Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem in America isn't lack of motivation to obtain a job - the problem is a lack of middle class jobs, and in a lot of localities even lower end jobs like retail and fast food are fairly competitive. I remember in 2001 or 2002 I went looking for a job at a local Pizza Hut, where I had held previous employment at, they told me there were so many applications they weren't even taking applications anymore. Blew me away, just 5 years prior I had walked in with zero experience and been handed a job after a 10 minute interview.
We went from a net exporter to a net importer almost overnight, and in doing so completely gutted the country. The internet boom of the 90's and housing boom of the 00's kept the party going for a little while but IMO it's completely caught up with us now, once and for all. You can't motivate your way to job creation.
Exactly the point I try to mention. They've gutted the middle. Many seem to think you're lucky if you're getting by. Is this even America anymore? The only thing that makes this country look 1st world is DEBT. My philosophy is, if you don't have the money, you can't afford it. How much of the crap you see people walking around with or driving could have actually been bought with cold, hard cash? How much of our government's spending could have been paid for in currency? Why do we have such an obnoxiously complex banking/finance industry that's sole purpose seems to be to keep this train a rollin... How much longer can such an unsustainable system prevail?
House of cards. I bet it would look funny from afar, but here we are...
So are you saying that you would only help people in need if the government forces you to? How heartless of you. A social obligation to help people is completely different from a legal mandate.
Your outcome is only valid if you think people are so lazy that they won't want to work to take care of themselves. I apparently think more highly of people than you do.
Just because a small percentage of the population is willing to take care of their fellow man doesn't mean most people will. This is America, the land of "self-made" sociopaths. A nation full of people who wouldn't give a dime to charity if they can't write it off on their taxes. A country where it's okay to demand the death of the sick and the old on national TV at political rallies because those people "aren't profitable" anymore.
As for people "working and taking care of themselves," working AT WHAT?! There aren't anywhere near enough jobs - heck in some fields and locations, there basically aren't any jobs. So, what's next? People can't go back to the family farm, work the land, and grow food to survive like they could in the Great Depression... and "starting your own business" is not possible for most of the employed, or at least not practical. Selling knick-knacks online or washing cars is not going to pay even the cheapest rent, much less anything else... we need to be realistic here.
Besides, right now, as UE benefits run out, we're effectively doing what you proposed - cutting people off the system. And what is happening? The "Recovery" is stalling, the heavily manipulated U3 unemployment number actually ROSE last month, and each month the number of jobs created is less than the number of people leaving the workforce because there is nearly zero chance of them ever working again.
I'm not a fan of endless unemployment from a theoretical perspective since what we need are JOBS that pay a living wage. But those jobs are gone, and they are not coming back... so, as long as corporate crooks and their butt-puppets in DC continue to sell out the nation, than let them pay our bills. We want fair work for a fair wage, but they won't even consider that as long as there's slave labor somewhere else they can exploit instead.
Do you seriously think a janitor adds more than $20/hr of value to a company?
Probably not, but the CEO doesnt add 50 million of value to the company either. If we are paying based on "value", I think we should start at the corporate officers and go down.
Something tells me most of the bottom people would be getting fat raises.
Which is why it should be combined with a cutback in social welfare programs. People would be motivated to work harder if they didn't have such an enormous safety net.
Clearly lack of social safety nets are working in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia
By the way, how many revolutions did those continents account for this year?
The only thing taking away social safety nets will do is create a violent underclass who will do everything they can to survive.
Then again, I suppose youve never been outside the tourist confines of places like Rio De Jiniero. If you have, you might find you are assaulted by dozens of street gangs made up of poor kids living in shanties (which is what people who cant find work and have no social safety nets tend to do).
Guess what the funny thing is though, when you and your tiny minority of rich people has finally achieved your dream of throwing the masses to the wolves, they'll be coming after you. Have fun with that.
