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.
New York requires a high IQ to survive.
This truth speaks volume and there is always someone
who tries to dispel it by pulling the race card. It has become comical.
IQ comes in all color creeds and religions. You either have it ,work at it
or you don't. The military will not invest any technological training on anyone
with a low IQ and for valid reasons. Leave the building of space ships to one set of
intellectuals and sweeping of streets to another. Just a simple truth .No bigotry or bias injected.
And there may well come a point wherein society-at-large will have robots/androids, computers and computing devices, and automation at-large to become more and more prevalent to the point whereby a goodly number of the manual and semi-skilled work capacities that have been historically done by humans will be done by computerization, automation, and AI (artificial intelligence)-driven entities . . . and his may even come to encroach on various types of skilled positions to some degree (look, we already have self-driving cars, trucks, et al). The point is that places like greater New York City.may reach a point where alot of the job capacities that non-professional and lower-income folks have historically worked will be eliminated for them. This may well drive them out of being in the city and region altogether . . . for the "powers-that-be" will have less incentive to have such a population subsidized to live here in order to hopefully have a captive lower-end population to draw from as a potential or actual workforce for such job capacities.
I'm not saying I support or don't support this seeming trend mentioned above but just saying that it is spoken about in the public forums at-large that such trends may well come to prevail.
Why is it silly? just seems like typical class warfare. Instead of trying to understand someone else point of view, people quickly use whataboutism to dismiss someone else claim.
If the posts about education not leading to a good job are directed at me, what makes you think I don't have a good job? :-) I developed my career within limitations imposed by my immigration status, but I don't complain about that, and am totally satisfied with what I did career-wise (I am speaking in perfect tense because I am semi-retired, by my own choice). In my personal experience, most people have the job they deserve according to their skill and effort. Social skills are a logical part of my profession, screwing is not (and I do not know of any example of anyone getting a job in my profession on that basis), family is not.
I'm not saying I support or don't support this seeming trend mentioned above but just saying that it is spoken about in the public forums at-large that such trends may well come to prevail.
World population has exploded while also becoming more efficient at producing food compared to past centuries. Less people are needed to work in agriculture and are able to pursue intellectual accomplishment leading to faster and quicker advancements than any era before.
Obviously what is questionable is most of you here use your free time to do nothing instead of improving your lives.
I developed my career within limitations imposed by my immigration status, but I don't complain about that, and am totally satisfied with what I did career-wise (I am speaking in perfect tense because I am semi-retired, by my own choice).
From reading your post, your limitation didn't come from being an immigrant but rather a narrow and close minded view. You don't seek to understand and always think you are right.
From reading your post, your limitation didn't come from being an immigrant but rather a narrow and close minded view. You don't seek to understand and always think you are right.
My social views are entirely typical of nearly everyone in my profession in the US, so my professional limitations (which weren't terribly severe anyway - as I said, I have no reason to complain about them) could not possibly be related to my views (the limitation that I am talking about is that I had unresolved immigration status for many years - I had a legal work permit in the US for a long time, but not a permanent immigration status - and with not knowing how long I would stay, it was only practical to do temporary contract work... but that worked out just fine in the end). Anyway, I have been on an Amtrak train for the past 8 hours, and am now arriving to where I need to be for a few weeks, so later...
This is not even true. There are no powers that be that convinced me of anything regarding skin color. Also, didn't I just finished saying that the abusers of the system are from all races?
But let's not have that get this convo sidetracked. The fact that is undeniable is that the welfare system is definitely broken. It should only be temporary to help people get back on their feet, not lifelong or even multigenerational.
Antinimby, the welfare system would function as a temporary help to people who need to get back on their feet (rather than being a lifelong or multigenerational forced transfer of funds from those who generate them to those who just take them) if welfare were structured as a LOAN rather than as a handout. It would have to be a low-interest or no-interest loan, so there is no complaint of rapacious indenturing - folks would owe only what they received. You borrow what you need, and pay back gradually. If you fail to pay back per loan re-payment schedule (or do something else that is antisocial, like commit a felony), you do not get to borrow ever again.
