lowing wrote:Nothing wrong with a Mcjob. In fact, I had one as HS kid, then as my life progressed so did my income. As my decisions got more responsible so did my jobs, then my marketablity.
There will always be a need for people to fullfill the low ends jobs, and it is the college kid and HS kid working for pocket money or beer money that is SUPPOSED to fill them, taking the place of the HS kid that graduated and went to college or the college kid that earned their diploma and moved into a career. These jobs are not meant to be living wage jobs, and yet you seem to expect that thay should be. Reality is, a small business owner can not stay in business if he is supposed to pay his janitor as if he was an engineer. If that janitor wants engineer salary then he must work for it, if he is not expected to, in order to earn a fantasitc living, what incentive should the engineer have to make HIS paycheck?
You speak as if I was born marketable or have never known failure. Believe me I have. Assuming responsiblity for my failures and pulling myself up is what I did. What is it you expect from others?
Now before you start, I have always endorsed supporting those that can not help themselves. However I do not support welfare as a life style, nor do I support, supporting poor people in their idiotic decison making. I have my own life I must try and successfully navigate through without dashing myself on someone elses rocks of dispair.
No, I do not expect a janitor to be payed well, but at least at a level that makes survival possible. A whole other debate is payscales. The CEOs that pocket a few million in yearly bonuses, the executives at AIG who got bonuses despite this their blatant failures. granted, that is a stretch, and a cheap example, but it does show extreme flaws in monetary compensation.
ok. So, we have these brilliant executives, pounding out the best methods of gaming (legally, but perhaps immorally) the system. THAT idea, these smart people, know how to game the system... as in, fuck over as many people they can for their company's profit margins. Obviously not all of them are like that, maybe not even a majority.
You have to acknowledge that history has shown that it is common for humans to exploit other humans, the smartest over the dumbest. Survival of the fittest, but our current society is not that way. Nor should it in the pure sense of the phrase.
As I have said at exhaustion, Societies need a support system, which defies survival of the fittest. But that is a high level corporate mindset, survival of the fittest. Hell, it has to be. But that doesn't work in a democracy. It defies the very term. That doesn't mean I am preaching fairness, but there is always a line between ambition and greed, especially when it comes from the expense of another.
But to counter the abuse and exploitation, we have system, laws, and welfare programs. One, to help the lower people, and two, counter the over balance of the higher ups from said exploitation.
That is what makes democracies work. It's not a fascist state, or a tyrannical state. Survival of the fittest is a great method and standard in moderation. Taken to the extreme, is evil. That is what I am getting at.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, and agree with alot of your ideas, but I disagree with the staunch level you take things to, not to an irrational level, but to a very unforgiving level. And, no, I don't hand out forgiveness like its free, don't try to say that I was, you WERE going to
There will always be people out there who exploit other people. Kings did it, con men do it. These people are usually not idiots, but their victims often are. The U.S. constitution is based upon the idea of protecting people (Broad and a bit unfair to say that, but applicable none the less).
Even still, with power, comes corruption, Racism etc. The darkside of human nature is still very prevalent today. merely 50 years ago, we had segregation. Oh christ, yes.... I just played the race card.
But there is a point to it (NO not a free excuse), prejudices and immorality such as back then factor heavily upon the less er people, placed upon them by the well-to-do. Obviously not as a standard, but it happens. IT happens not because succesful people are greedy and evil, but some are. They can sometimes get away with it, due to the freedoms and throughways of our society.
With such a free country comes one end: The freedom and ability to be a piece of shit loser, welfare jockey-TO a degree-, on the other, the freedom and ability to game the system and take advantage of other people -to a degree-
But which end has the smart ones? the powerful, the rich, the opposite of the welfare reciepients. With the powerful, and with the ideals of our country comes, I feel, an obligation to counter balance, to assist the ones so easily exploitable.
The battle line in this thread, between you and I, I think, you are speaking from a view of the deadbeats, while I am looking from a view of people (some, some some, being taken advantage of), and/or in need of help who are genuinely good, useful people. Not that Either of you and I are more wrong or more right...
I understand the extreme potential of abuse of the welfare system. I just wonder if you are willing to consider how many
people on welfare or some sort of assistance who are not there to bilk that system and are, again, useful good intended people.
NO, I do not think corporations or executives are the problem. The problem is human nature. Greedy on one end, sinfully lazy on the other. Whose more wrong or right?
DO we clamp off the ability to be lazy, or a a greedy executive? No. Our country is not founded on or designed in that way. The only rational alternative to patch up the imperfections as best as possible and moderate.
There are flaws in your beliefs as there is mine. It just seems you are unwilling to give up any ground on anything that does not suit your own ends. Societies don't function well that way.
How many of those jobs exist just to keep people working? How many could really be replaced by machines? I'd venture to say a good portion of them. I don't have any issue with people who are trying, even if they are failing repeatedly. I have serious issues with those that give up or don't try. The 25 year old working as a cashier at McDonalds is eventually going to either end up a manager there or on the rolls of public assistance. Was being a McDonalds cashier really the only job they were capable of working or did they choose the easy path with no responsibilities? If the answer to that question is yes, they are doing their best, then fine, if they end up on welfare I don't have a problem giving them enough support to not live an entirely shitty life. If the answer is in the second half, that they aren't really trying, then I say they deserve to starve to death living under a bridge somewhere.
The real question is how far should all these societal safety nets extend? Extend them too far and you end up with a lazy underclass who would rather live off government support than work. Extend them too little and you have people starving in the streets when they lose a job. I personally feel the net is way too far out there and that the system is being abused in a major way.
I'm going to stop here because I'm too tired to go back and reread your essay
I hope you get my point.
We are advanced enough to have nearly all jobs replaced by machines. Are the machines cost effective? That is the question. Also, do you really want that? Even less people with jobs in our country? "Well yes, they should earn a better job" you might say. I would have to agree. But, as less jobs, more machines comes along, how would our economy, or even the global economy fair? THAT is a big question I dare not destroy my limited mind thinking about... at least not right now.
The answer to your cashier question is BOTH. Some need help, some abuse help. I think Lowing and I differ fundamentally on how many abuse and how much abuse, or how much legitimate funding is sufficient.
As you feel, the current system is too extended, too abused. I feel it's insufficient, but abused. Again, by how much. We can never cut the system out. Yes, no one said that. But we all can agree the system is fucked up in many ways.
I don't think I have an answer. But what I do know, is alot of the parts of the system ARE inadequate. Sadly, and digustingly, I admit that it needs more oversight and bureaucracy, which we all can collectively groan at that idea, but it's true. More oversight=more $.
Yep. even this countries pockets are finite, and I see the problem right there in what I just said. But something has to change, bugdet cuts isn't the answer as it is already inadequate , throwing more money at it (in a proper way) could work, on paper at least.... Perhaps we should all just suck it up and give it a TRY.
I think we all have to remember that despite all the bullshit, all our opinions, The United States is (heh, well was before the financial collapse) in great damn shape in global comparison. We must be doing SOMETHING right. lol.
EDIT: what also doesn't help, LOWING, is that you ARE confrontational, and if I was a betting man, I'd place a shit ton of money on the idea that you get an unhealthy amount of joy and entertainment at winding people up and infuriating them.
Plus, "you're Nazi, Lowing" probably gets a bit old too.