CA Umeployment falls below 12% for the first time in 2 Years (August: home, employment)

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes...and? Are you going to next tell me the sky is blue? I never suggested that band societies weren't hunter-gatherers....

LOL...listen dude....you need to read more about hunter gatherers and paleo-anthropology in general. Or the least you can do is post citations to support your assertions. All you are doing is make bald assertions on matters you are ignorant about.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes...and? Are you going to next tell me the sky is blue? I never suggested that band societies weren't hunter-gatherers....

Here's what you actually said:

Band societies, like the group mentioned in the other post, didn't spend a lot of time "working" (i.e, hunting and gathering).

If - according to you - they didn't spend a "lot of time" hunting and gathering, why should they be defined by that activity which they didn't do much of?

[ndfmnlf]

The problem is not unemployment per se. The problem is unemployment without income. Retired people are unemployed as well, yet it is not an issue for them. That's because they have income (via distributions from retirement accounts, pensions, SS). The same is true for wealthy people. They don't need to work because their investments generate all the income for them. Presumably, most people look forward to being unemployed one day (with the caveat that income keeps coming in). That is called retirement. Or just plain wealth.

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

The problem is not unemployment per se. The problem is unemployment without income. Retired people are unemployed as well, yet it is not an issue for them. That's because they have income (via distributions from retirement accounts, pensions, SS). The same is true for wealthy people. They don't need to work because their investments generate all the income for them. Presumably, most people look forward to being unemployed one day (with the caveat that income keeps coming in). That is called retirement. Or just plain wealth.

Is there a point to this statement?

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by Don9

Is there a point to this statement?

The point is that unemployment is not the enemy. The enemy is lack of income.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

That's because the term "noble savage" went totally over your head. Apparently you are ignorant of the concept.

Apparently you didn't get the point, the point being that nothing I said had anything to do with the notion of a "noble savage". Instead, I was talking about cultural structures. Perhaps if you had actually read the people you cited you'd get it....

[user_id]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

If - according to you - they didn't spend a "lot of time" hunting and gathering, why should they be defined by that activity which they didn't do much of?

Well, because, they aren't defined by hunting and gathering. All band societies are hunter and gathers because they lack the social institutions for more complex subsistence methods, but not all hunter and gathers are band societies. Regardless, the point of my comment about not spending "a lot of time" on the activity is that they spent less time on hunting gathering than the average American today spends on work. The time spent depends on the environment though, obviously in a lush environment less time can be spent on subsistence.

I always find it funny when people yap about others being ignorant...

Regardless, there is nothing good about today's unemployment....

[yeahthatguy]

-> Markets are beginning to roll over again ..
-> Global economic indicators point that global economic recovery is fading
-> Recent joke of an IPO (Linked In) which is retracing points out the all to obvious bubble in this sector
-> Unemployment benefits are beginning to be cut across the country (no more money)
-> Cisco, HP and other big firms are going to start another round of layoffs by summer's end...

and so .. nothing is going to really get better in the nearterm.. the reality that govts. have been trying to hide will begin to surface again and a whole fresh new group of optimist who felt immune and went off overextending themselves based on this false reality ... will get taken down w/ it

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by user_id

Well, because, they aren't defined by hunting and gathering. .... Regardless, the point of my comment about not spending "a lot of time" on the activity is that they spent less time on hunting gathering than the average American today spends on work. ...

Ummm....so according to you, band societies are hunter gatherer societies that don't do much hunting and gathering. Nice. Never mind that the Oxford Dictionary of Social Sciences defines band societies as "small societies that rely primarily on hunting and gathering for subsistence". http://www.answers.com/topic/band-society Your beef is with the Oxford dictionary. Take it up with them.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by user_id

Apparently you didn't get the point, the point being that nothing I said had anything to do with the notion of a "noble savage". Instead, I was talking about cultural structures. Perhaps if you had actually read the people you cited you'd get it....

Oh yeah, you were talking about cultural structures present in tribes that predispose them to warfare. These structures are somehow absent in bands. Bands are more peaceable as a result (says you). That describes the "noble savage" theory. The noble savage is innately good. It is the cultural structures around him that corrupt him and make him do bad things (like making wars). Your post was referring exactly to the noble savage theory. You just didn't know it because you've never heard of the term before.