Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2008-06-10 06:56:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6900|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I think that's a little simplistic.  Australia has a minimum wage of $13.74 per hour, and we've got a quite low unemployment rate.  Whilst the raising of minimum wage might be the immediate cause, there are likely other long term causes which are the real problem.
Yes, it is pretty simple to figure out.  It's a direct correlation. .. one that was predicted beforehand. They priced entry level jobs right out of the market. The road to economic hell is paved with good intentions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-10 07:13:31
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6127

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I think that's a little simplistic.  Australia has a minimum wage of $13.74 per hour, and we've got a quite low unemployment rate.  Whilst the raising of minimum wage might be the immediate cause, there are likely other long term causes which are the real problem.
Yes, it is pretty simple to figure out.  It's a direct correlation. .. one that was predicted beforehand. They priced entry level jobs right out of the market. The road to economic hell is paved with good intentions.
You could try actually reading what I wrote.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I think that's a little simplistic.  Australia has a minimum wage of $13.74 per hour, and we've got a quite low unemployment rate.  Whilst the raising of minimum wage might be the immediate cause, there are likely other long term causes which are the real problem.
2008-06-10 07:22:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6951|USA

liquix wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

How do you feel about people that live in a country with free college educations and yet do not take advantage of it?
100% free college and university education to all those capable?

lowing wrote:

As far as my ludicrous last point: Did I basically say that we will never achieve 100% efficiency? I thought I did.
The ludicrousness came in your pretence that the only reason there is unemployment is because of lazy people.


That last assertion makes no sense whatsoever. You are free to operate your own system, I don't particularly care which. I see the benefits or your system and see the benefits of ours. I prefer a less mercenary culture where individuals are not simply commodities. It provides a better breeding ground for the arts, strengthens social harmony and values living life over and above perpetual toil.
1. Yes Cam, do you give a shit about those that have free college and still are not educated or marketable?

2. Nope, we simply allow ourselves to succeed or fail as we see fit. It is called freedom. I di not endorse charging my govt. with the responsibility of taking care of me. I charge my govt. with my protection so that I can remain free to pursue what I want as I want.
Lowing, ever heard this: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

that's exactly what the cost of your supposed protection is, freedom.
Uhhhhhhhh, I don't think so..........There is nothing I said that is in the context of your quote..........
2008-06-10 07:31:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6951|USA

Varegg wrote:

Sooo lowing ... you think it is allright then for the less fortunate that haven't had the same oppurunities as you to work for minimum wage and miss out on the american dream ? ... there can be loads of reasons for just that to happend, a disability, a work accident that lost them their well paid job and later forced them to take another or is everyone without a uni degree freeloaders ?

Don't you need bolt installers and clerks in the US ? ... why not pay them a little more so they can afford their mortage, a reasonable mortage that is ...

A little more emphasis would do you good ... you can't really compare everybody else up against yourself ...
I have been posting here for quite some time now, in threads that cover this topic. I know, you have read in the past where I fully endorse taking care of those that are not able to take care of themselves, handicapped, children, etc.......as for loosing your job, we also have TEMPORARY unemployment benefits of which I have fully endorsed....If you re-read your own post here, you will realize that everyone you listed as part of your "what if" scenario are the same people that I feel society should help............Now here is the question for you..................What about the rest??? Do you want to coddle these people as well? People that are completely able to improve their lives, but do not have the ambition to do so. People that do not want to work for their rewards. Are so inclined t ocoddle these people as well? If not, then you and I are on the same side of this issue. If so, then I endorse a system where people like you can give as much of your money as you want to them, and people like me can use OUR money as we see fit.
2008-06-10 07:40:09
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7109|Nårvei



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...

The people you describe as being less willing to work are a group being on the verge of not existing at all as far as i know ... people do want to work, people do want to contribute if you let them ... most people doesn't want to be unemployed ...

You still didn't answer all my questions ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-06-10 07:49:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6951|USA

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...

The people you describe as being less willing to work are a group being on the verge of not existing at all as far as i know ... people do want to work, people do want to contribute if you let them ... most people doesn't want to be unemployed ...

