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.
Okay... so the corporations are not to blame for: the Housing Bubble, The Debt Bubble, the outsourcing of jobs overseas, the insourcing of jobs with illegals and visa workers, or even buying up our government. Right - they are perfectly blameless because "we're free to quit" - which has nothing to do with anything - and because they sometimes give raises when they are doing well...which also has nothing to do with anything. A person's - or organization's - true nature is revealed when times are tough; I'm sure there are bank robbers out there who buy expensive gifts for their kids, but that doesn't make them good people. Now that times are bad, we have record corporate profits and staggering unemployment. The conclusion should be obvious...
Sorry, but your argument holds no water at all.
I said when the economy s**ks, like now there are more workers then jobs. Therefore wages are stagnate. When the economy picks up with a real recovery, jobs will be plentiful and business will compete for workers = more $$ to attract workers. People forget because we have't had a good economy in a while.
Rambellman,Put down the broad corporation brush. Where was the government in all this?? Go ahead blame the corporations. You may not like it but labor is a large component to a business expenses. If wages go up too much (thank the unions) options will pop up to be considered. When business complain they cant afford wage increases don't be surprised to see them move overseas. Corporations need to compete globally with product/service and price. Think about it. If your household expenses go up you will always evaluate what can be done to keep expenses in check. You may even drop an expense or switch over to a competing product or service. You don't call your self evil when you do that do you?
Three points:
1) So, what's your solution? Just hope the global wage arbitrage hits everyone but you? Just assume that you won't be affected or that you'll rise above it because of skills, education, connections, or some other thing that so many seem to assume the unemployed lack?
2) Sure, I cut back expenses if needed. However, I don't buy up my local government officials to get me a sweet deal on my rent or reduce my taxes to nothing. I don't replace my local restaurant workers with illegals making $3 an hour. I don't layoff the building maintenance guys to save a few bucks. In short, I operate within the bounds of the law - I don't rewrite it to suit my own interests.
The point is that the corporations write the rules since they bought up our leadership. It is silly to compare their "cost reductions" - where they can basically do whatever they want to reduce cost or avoid paying taxes - to an individual who is still constrained by the law reducing his expenses.
3) The economy may "s*ck" - in no small part thanks to high unemployment and terrible wages - and yet corporate profits are at all time high. Funny how that works. Those who control the laws and can operate above them are the only ones to profit from this... and yet some claim we don't need more accountability from them.
You claim they'll hire more people when the economy is doing better. How exactly is that recovery going to happen without... hiring more people? Shouldn't the question be why big business, who is sitting on record profits, is refusing to invest in the future by NOT hiring and thus NOT allowing a true Recovery? Ah, but we all know the answer - it might not all pay off this quarter and some executive might not be allowed to double his pay again this year. The horror.
I think the first several posters in this thread really got to the heart of the issue with the myth of the meritocracy, which fosters the belief that if you aren't employed and/or successful, it's your own fault for not working hard enough. Anybody can lose a job and fall on hard times through no fault of their own. You can be the most talented person in your field, and it's no guarantee of anything, if your bosses want to hire someone younger and cheaper, or just outsource your job altogether. Heck, I've been there. At an old job, we had a new VP come in and shake up our department, and one of the things he did was eliminate my position along with one other. My boss loved my work and fought for me, but it didn't matter, because he ended up getting bought out into an early retirement.
So to those for whom "no one owes you anything" means "suck it up and pull yourself up by your bootstraps," you need a lesson in human empathy. You're right in the sense that all employment is at-will, but if that employment ends, why do we suddenly work so hard to denigrate that person, making them feel as if their unemployment is some kind of personal moral failure? Why do we rail against the social safety net for a family down on its luck and trying to make ends meet? Not everyone is lazy bum mooching off the system, and even if there are lazy moochers, that doesn't mean those who genuinely need the help deserve to be stereotyped as such.
As for this belief in a pure meritocracy: Sure, a lot of my success is due to the solid reputation I've built through my own hard work, but I've had tons of lucky breaks, too, and I don't know anyone who hasn't. Just to give you some idea of my own story:
-- In my junior year of high school, I still didn't know what I wanted to do when I got to college. I was working as the bookkeeper on the yearbook staff, and when the editor wasn't available to do her job, our advisor asked me to fill in -- not because she thought I had any special talent for the job, but because I was a reliable kid. She liked my work so well that I ended up becoming the editor my senior year. I ended up majoring in English in college. Lucky break No. 1.
-- So what do you do with an English major? I didn't know for sure, until a professor in one of my journalism classes saw that I had a knack for editing and rewriting. He used to work at the local paper, and he put me in touch with a colleague of his who still worked there. I had a part-time reporting job before I even graduated. My professor knew someone -- lucky break No. 2.