As I mentioned, I made it without any kind of public assistance, but if something like this had been available when I was very poor, it would have been an invaluable help (and it would never occur to me not to pay it back, of course).
And there may well come a point wherein society-at-large will have robots/androids, computers and computing devices, and automation at-large to become more and more prevalent to the point whereby a goodly number of the manual and semi-skilled work capacities that have been historically done by humans will be done by computerization, automation, and AI (artificial intelligence)-driven entities . . . and his may even come to encroach on various types of skilled positions to some degree (look, we already have self-driving cars, trucks, et al). The point is that places like greater New York City.may reach a point where alot of the job capacities that non-professional and lower-income folks have historically worked will be eliminated for them. This may well drive them out of being in the city and region altogether . . . for the "powers-that-be" will have less incentive to have such a population subsidized to live here in order to hopefully have a captive lower-end population to draw from as a potential or actual workforce for such job capacities.
I'm not saying I support or don't support this seeming trend mentioned above but just saying that it is spoken about in the public forums at-large that such trends may well come to prevail.
Gifting unemployed people all the major things in life (that the employed people have to work hard for) surely will not drive the unemployed out of the city, it keeps attracting them to the city, that is the whole reason for this thread :-). The wholy automated future where lower-skilled work no longer exists is still a remote future. Universal basic income has been mentioned (I think maybe actually by yourself) as a solution for supporting people incapable of acquiring advanced skills in the future - ie, every person in a society (regardless of their skills, employment or wealth/poverty) being provided with a certain survival minimum of funds. I would actually support that, provided that all other forms of welfare are abolished. But it presupposes a society where resources far exceed the needs, a society that can afford to gift everybody with a minimum survival package. On a small island in the center of the world, there is simply not enough space for everybody to live - the space will always be a scarce resource in NYC. So who should get to live there? Who deserves to live there? Who should get the scarce resource? Those wanting to pay for the chance to live there, or those looking for ways to steal that chance?
Living in NYC is not essential for anybody's survival. Even Woody Allen managed to survive (for quite a long time) while being informally exiled from the city :-). So, why should NYC housing be a handout, even if Universal Basic Income existed?
I may not know a lot about the issue or have all the answers, my gut reaction would be to want to do the opposite of whatever you propose elnrgby, because your obsession clearly comes out of a place of disdain and animosity for the people your proposals target. It's like your stalking a whole class of people. You hardly even mention poverty, as if it had nothing to do with the issue of welfare. There's a lot of children in poverty and more recently, a better understanding of how chronic stress associated with poverty can affect the developing brain. You couldn't care less because your ideas about welfare have nothing to do with the welfare of anyone.
I may not know a lot about the issue or have all the answers, my gut reaction would be to want to do the opposite of whatever you propose elnrgby, because your obsession clearly comes out of a place of disdain and animosity for the people your proposals target. It's like your stalking a whole class of people. You hardly even mention poverty, as if it had nothing to do with the issue of welfare. There's a lot of children in poverty and more recently, a better understanding of how chronic stress associated with poverty can affect the developing brain. You couldn't care less because your ideas about welfare have nothing to do with the welfare of anyone.
I hardly mention poverty?! I thought I constantly mentioned poverty, namely my own poverty in the 1980s. How about not having children (as I decided against having them) if one knows that one is not able to give one's children anything better than damage to the developing brain? The fact that I did not procreate assured not only my own survival, but also helped, in a small way, the welfare of the overpopulated world. My contribution to decreasing competition and increasing availability of resources for the rest of humanity is microscopic, but if all other poor people started solving the problem of poverty at the level of themselves, there would be no poverty left.
But all of that is still a digression (into the usual personal attack on me :-). The question is who has the right to live in NYC and why. In all other places, the obvious answer is: if one buys a property, one has the right to live there. Only in NYC the answer seems to be: one has the right to live in NYC if one buys a luxury property, or if one is too poor to buy anything and is therefore gifted a property. If that continues, in a couple of decades NYC will look like Kolkata circa Mother Theresa time.
Last edited by elnrgby; 12-16-2018 at 08:05 AM..
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.