You still didn't answer all my questions ...
I realize that we already have socialistic ideas in place, and I support the idea. Yet, somehow, even with all of the programs in place, in a free society there are still plenty of people out there that refuse to better THEMSELVES........So be it. I am not inclined to dump even more of what I HAVE WORKED FOR, to supplement these programs only to realize the same end result.......People will take more, and not produce more.......Fuck that.


To answer your question, yeah, I guess the world needs bolt installers, but if you are not happy with the rewards for that choice, then you are PERSONAL RESPONSIBILE to make sure you rise above it.........The task of artifically rising your pay, because you choose not to do it legitmatly is wrong,and your quality of life is your responsibility, it does not belong to society, or corporate America
2008-06-10 07:51:56
imortal
Member
+240|6964|Austin, TX

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...
But it is NOT being fortunate.  It is hard work.  If I put my own money, and take my own time, to take classes while still working to support myself; if I finally gain the education and experience needed to move into a better position with better pay; if I use the ideas out of my own head to create things that no one before has though of; how is that the vagraties of fortune?  Was I just lucky, or was it hard work?  And do I owe anything to anyone?  And if someone fails to apply themselves to improve theri own situation, is that 'being less fotunate," or is that laziness and a willingness to accept the status quo?

There is another fallacy, and that is the rich and successful "giving back to the community that gave him so much."  This sounds like they stole or were given their fortune for nothing in return.  Most of those people made their money in business, selling either a product or a service.  That means that the money they got was in return for a product.  I did not give Bill Gates money.  I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows (ok, several copies by now).  I received a product in return for my money.  He was not fortunate.  He was and is a ruthless buisnessman, but he was not given a free ride.

Now, it is a goddly and Christian thing to give to those who can not do for themselves, but it should be a personal act of charity.  In no way should the government act as the collector, taking that money from you by force in order to 'redistribute the wealth.'
2008-06-10 09:16:49
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6900|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I think that's a little simplistic.  Australia has a minimum wage of $13.74 per hour, and we've got a quite low unemployment rate.  Whilst the raising of minimum wage might be the immediate cause, there are likely other long term causes which are the real problem.
Yes, it is pretty simple to figure out.  It's a direct correlation. .. one that was predicted beforehand. They priced entry level jobs right out of the market. The road to economic hell is paved with good intentions.
You could try actually reading what I wrote.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I think that's a little simplistic.  Australia has a minimum wage of $13.74 per hour, and we've got a quite low unemployment rate.  Whilst the raising of minimum wage might be the immediate cause, there are likely other long term causes which are the real problem.
And why is it you think I didn't?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-10 11:27:34
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7109|Nårvei

imortal wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...
But it is NOT being fortunate.  It is hard work.  If I put my own money, and take my own time, to take classes while still working to support myself; if I finally gain the education and experience needed to move into a better position with better pay; if I use the ideas out of my own head to create things that no one before has though of; how is that the vagraties of fortune?  Was I just lucky, or was it hard work?  And do I owe anything to anyone?  And if someone fails to apply themselves to improve theri own situation, is that 'being less fotunate," or is that laziness and a willingness to accept the status quo?

There is another fallacy, and that is the rich and successful "giving back to the community that gave him so much."  This sounds like they stole or were given their fortune for nothing in return.  Most of those people made their money in business, selling either a product or a service.  That means that the money they got was in return for a product.  I did not give Bill Gates money.  I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows (ok, several copies by now).  I received a product in return for my money.  He was not fortunate.  He was and is a ruthless buisnessman, but he was not given a free ride.

Now, it is a goddly and Christian thing to give to those who can not do for themselves, but it should be a personal act of charity.  In no way should the government act as the collector, taking that money from you by force in order to 'redistribute the wealth.'
Right ... i fully see both yours and lowing points on the issue of selfmade and self helped and all is good with those points ... my point is when you are done with all those classes, have a uni degree and have worked yourself up the ladder and you at one point are laid off and can't find a new place to work that can utilize your wonderful education ... what then ? ... minimum wage flipping burgers until you hope or chase the possibility of getting a new job where your 6 - 10 years education pulls you back up the ladder of deserved income ...

That scenario isn't so far fetched as you think and the US is on the brink of having many such scenarios soon ... many people will then wish the rates for minimum wage where a tad higher ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-06-10 11:35:34
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7109|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...