-- Six months later, I'm freelancing for three papers, and a part-time opening comes available on the copy desk at one paper. I got the job and found my niche -- I was a better editor than a writer. But it soon became clear that the part-time gig wasn't going to translate to full-time, and I started looking around for other options. Then one night, someone in the newsroom said her husband worked across the hall from a department that was looking for a full-time editor, at another company in town. I interviewed and got the job. I talked to someone who knew someone -- lucky break No. 3.
-- When that job was eliminated, I ended up taking a job in D.C. that I hated. But if not for taking that lousy job, I wouldn't have become a local candidate for a job I ended up holding for six years and enjoyed great personal success at. Losing my original job and ending up in D.C. -- lucky break No. 4.
-- When we moved from D.C. to Seattle, we did it without jobs. Nothing was panning out for me. Then one day, out of the blue, my old D.C.-area employer (the one I liked, not the one I hated) called up and asked if I'd like to work as a contractor for them. The job started out part-time but has since morphed into a full-time gig. I'd left the place on good terms, but I never expected to hear from them again. Lucky break No. 5.
Like Cerebrator, I've also given other people what they would probably consider lucky breaks. When I was in a position to make a hiring recommendation at one job, I recommended a woman who hadn't worked in my field before but displayed a natural talent for working with words (as evidenced by her editing test). I passed over other, more qualified candidates in favor of giving her a chance and seeing if she'd shine the way I thought she would. She didn't let me down. She was a quick learner and a great fit for the department, and I mentored her when she needed help. (I had zero input over salary considerations, before somebody asks, so for me that was not a motivating factor in my decision.) She got downsized along with me, but now she's back working there in a slightly different role -- and she probably wouldn't be there if not for the break I gave her in the first place.
Of course my own talents and ambition have played a role in my success, but they haven't played the only role. The point is, again, that success is a combination of personal ambition and lucky breaks. No man is an island. A perfect world in which your skills and qualifications alone are a guarantee of success is the fantasy of Ayn Rand novels. That's what the social Darwinists seem unable to comprehend. Also, I'm doing well now, but my job could end tomorrow, and I'd be in a world of hurt. I saw my own dad fall on hard times when I was growing up, and it killed him to have to take public assistance. He was a hard worker, and he felt humiliated. He didn't need anyone telling him he was a lazy bum who needed to work harder, which wouldn't have been true anyway. He needed people who could help. Helping others in need, rather than looking down on them and making them feel even worse than they already do, seems to be something we've forgotten in this allegedly Christian society. I'd like to think we can still reclaim that sense of empathy, and shed a little bit of our coldness and ruthlessness. I hope our society doesn't prove me wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Three points:
1) So, what's your solution? Just hope the global wage arbitrage hits everyone but you? Just assume that you won't be affected or that you'll rise above it because of skills, education, connections, or some other thing that so many seem to assume the unemployed lack?
2) Sure, I cut back expenses if needed. However, I don't buy up my local government officials to get me a sweet deal on my rent or reduce my taxes to nothing. I don't replace my local restaurant workers with illegals making $3 an hour. I don't layoff the building maintenance guys to save a few bucks. In short, I operate within the bounds of the law - I don't rewrite it to suit my own interests.
The point is that the corporations write the rules since they bought up our leadership. It is silly to compare their "cost reductions" - where they can basically do whatever they want to reduce cost or avoid paying taxes - to an individual who is still constrained by the law reducing his expenses.
3) The economy may "s*ck" - in no small part thanks to high unemployment and terrible wages - and yet corporate profits are at all time high. Funny how that works. Those who control the laws and can operate above them are the only ones to profit from this... and yet some claim we don't need more accountability from them.
You claim they'll hire more people when the economy is doing better. How exactly is that recovery going to happen without... hiring more people? Shouldn't the question be why big business, who is sitting on record profits, is refusing to invest in the future by NOT hiring and thus NOT allowing a true Recovery? Ah, but we all know the answer - it might not all pay off this quarter and some executive might not be allowed to double his pay again this year. The horror.
My friend and I have thought about this situation. Neither of us are experts in economics and finance. However, we've both said to each other, "When the middle class is destroyed and has no disposable income to spend on goods and services or provide a solid tax base, who do those at the top think IS going to buy their goods and services and who the hell is going to fund those on welfare?
But those at the top NOW are impervious. Who at the top in the future is going to pay a price because no one can afford their goods and services?
