note concerning private prisons and the issue of undocumented/illegal aliens, what if there was good money to be made there?

Private prison companies making big bucks on locking up undocumented immigrants

 

[rickyb]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/596373363670421504

 

[smapple]

And so release all the prisoners?

 

[bbsam]

as system of a down said "theyre tryin ta build a prison..."

Some states have begun to charge prisoners rent. This gouging is burying many prisoners and their families in crippling debt, debt that prisoners carry when they are released from prison. The United States has 2.3 million people in prison, 25 percent of the world’s prison population, although we are only 5 percent of the world’s population.We have increased our prison population by about 700 percent since 1970. Corporations control about 18 percent of federal prisoners and 6.7 percent of all state prisoners. And corporate prisons account for nearly all newly built prisons. Nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government are shipped to corporate-run prisons. And slavery is legal in prisons under the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It reads: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”

The corporate state seeks to reduce all workers at home and abroad to the status of prison labor. Workers are to be so heavily controlled that organizing unions or resistance will become impossible. Benefits, pensions, overtime are to be abolished. Workers who are not slavishly submissive to the will of corporate power will be dismissed. There will be no sick days or paid vacations. No one will be able to challenge unsafe and physically difficult working conditions. And wages will be suppressed to keep workers in poverty. This is the goal of corporate power. The 1 million prisoners employed at substandard wages by corporations inside prisons are, in the eyes of our corporate masters, the ideal workers. And those Americans who ignore the plight of prison labor and refuse to organize against it will increasingly find prison working conditions replicated outside prison walls.


Corporations currently exploiting prison labor include Abbott Laboratories, AT&T, AutoZone, Bank of America, Bayer, Berkshire Hathaway, Cargill, Caterpillar, Chevron, the former Chrysler Group, Costco Wholesale, John Deere, Eddie Bauer, Eli Lilly, ExxonMobil, Fruit of the Loom, GEICO, GlaxoSmithKline, Glaxo Wellcome, Hoffmann-La Roche, International Paper, JanSport, Johnson & Johnson, Kmart, Koch Industries, Mary Kay, McDonald’s, Merck, Microsoft, Motorola, Nintendo, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Quaker Oats, Sarah Lee, Sears, Shell, Sprint, Starbucks, State Farm Insurance, United Airlines, UPS, Verizon, Victoria’s Secret, Wal-Mart and Wendy’s.

A prisoner in New Jersey makes, on average, $1.20 for eight hours of work, or about $28 a month. Those incarcerated in for-profit prisons earn as little as 17 cents an hour. Over a similar period, phone and commissary corporations have increased fees and charges often by more than 100 percent.

JPay is a corporation that deals in privatized money transfers to prisoners. It controls money transfers for about 70 percent of the prison population. The company charges families that put money into prisoners’ accounts additional service fees of as much as 45 percent.

Corporations, which have turned mass incarceration into a huge revenue stream and which have unchecked political and economic power, have no intention of diminishing their profits. And in a system where money has replaced the vote, where corporate lobbyists write legislation and the laws, where chronic unemployment and underemployment, along with inadequate public transportation, sever people in marginal communities from jobs, and where the courts are a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate state, this demands a sustained, nationwide revolt.

The corporate state seeks to reduce all workers at home and abroad to the status of prison labor. Workers are to be so heavily controlled that organizing unions or resistance will become impossible. Benefits, pensions, overtime are to be abolished. Workers who are not slavishly submissive to the will of corporate power will be dismissed. There will be no sick days or paid vacations. No one will be able to challenge unsafe and physically difficult working conditions. And wages will be suppressed to keep workers in poverty. This is the goal of corporate power. The 1 million prisoners employed at substandard wages by corporations inside prisons are, in the eyes of our corporate masters, the ideal workers. And those Americans who ignore the plight of prison labor and refuse to organize against it will increasingly find prison working conditions replicated outside prison walls.

And, as in the wider society, while members of a tiny, oligarchic corporate elite each are paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually, the workers who generate these profits live in misery.

WTF?! How does FDX stay off these lists?!

 

[rickyb]

And so release all the prisoners?

no, im not sure exactly but i know the people in jail because of weed should be released. and there should be no for profit jails. i would also create good paying jobs and free college for poor parts of society

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And so release all the prisoners?

Of course not, but there's no need to take an absolutist approach. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a big part of the problem.
Rehabilitation is also a joke in the system we have now. Half of federal prisoners are drug offenders, the drug war costs us billions of dollars and we have nothing positive to show for it. When 67% of those released end up back in prison, no one can deny the system is broken.

 

[smapple]

no, im not sure exactly but i know the people in jail because of weed should be released. and there should be no for profit jails. i would also create good paying jobs and free college for poor parts of society

Omitting medical cases, why should people in jail because of weed be released? Why not just stop smoking weed for recreational use? How does one create good paying jobs and "free" colleges?