The people you describe as being less willing to work are a group being on the verge of not existing at all as far as i know ... people do want to work, people do want to contribute if you let them ... most people doesn't want to be unemployed ...

You still didn't answer all my questions ...
I realize that we already have socialistic ideas in place, and I support the idea. Yet, somehow, even with all of the programs in place, in a free society there are still plenty of people out there that refuse to better THEMSELVES........So be it. I am not inclined to dump even more of what I HAVE WORKED FOR, to supplement these programs only to realize the same end result.......People will take more, and not produce more.......Fuck that.


To answer your question, yeah, I guess the world needs bolt installers, but if you are not happy with the rewards for that choice, then you are PERSONAL RESPONSIBILE to make sure you rise above it.........The task of artifically rising your pay, because you choose not to do it legitmatly is wrong,and your quality of life is your responsibility, it does not belong to society, or corporate America
Egosentric at best is what i call that moral view ... i'm not sure if this is a term you are familiar with in the US: Die hard capitalism like you practise in the US is like the breaststroke in swimming except for the arms pushing the water inwards towards the chest rather than pushing it away from the body in a outwards motion ...

Maybe the way your society works produces all these freeloaders as you refer to, think about that ... why work minimum wage when doing nothing pays equally well ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-06-10 11:39:25
imortal
Member
+240|6964|Austin, TX

Varegg wrote:

imortal wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...
But it is NOT being fortunate.  It is hard work.  If I put my own money, and take my own time, to take classes while still working to support myself; if I finally gain the education and experience needed to move into a better position with better pay; if I use the ideas out of my own head to create things that no one before has though of; how is that the vagraties of fortune?  Was I just lucky, or was it hard work?  And do I owe anything to anyone?  And if someone fails to apply themselves to improve theri own situation, is that 'being less fotunate," or is that laziness and a willingness to accept the status quo?

There is another fallacy, and that is the rich and successful "giving back to the community that gave him so much."  This sounds like they stole or were given their fortune for nothing in return.  Most of those people made their money in business, selling either a product or a service.  That means that the money they got was in return for a product.  I did not give Bill Gates money.  I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows (ok, several copies by now).  I received a product in return for my money.  He was not fortunate.  He was and is a ruthless buisnessman, but he was not given a free ride.

Now, it is a goddly and Christian thing to give to those who can not do for themselves, but it should be a personal act of charity.  In no way should the government act as the collector, taking that money from you by force in order to 'redistribute the wealth.'
Right ... i fully see both yours and lowing points on the issue of selfmade and self helped and all is good with those points ... my point is when you are done with all those classes, have a uni degree and have worked yourself up the ladder and you at one point are laid off and can't find a new place to work that can utilize your wonderful education ... what then ? ... minimum wage flipping burgers until you hope or chase the possibility of getting a new job where your 6 - 10 years education pulls you back up the ladder of deserved income ...

That scenario isn't so far fetched as you think and the US is on the brink of having many such scenarios soon ... many people will then wish the rates for minimum wage where a tad higher ...
Never stop learning.  Never stop going to school.  I am a certified, comissioned security guard, an Emergency Medical Technician, and I am in Nursing school.  As long as Obama doesn't manage to pass his National Healthcare nightmare, I will never be at a loss for a job.  It is called planning.
2008-06-10 12:13:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6951|USA

Varegg wrote:

imortal wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...
But it is NOT being fortunate.  It is hard work.  If I put my own money, and take my own time, to take classes while still working to support myself; if I finally gain the education and experience needed to move into a better position with better pay; if I use the ideas out of my own head to create things that no one before has though of; how is that the vagraties of fortune?  Was I just lucky, or was it hard work?  And do I owe anything to anyone?  And if someone fails to apply themselves to improve theri own situation, is that 'being less fotunate," or is that laziness and a willingness to accept the status quo?

There is another fallacy, and that is the rich and successful "giving back to the community that gave him so much."  This sounds like they stole or were given their fortune for nothing in return.  Most of those people made their money in business, selling either a product or a service.  That means that the money they got was in return for a product.  I did not give Bill Gates money.  I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows (ok, several copies by now).  I received a product in return for my money.  He was not fortunate.  He was and is a ruthless buisnessman, but he was not given a free ride.