Probably not, but the CEO doesnt add 50 million of value to the company either. If we are paying based on "value", I think we should start at the corporate officers and go down.
Something tells me most of the bottom people would be getting fat raises.
I disagree with that statement.
The people at the bottom are a dime a dozen. People who are capable of successfully running a fortune 500 company are not. You are worth whatever the market rate for your job is. No more, no less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Clearly lack of social safety nets are working in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia
By the way, how many revolutions did those continents account for this year?
The only thing taking away social safety nets will do is create a violent underclass who will do everything they can to survive.
Then again, I suppose youve never been outside the tourist confines of places like Rio De Jiniero. If you have, you might find you are assaulted by dozens of street gangs made up of poor kids living in shanties (which is what people who cant find work and have no social safety nets tend to do).
Guess what the funny thing is though, when you and your tiny minority of rich people has finally achieved your dream of throwing the masses to the wolves, they'll be coming after you. Have fun with that.
I didn't realize the historical economics of Africa and America over the last 200 years were the same. Good to know.
So you basically think that a person is not capable of taking care of themselves? You think that a person NEEDS a government to hand them everything they want? Why do you think so little of people that you think a person is incapable of taking care of themselves?
The people at the bottom are a dime a dozen. People who are capable of successfully running a fortune 500 company are not. You are worth whatever the market rate for your job is. No more, no less.
So, now its about "market rates" instead of "value added" when the bloated corporate officer pay is brought up.
Try not moving the goal posts to suit your need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
I didn't realize the historical economics of Africa and America over the last 200 years were the same. Good to know.
They arent, but that has nothing to do with human reaction when faced with starvation and poverty
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
So you basically think that a person is not capable of taking care of themselves?
Sure they are. The problem is that most people dont have the tools neccessary to take care of themselves, and therefore become dependent on someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
You think that a person NEEDS a government to hand them everything they want? Why do you think so little of people that you think a person is incapable of taking care of themselves?
If someone wants to hand me 2 acres of land, the tools to initially farm that land, and a house that includes solar panels, I will be more than capable of "taking care of myself". Until that point, Im dependent on some employer scraping me enough table scraps to get by, or some suit at a bank "loaning me money".
You advocate "people taking care of themselves", but on the same note, you also advocate allowing the oppressors to retain possession of all capital assets. This only creates a bunch of people, who instead of having the minimal provided to them, have nothing at all.
The people at the bottom are a dime a dozen. People who are capable of successfully running a fortune 500 company are not. You are worth whatever the market rate for your job is. No more, no less.
I didn't realize the historical economics of Africa and America over the last 200 years were the same. Good to know.
So you basically think that a person is not capable of taking care of themselves? You think that a person NEEDS a government to hand them everything they want? Why do you think so little of people that you think a person is incapable of taking care of themselves?
You really think the crooks at the top are as valuable as they pretend to be? You do realize that most of their wealth basically comes from cronies voting each other big raises and hiring their buddies with absurd contracts and golden parachutes. No matter how many times those crooks fail, they find a new job that pays more, and yet when the working class is thrown under the bus, they may never work again. People who can successfully run a company are uncommon, yes, but so are people who can successfully design a rocket engine. And yet one group gets paid 10's of millions - even when they fail - while the other group is lucky to make $100,000 before they get laid off by the first group!
People are not capable of "taking care of themselves" - not anymore. As I said before, what are the jobless supposed to do? Live off the land by hunting squirrels in strip-malls or farming food in Wal-mart garden centers? "Start their own company" with no money and no customers in a declining economy? Pay their rent by washing windows or walking dogs?
We're way past the America of our grandparents, where people could "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," although that concept has not really existed in this nation for LONG time... basically, once most people stopped living on a farm that provided food and shelter for them (even if they were poor and jobless), people have become depedent on the system to survive since all we have to offer is our labor. Unfortunately, the people running the system would gladly let us all die if it increased their profits 1% this quarter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