Of course not, but there's no need to take an absolutist approach. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a big part of the problem.
Rehabilitation is also a joke in the system we have now. Half of federal prisoners are drug offenders, the drug war costs us billions of dollars and we have nothing positive to show for it. When 67% of those released end up back in prison, no one can deny the system is broken.

The system is broken because people are broken. The drug war would be successful if the government and civilians would stop playing both sides of it.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The system is broken because people are broken. The drug war would be successful if the government and civilians would stop playing both sides of it.

Prohibition doesn't work. That's all there is to it.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Omitting medical cases, why should people in jail because of weed be released? Why not just stop smoking weed for recreational use?

Because the government has no right to tell people what they can do with their own bodies.
Because free citizens don't need the government to protect them from themselves.
Because disobeying unjust laws is a big part of the principles this country was founded on.
Because Murica'.

 

[BrownArmy]

Omitting medical cases, why should people in jail because of weed be released? Why not just stop smoking weed for recreational use?...

Why not just stop drinking alcohol for recreational use?

Can we agree that harmful outcomes for alcohol use far outweigh those for weed?

(They do).

People shouldn't be in jail for weed, period.

 

[rickyb]

Omitting medical cases, why should people in jail because of weed be released? Why not just stop smoking weed for recreational use? How does one create good paying jobs and "free" colleges?

go look at europe at present. or even american history last 70 years. used to be either free or affordable depending on who you were.

regarding good paying jobs, good policy for 1, promoting cooperatives where workers own and control the jobs they work in.

 

[rickyb]

“Being incarcerated has really opened my eyes to the reality of the criminal justice system,” Hammond told me in the jail. “[It] is not a criminal justice system about public safety or rehabilitation, but reaping profits through mass incarceration. There are two kinds of justice—one for the rich and the powerful who get away with the big crimes, then [one] for everyone else, especially people of color and the impoverished. There is no such thing as a fair trial. In over 80 percent of the cases, people are pressured to plea out instead of exercising their right to trial, under the threat of lengthier sentences."

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/16/chr...banks_corporations_and_hedge_funds_can_swell/

 

[smapple]

Prohibition doesn't work. That's all there is to it.

Because the government has no right to tell people what they can do with their own bodies.
Because free citizens don't need the government to protect them from themselves.
Because disobeying unjust laws is a big part of the principles this country was founded on.
Because Murica'.

Like I said, the drug war (prohibition too if you'd like) would be successful is civilians would stop trying to play both sides of the issue. The government tells you what you can and can't do with your own or other people's body everyday because "free citizens" who thought they had rights without obligations ended up harming others. This isn't some debatable issue, it's the result of decades of irresponsible behavior by "free citizens".

Why not just stop drinking alcohol for recreational use?

Can we agree that harmful outcomes for alcohol use far outweigh those for weed?

(They do).

People shouldn't be in jail for weed, period.

I'm willing to agree that alcohol might be more harmful than weed if you're willing to agree that they're both harmful and both should be treated as harmful substances.

go look at europe at present. or even american history last 70 years. used to be either free or affordable depending on who you were.

regarding good paying jobs, good policy for 1, promoting cooperatives where workers own and control the jobs they work in.

We've been through the free college rigmarole before and I didn't get a satisfactory answer from you before, so I don't think I'll get one now.

Your answer for better paying jobs is too generic to be of any use. Not sure what you mean by "promoting cooperatives", who does the promoting for what and why?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Like I said, the drug war (prohibition too if you'd like) would be successful is civilians would stop trying to play both sides of the issue. The government tells you what you can and can't do with your own or other people's body everyday because "free citizens" who thought they had rights without obligations ended up harming others. This isn't some debatable issue, it's the result of decades of irresponsible behavior by "free citizens".

This conversation proves you wrong, it is very much a debatable issue.
You may have a problem with people disobeying unjust laws, but I don't.

 

[rickyb]

We've been through the free college rigmarole before and I didn't get a satisfactory answer from you before, so I don't think I'll get one now.

Your answer for better paying jobs is too generic to be of any use. Not sure what you mean by "promoting cooperatives", who does the promoting for what and why?

the government can assist in promotion and aid for worker owned and controlled cooperatives. the economy is far more productive and profitable then it was 70 years ago, yet all the gains have funnelled to the very top 0.01% or whatever. but then again, when you let very few people determine how much money everyone gets, what do you expect? of course they are going to give most of the money to themselves.

government can also eliminate bad "trade" deals, and anti union laws like taft hartley.

regarding college i just gave u your answer.

 

[smapple]

This conversation proves you wrong, it is very much a debatable issue.
You may have a problem with people disobeying unjust laws, but I don't.

I could call you gopher, doesn't make it so. Stating that something is wrong and calling some law unjust without going through the necessary scrutiny doesn't make it so. If you know what you're talking about then argue your points, don't try to take cheap shots just because you can't wrap your head around the idea that weed is bad for you.

the government can assist in promotion and aid for worker owned and controlled cooperatives. the economy is far more productive and profitable then it was 70 years ago, yet all the gains have funnelled to the very top 0.01% or whatever. but then again, when you let very few people determine how much money everyone gets, what do you expect? of course they are going to give most of the money to themselves.

government can also eliminate bad "trade" deals, and anti union laws like taft hartley.

regarding college i just gave u your answer.

So when you say "promoting cooperatives" you actually mean "government should subsidize" businesses, which I am against on both moral and practical grounds. I don't think you're differentiating gains vs profits even though they have very different meanings in economics, but assuming that both are being funneled to the 0.01% I'd like to know who this 0.01% are and how is the money being funneled to them? As far as people determining how much money everyone gets, who are you talking about? Employers and job creators? As far as I can tell if I run my own business and have an agreement with my employees to pay them X amount for Y services and they acknowledge and accept this, how is this unfair to them? They can simply refuse the offer and ask for more X pay, apply with a different employer, or start a competitive business against mine themselves.

Bad trade deals like what? And what does anti union laws have to do with creating jobs?

As far as college goes if I remember correctly your answer in another thread was to let rich people pay for it, which really wasn't an answer since you were implicitly acknowledging that "free college" really isn't "free". Like I said, unsatisfactory answer. A satisfactory answer would have been something like MIT's Open Course Ware.

 

[rickyb]

So when you say "promoting cooperatives" you actually mean "government should subsidize" businesses, which I am against on both moral and practical grounds. I don't think you're differentiating gains vs profits even though they have very different meanings in economics, but assuming that both are being funneled to the 0.01% I'd like to know who this 0.01% are and how is the money being funneled to them? As far as people determining how much money everyone gets, who are you talking about? Employers and job creators? As far as I can tell if I run my own business and have an agreement with my employees to pay them X amount for Y services and they acknowledge and accept this, how is this unfair to them? They can simply refuse the offer and ask for more X pay, apply with a different employer, or start a competitive business against mine themselves.

Bad trade deals like what? And what does anti union laws have to do with creating jobs?

As far as college goes if I remember correctly your answer in another thread was to let rich people pay for it, which really wasn't an answer since you were implicitly acknowledging that "free college" really isn't "free". Like I said, unsatisfactory answer. A satisfactory answer would have been something like MIT's Open Course Ware.

college would be "free" in the sense that a certain majority of the population would not have to pay for it.

bad trade deals like TPP, NAFTA, etc. anti union laws supress wages and therefore job creation.

yes, i am saying the capitalists determine how much everyone gets paid, and of course they gave most of the money to themselves as the inequality statistics show. lets not forget we abolished slavery and feudalism. maybe exploitation must be abolished too which would mean capitalism and state socialism would have to go. im assuming slavery and feudalism had some kind of contracts (informal contracts) and they were accepted because they would not have existed for 1000s of years otherwise...doesnt make it right.

i think government will always be involved in teh economy as capitalism and the so called free market left on their own are too self destructive. i support government subsidizing cooperatives.

regardless capitalism with government intervention is not working either way; we have a massive environmental crisis. so i think what ever system does work, it will be radically different than capitalism and likely make use of sharing resources.

 

[oldngray]

college would be "free" in the sense that a certain majority of the population would not have to pay for it.

bad trade deals like TPP, NAFTA, etc. anti union laws supress wages and therefore job creation.

yes, i am saying the capitalists determine how much everyone gets paid, and of course they gave most of the money to themselves as the inequality statistics show. lets not forget we abolished slavery and feudalism. maybe exploitation must be abolished too which would mean capitalism and state socialism would have to go. im assuming slavery and feudalism had some kind of contracts (informal contracts) and they were accepted because they would not have existed for 1000s of years otherwise...doesnt make it right.

i think government will always be involved in teh economy as capitalism and the so called free market left on their own are too self destructive. i support government subsidizing cooperatives.

regardless capitalism with government intervention is not working either way; we have a massive environmental crisis. so i think what ever system does work, it will be radically different than capitalism and likely make use of sharing resources.

"a certain majority of the population would not have to pay for it" = someone else has to pay for it. It is very easy to give away other people's money isn't it?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

"a certain majority of the population would not have to pay for it" = someone else has to pay for it. It is very easy to give away other people's money isn't it?

Bernie Sanders wants Wall St to pay for everyone's college.