Now, it is a goddly and Christian thing to give to those who can not do for themselves, but it should be a personal act of charity.  In no way should the government act as the collector, taking that money from you by force in order to 'redistribute the wealth.'
Right ... i fully see both yours and lowing points on the issue of selfmade and self helped and all is good with those points ... my point is when you are done with all those classes, have a uni degree and have worked yourself up the ladder and you at one point are laid off and can't find a new place to work that can utilize your wonderful education ... what then ? ... minimum wage flipping burgers until you hope or chase the possibility of getting a new job where your 6 - 10 years education pulls you back up the ladder of deserved income ...

That scenario isn't so far fetched as you think and the US is on the brink of having many such scenarios soon ... many people will then wish the rates for minimum wage where a tad higher ...
Nope minimum wage will not help, it also was not designed to do so. What is it YOU suggest? That we all supplement his income back to where it was??
Yeah ok, tell me where to sign up, I think I am gunna loose my job tomorrow.
2008-06-10 12:18:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6951|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...

The people you describe as being less willing to work are a group being on the verge of not existing at all as far as i know ... people do want to work, people do want to contribute if you let them ... most people doesn't want to be unemployed ...

You still didn't answer all my questions ...
I realize that we already have socialistic ideas in place, and I support the idea. Yet, somehow, even with all of the programs in place, in a free society there are still plenty of people out there that refuse to better THEMSELVES........So be it. I am not inclined to dump even more of what I HAVE WORKED FOR, to supplement these programs only to realize the same end result.......People will take more, and not produce more.......Fuck that.


To answer your question, yeah, I guess the world needs bolt installers, but if you are not happy with the rewards for that choice, then you are PERSONAL RESPONSIBLE to make sure you rise above it.........The task of artificially rising your pay, because you choose not to do it legitimately is wrong,and your quality of life is your responsibility, it does not belong to society, or corporate America
Egosentric at best is what i call that moral view ... i'm not sure if this is a term you are familiar with in the US: Die hard capitalism like you practise in the US is like the breaststroke in swimming except for the arms pushing the water inwards towards the chest rather than pushing it away from the body in a outwards motion ...

Maybe the way your society works produces all these freeloaders as you refer to, think about that ... why work minimum wage when doing nothing pays equally well ...
Egocentric?! You gotta be kiddin' me!!  Suggesting that personal responsibility should reign over govt. intervention except for those who really need it is not egocentric....Why do you insist that we should relieve people of their own responsibilities for their own problems??
2008-06-10 12:31:12
imortal
Member
+240|6964|Austin, TX

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...

The people you describe as being less willing to work are a group being on the verge of not existing at all as far as i know ... people do want to work, people do want to contribute if you let them ... most people doesn't want to be unemployed ...

You still didn't answer all my questions ...
I realize that we already have socialistic ideas in place, and I support the idea. Yet, somehow, even with all of the programs in place, in a free society there are still plenty of people out there that refuse to better THEMSELVES........So be it. I am not inclined to dump even more of what I HAVE WORKED FOR, to supplement these programs only to realize the same end result.......People will take more, and not produce more.......Fuck that.


To answer your question, yeah, I guess the world needs bolt installers, but if you are not happy with the rewards for that choice, then you are PERSONAL RESPONSIBILE to make sure you rise above it.........The task of artifically rising your pay, because you choose not to do it legitmatly is wrong,and your quality of life is your responsibility, it does not belong to society, or corporate America
Egosentric at best is what i call that moral view ... i'm not sure if this is a term you are familiar with in the US: Die hard capitalism like you practise in the US is like the breaststroke in swimming except for the arms pushing the water inwards towards the chest rather than pushing it away from the body in a outwards motion ...

Maybe the way your society works produces all these freeloaders as you refer to, think about that ... why work minimum wage when doing nothing pays equally well ...
As the unemployement rate in the the US is less than half that of Europe, perhaps it is best that you qualify your argument?
2008-06-10 14:23:24
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7109|Nårvei

You people claimed unemployment was a problem in the US, not me ...