My friend and I have thought about this situation. Neither of us are experts in economics and finance. However, we've both said to each other, "When the middle class is destroyed and has no disposable income to spend on goods and services or provide a solid tax base, who do those at the top think IS going to buy their goods and services and who the hell is going to fund those on welfare?
But those at the top NOW are impervious. Who at the top in the future is going to pay a price because no one can afford their goods and services?
A valid question, and that's the hilarious stupidity about all this. What the clowns at the top want is a return to a sort of feudal system, with the landed elite living in their castles and everyone else dirt poor. The thing is, those societies are not terribly productive, they certainly aren't filled with good infrastructure or technological advancements, they are a lousy basis for a consumer driven economy, and they are prone to crime, rebellion, and other forms of violence - violence that the elite are not immune too... just ask various deposed kings and queens about that.
Had the bums at the top simply been content with being "very rich" instead of needing to be "stupidly rich," the middle class could have continued to exist and everyone - even the rich sociopaths at the top - would have been better off for it.
Unfortunately, the people who call the shots are basically soulless monsters. They are fine with thousands of people suffering, starving, and dying if it means they can add even more money to their already stupendous wealth... despite having more money than they could spend in a lifetime.
In many ways it's not that different from the behavior of dictators in 3rd world nations. They feel a sick need to beat down the people and make their lives a living hell, despite the fact that they could instead improve the nation and STILL be very wealthy and powerful. But if they did that, they might have to follow some laws and not have all the money... and for the worst sociopaths, those terms are unacceptable.
A valid question, and that's the hilarious stupidity about all this. What the clowns at the top want is a return to a sort of feudal system, with the landed elite living in their castles and everyone else dirt poor. The thing is, those societies are not terribly productive, they certainly aren't filled with good infrastructure or technological advancements, they are a lousy basis for a consumer driven economy, and they are prone to crime, rebellion, and other forms of violence - violence that the elite are not immune too... just ask various deposed kings and queens about that.
Had the bums at the top simply been content with being "very rich" instead of needing to be "stupidly rich," the middle class could have continued to exist and everyone - even the rich sociopaths at the top - would have been better off for it.
Unfortunately, the people who call the shots are basically soulless monsters. They are fine with thousands of people suffering, starving, and dying if it means they can add even more money to their already stupendous wealth... despite having more money than they could spend in a lifetime.
In many ways it's not that different from the behavior of dictators in 3rd world nations. They feel a sick need to beat down the people and make their lives a living hell, despite the fact that they could instead improve the nation and STILL be very wealthy and powerful. But if they did that, they might have to follow some laws and not have all the money... and for the worst sociopaths, those terms are unacceptable.
I believe those that are filthy stinking rich--no, I am not talking about just "rich" or "well-to-do"--are obsessed with controlling others, love getting over on the next guy, and have a sort of sadism about them, especially a sadism to those that are less powerful than they, not those who can match them.
Many gullible middle class, wannabe-filthy-stinking-rich people or those that genuflect to the filthy stinking rich actually believe that one of the reasons the stinking rich are like that is because they are "frugal" when in fact frugality doesn't lend to being stinking rich as being stinking rich relies solely or mostly on one thing and one thing only: ultra, ULTRA high income, NOT frugality or being cheap! Other than the most despicably undisciplined or stupid, no one in their right mind would even have to budget much in order to not run out of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
Ultra rich haggle and nickel-and-dime others over the pettiest and cheapest of things simply because they LOVE having others by the balls, do not want to part with their money except for their own indulgences and vices, and despise seeing money--ANY amount of money, even a few dollars--flow into another person's hands. Hence I've seem owners at some places of work worth millions but will not pay thousands in OVERDUE bills and will skimp on the best health insurance and have people beg for a paltry raise just to keep up with inflation.
The middle class fools simply are astonished by this sort of thing and then say, "Yeah, that's how he makes a profit," or "that's how he got rich". Sorry, people don't belong to $25,000 per year country clubs, drive Ferraris, and live in mansions by being cheap. They are cheap because they are control freaks and sadists.
A valid question, and that's the hilarious stupidity about all this. What the clowns at the top want is a return to a sort of feudal system, with the landed elite living in their castles and everyone else dirt poor. The thing is, those societies are not terribly productive, they certainly aren't filled with good infrastructure or technological advancements, they are a lousy basis for a consumer driven economy, and they are prone to crime, rebellion, and other forms of violence - violence that the elite are not immune too... just ask various deposed kings and queens about that.
Had the bums at the top simply been content with being "very rich" instead of needing to be "stupidly rich," the middle class could have continued to exist and everyone - even the rich sociopaths at the top - would have been better off for it.