And lowing - i don't insist, i merely explain how it works over here and it do work very well with the European socialistic model - we take care of everybody - you seem to care less about anyone but yourself, the misfortunate can blame themselves for their situation entirely, that's egocentric imo ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-06-10 14:30:27
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6656|CA, USA

Varegg wrote:

imortal wrote:

Varegg wrote:



We already have a system like you describe it lowing, it's called socialism but with that said it's not a freeloaders paradise if that was your next thought ... it's designed so fortunate people like myself pay a little extra tax to cover the less fortunate to put it simple ...
But it is NOT being fortunate.  It is hard work.  If I put my own money, and take my own time, to take classes while still working to support myself; if I finally gain the education and experience needed to move into a better position with better pay; if I use the ideas out of my own head to create things that no one before has though of; how is that the vagraties of fortune?  Was I just lucky, or was it hard work?  And do I owe anything to anyone?  And if someone fails to apply themselves to improve theri own situation, is that 'being less fotunate," or is that laziness and a willingness to accept the status quo?

There is another fallacy, and that is the rich and successful "giving back to the community that gave him so much."  This sounds like they stole or were given their fortune for nothing in return.  Most of those people made their money in business, selling either a product or a service.  That means that the money they got was in return for a product.  I did not give Bill Gates money.  I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows (ok, several copies by now).  I received a product in return for my money.  He was not fortunate.  He was and is a ruthless buisnessman, but he was not given a free ride.

Now, it is a goddly and Christian thing to give to those who can not do for themselves, but it should be a personal act of charity.  In no way should the government act as the collector, taking that money from you by force in order to 'redistribute the wealth.'
Right ... i fully see both yours and lowing points on the issue of selfmade and self helped and all is good with those points ... my point is when you are done with all those classes, have a uni degree and have worked yourself up the ladder and you at one point are laid off and can't find a new place to work that can utilize your wonderful education ... what then ? ... minimum wage flipping burgers until you hope or chase the possibility of getting a new job where your 6 - 10 years education pulls you back up the ladder of deserved income ...

That scenario isn't so far fetched as you think and the US is on the brink of having many such scenarios soon ... many people will then wish the rates for minimum wage where a tad higher ...
possible solution:  independent contractors.

in my company we hire tons of CMOS mask designers.  these are people tha draw the blueprints of the chips that ultimately get sent to the factory for fabrication.  These people generally have an associates degree and start out making somehwere between 30-50k per year.  within 3-5 years with overtime they are over 70k.  Now then, when these people get layed off (it happens), they become a contractor providing their service to various companies as temp workers.  Some of these people are making close to 140k per year in the bay area.  true, they have to pay their own health care and all but i believe that they are still ahead when all things are considered.

another possible solution:  invent something or become and entrepreneur

yet another possible solution:  flipping houses instead of burgers

the opportunities are truly out there.  i understand it's not that easy once you have family and kids to up and move where the jobs are - so perhaps that is what you are getting at.
2008-06-10 14:35:39
imortal
Member
+240|6964|Austin, TX
https://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll83/imortal_22/potential.jpg
2008-06-10 14:49:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6951|USA

Varegg wrote:

You people claimed unemployment was a problem in the US, not me ...

And lowing - i don't insist, i merely explain how it works over here and it do work very well with the European socialistic model - we take care of everybody - you seem to care less about anyone but yourself, the misfortunate can blame themselves for their situation entirely, that's egocentric imo ...
I never said shit about unemployment being a problem in the US.

Nope you are wrong..........I care about my family, myself, and those that warrant being taken care of....As I have stated numerous times, but I know it dilutes yours and Cams argument against me to acknowledge it. So I will just let you think as you will of me.
2008-06-10 14:54:49
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6900|132 and Bush

@ Varegg: I was attempting to explain a reason for the perceived rise. (More people actually kept their jobs last month)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-10 14:55:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6710|'Murka

DrunkFace wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Minimum wage was not designed nor intended as something to be paid in perpetuity and raise a family on. It has always been intended as a starting wage for unskilled labor. As the worker gains skill, they move up and earn more pay, leaving the unskilled positions open for new workers. That one, starting, unskilled laborer should not be living below the poverty line while making the minimum wage.

The problem is that people have started to believe (including lawmakers) that one should be able to support a family of 3-4 on one or two minimum-wage incomes and keep it above the poverty line.