Unfortunately, the people who call the shots are basically soulless monsters. They are fine with thousands of people suffering, starving, and dying if it means they can add even more money to their already stupendous wealth... despite having more money than they could spend in a lifetime.
In many ways it's not that different from the behavior of dictators in 3rd world nations. They feel a sick need to beat down the people and make their lives a living hell, despite the fact that they could instead improve the nation and STILL be very wealthy and powerful. But if they did that, they might have to follow some laws and not have all the money... and for the worst sociopaths, those terms are unacceptable.
One of Henry Ford's goals was to make it so the average Joe could afford a car. And built a business around that idea.
My friend and I have thought about this situation. Neither of us are experts in economics and finance. However, we've both said to each other, "When the middle class is destroyed and has no disposable income to spend on goods and services or provide a solid tax base, who do those at the top think IS going to buy their goods and services and who the hell is going to fund those on welfare?
But those at the top NOW are impervious. Who at the top in the future is going to pay a price because no one can afford their goods and services?
You would THINK that is the idea. I bring that up all the time with suggestion of automation with the much ballywhooed burger maker robots. If you have McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Carl's Jr./Hardee's (the four major national burger chains) cut out these jobs, you shrink the pool for consumers. You add in the suggestion of RFID and self-checkout at retail and you shrink the pool for consumers even more. Companies need people working to be customers, if you and competitors decrease jobs, that causes a ripple effect or even a butterfly effect that can effect other industries. I think that (and the costs to immplement) are the reason you haven't seen many burger makers, RFID and self-checkout replace McJobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
A valid question, and that's the hilarious stupidity about all this. What the clowns at the top want is a return to a sort of feudal system, with the landed elite living in their castles and everyone else dirt poor. The thing is, those societies are not terribly productive, they certainly aren't filled with good infrastructure or technological advancements, they are a lousy basis for a consumer driven economy, and they are prone to crime, rebellion, and other forms of violence - violence that the elite are not immune too... just ask various deposed kings and queens about that.
Had the bums at the top simply been content with being "very rich" instead of needing to be "stupidly rich," the middle class could have continued to exist and everyone - even the rich sociopaths at the top - would have been better off for it.
Unfortunately, the people who call the shots are basically soulless monsters. They are fine with thousands of people suffering, starving, and dying if it means they can add even more money to their already stupendous wealth... despite having more money than they could spend in a lifetime.
In many ways it's not that different from the behavior of dictators in 3rd world nations. They feel a sick need to beat down the people and make their lives a living hell, despite the fact that they could instead improve the nation and STILL be very wealthy and powerful. But if they did that, they might have to follow some laws and not have all the money... and for the worst sociopaths, those terms are unacceptable.
I think they are only soulless when you consider that the company's profit is as much from increasing revenue as it is cutting costs. Companies may not have record revenue to achieve profit, they could be able to do this by reducing costs including moving employees to part-time (preventing healthcare costs), cutting redundant employees, having salary workers take over jobs of departed employees, ect. The issue is bonuses are tied to this and not based on REVENUE streams, it also is about costs. Revenue from sales can be neutral for the year but if I cut spending, I made money for the year and therefore can get a bonus. Anyone else notice an issue?
Anyone care to share what they mean when they say or hear the phrases, "No one owes you anything.", and "No one owes you a job."?
I can see how people would generally get behind the latter. But the former is anarchy. Everyone owes everyone something in order for society to function. A job is fundamental, but not endearing like health, water, city structures, or laws. Programs and entertainment are in places to prevent those on hard times from uniting in some failed attempt at revolt. The result of the attempt isn't that important compared to preventing the massive loss of life and general total alteration to first world ways of life a 'angry anarchy style' revolt would cause. So, given those distractions in place and the general apathy of human being towards others at a fundamental level of why humanity can prosper, a job isn't owed. Morally there is no obligation either as long as there are blocks in place to allow for job opportunities, and blocks in place to safe guard those unable or unwilling to prosper.
we do all owe each other things in various more intangible and tangible ways that allow society to function in a modern way....but a job isn't one of them.
One of Henry Ford's goals was to make it so the average Joe could afford a car. And built a business around that idea.
You would think more and more owners and executives would have this genius business logic. Well until you have other firms under cut you because most people look at the costs because they have to because their budgets based on their wages don't allow it.
For the record, if you have a job, nobody owes it to you to keep you employed either.
Nobody owes you ANYTHING. At all. It has nothing to do with a "selfish and narcissistic society."
Thank you for saying this. People blame too much stuff on a "selfish and narcissistic society."
I believe in helping my fellow man (or woman). I'm okay with social safety nets. Even with all of that, no one is still owed anything.
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.