Following the original intent of the US minimum wage, it should be $5/hour. That would keep one person at the poverty line. $5.85 would keep them above it. source

One can tell by running the numbers that Congress' intent is to have a single wage earner at minimum wage be able to support a multi-member family indefinitely at that wage...far from the intent of the minimum wage.
A large proportion of jobs are unskilled. So basically what you are saying is a large proportion of people Should be living at or below the poverty line. Wow you're fucked up.
I'm fairly certain I said nothing of the kind. But thanks for the nice words.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-06-10 15:35:59
Ratzinger
Member
+43|6691|Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Haven't you heard of the bell curve? How hard is it to understand that some people are incapable of performing the simple tasks which make you employable, just as some have such an abundance of talent that they are capable of anything (and usually go into politics...).

When you talk about 3-5% UE, you must realise this figure is an INTEGRAL part of the capitalist economic system. A modern society recognises this and provides a mechanism to support those unable to support themselves, so they don't have to rob your house. The weaker this mechanism, the more problems for your society.

The efforts your society makes to ameliorate these problems is an indication of its level of civilisation and empathy.
2008-06-10 15:41:11
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6656|CA, USA

Ratzinger wrote:

Haven't you heard of the bell curve? How hard is it to understand that some people are incapable of performing the simple tasks which make you employable, just as some have such an abundance of talent that they are capable of anything (and usually go into politics...).

When you talk about 3-5% UE, you must realise this figure is an INTEGRAL part of the capitalist economic system. A modern society recognises this and provides a mechanism to support those unable to support themselves, so they don't have to rob your house. The weaker this mechanism, the more problems for your society.

The efforts your society makes to ameliorate these problems is an indication of its level of civilisation and empathy.
and what people are arguing here is that (some of us) want to get these people to help themselves rather than just take a hand out and don't do anything.

i mentioned earlier that for those people who are uneployable, there's nothing to say they can't pick up a shovel and join a road crew somewhere.  how about helping with park maintenance?  working at a recycling center?  repairing levees in NO?  put these people to work.  teach them a usable skill would be best.  help them help themselves.  This work program is what the govt should be doing as a condition for getting $$$.

if people refuse to push a broom or do a service, then they can take advantage of free $$$ for a lifetime cap and then they can f*ck off

Last edited by CaptainSpaulding71 (2008-06-10 15:42:07)

2008-06-10 15:49:50
imortal
Member
+240|6964|Austin, TX

Ratzinger wrote:

Haven't you heard of the bell curve? How hard is it to understand that some people are incapable of performing the simple tasks which make you employable, just as some have such an abundance of talent that they are capable of anything (and usually go into politics...).

When you talk about 3-5% UE, you must realise this figure is an INTEGRAL part of the capitalist economic system. A modern society recognises this and provides a mechanism to support those unable to support themselves, so they don't have to rob your house. The weaker this mechanism, the more problems for your society.

The efforts your society makes to ameliorate these problems is an indication of its level of civilisation and empathy.
No, just of mine.
2008-06-10 15:57:55
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6900|132 and Bush

Ratzinger wrote:

Haven't you heard of the bell curve? How hard is it to understand that some people are incapable of performing the simple tasks which make you employable, just as some have such an abundance of talent that they are capable of anything (and usually go into politics...).

When you talk about 3-5% UE, you must realise this figure is an INTEGRAL part of the capitalist economic system. A modern society recognises this and provides a mechanism to support those unable to support themselves, so they don't have to rob your house. The weaker this mechanism, the more problems for your society.

The efforts your society makes to ameliorate these problems is an indication of its level of civilisation and empathy.
You must consider the timing along with recent legislation. Historically (in the states) when school is out the workforce increases. These figures are not necessarily indicative of a performance deficiency. But rather governments attempt to dictate what these entry level people should be paid.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-10 16:01:53
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7065|Cambridge (UK)

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

i mentioned earlier that for those people who are uneployable, there's nothing to say they can't pick up a shovel and join a road crew somewhere.  how about helping with park maintenance?  working at a recycling center?  repairing levees in NO?
And for the disabled? fit them with 'drill-arm' attachments and send them down the mines?

'Unemployable' means just that - un-employable - some people are just too ill, feeble, mad or stupid to have the ability to be of use to society without expensive care and support - and by this I don't just mean the paralysed or severely physically or mentally disabled - I mean the severely depressed, the dyslexic that was overlooked at school and came out with no qualifications, the insomniac that barely functions, and the countless others in our society that really are un-employable.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard