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.
Life should be so simple as to have bogeymen as simply designated as you suggest: the poor and uneducated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
Statistically speaking the poor and uneducated as well as the kids having kids are the top baby producing humans. Most well and highly educated people usually have only one or 2 kids...some have none.
This is a fun issue to ponder. It is true that the poor and uneducated have more children. But the reason we share the planet with so many is because they now survive longer and in greater numbers -- which is the result of educated development of agriculture, science, and technologies -- which are the products of the educated. Cool, huh? In other words: we create our own problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
[Originally Posted by nullgeo But none of these things are happening ....]
That is correct and we should be focusing our attention on this vs. rewarding this behavior.
Again, were life so simple. The reality is that we have always "rewarded" self control and education, and wealth building almost exclusively. Keeping people barely alive through social safety nets is not a "reward" for bad behavior. It is a miserable sentence. So the "reward / punish" thing isn't working, is it?
So, would you suggest turning them loose on the streets without support? A recipe for disastrous behaviors if there ever was one.
Nope. Cut 'em off, you better kill 'em off.
You willing to do that or live in a society that does?
The educated and wealthy create a pyramidal society in which not all can, by any definition, compete ... then they must kill off those at the bottom of their heap -- or support what they have created. And, if they kill off the "dregs" then the next level up become the bottom rung -- and so forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
This is absolute rubbish! The uneducated people are also responsible for wreaking havoc on society. Examples: Forcing children to become sex slaves, animal and human abuse, human trafficking, drugs, gangs, rapes, killings etc. They are not responsible productive humans thus they become a burden on socitey and impact us in many negative ways.
Well just a minute here, where do you get the notion that it is the poor and uneducated that force children into sex slavery, trafficking, drugs, rapes, etc?! Those crimes are committed at all levels of society and education. I would suggest, in fact, that the people capable of pulling off child-porn rings and trafficking and such are more often the better educated.
But, anyway, those things, heinous as they are, are a drop in the bucket compared to damages done at higher levels of society. Add up the numbers of unfortunate victims of your list and compare to the losses from wars around the world -- every one of which wars have been created and executed by the wealthiest and smartest classes on the planet.
Look up prescription drug abuse and its victim levels and then tell me who designs, manufactures, and markets these drugs.
Who creates and incorporates poisonous additives to the food products that are marketed to condition the general population to dietary habits that result in obesity and diabetes and much heart disease?
Who grows and processes and markets tobacco products?
Who pollutes the rivers and streams and oceans with chemical waste?
Who pumps and refines and sells and supports the use of combustible fuels that choke the planet?
Who creates the financial products of debt we all have become conditioned to live by -- that we can't, in fact, live without -- and which products enslave us all to debt? Who created the recent financial meltdown that has compromised the lives of nearly everyone around the planet?
The poor and uneducated?
There isn't a single threat to the world that the poor and uneducated are responsible for. However miserable their lives may appear to you ... however you dislike their "leaching" off society ... they are the products of our society -- not the creators.
Kill 'em. Or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
[ Originally Posted by nullgeo Poor, uneducated people mill around living rather emotionally extemporaneous existences, but ones that do not start wars, exploit the natural resources we all rely on and our children will rely on, create fraudulent financial schemes, products, and empires that crash economies, nor create and market completely frivolous products that poison our minds and bodies and the environments around us ... etc.
Nope. That crap is the mark of civilized, educated, wealthy people.]
Totally disagree with all the above...actually most of it does not make sense at all.
Re-read the above -- add thought -- reconsider your position. Or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
We don't know do we...I wonder why? Where can we find easy facts about the state of those numbers and jobs? How can we truly verify that it is factual data? Why is it a just a number thrown at us without itemized data to go along with it? I question most things associated with numbers thrown at us but find it virtually impossible to find accuracy. Instead of just providing us with a huge number possibly some insite as to which type of working class people make up that number would be helpful as well as what jobs are represented by the other huge number.
You can start with statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment Situation Summary
These figures are so easy to confirm that I will leave it to you, if you are actually interested to know ... Google ... millions of hits to browse.
Actually, the real problem is math ...
there are 12.7 million people out of work ...
there are about 3.5 million jobs open ...
so if all these "lazy" 12.7 million people get off their asses the jobs will magically appear?
No you are missing the point I was making, my point is everybody needs help, especially in todays recession. That is temporary relief
But some of these people having been living off of handouts for a VERY long time, government programs are supposed to help get people back on there feet!
Not to support them for the rest of their lives!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juelle
Trust me... if some folk were kicked off welfare, many of them will go and find a job, even if it means cleaning houses and toilets... it's a job at their level of skill since they didn't put much stock in learning anything in school because their only goal was to get on welfare as soon as they graduated high school.
"Afterall.... mama, grandmama, and all the aunties were on welfare, and as a result of Section-8 they were able to live in a fully furnished 3 and 4 bedroom homes, while Ms. Jackson next door is breaking her butt working a State job everyday, only to be able to afford to share a 1-bedroom, 1200.00 a month apartment with her child... It's not my fault she makes too much money to get welfare, Medi-Cal, food stamps, free childcare so I can get my rest during the day, and a big Secton-8 house, and not enough money to have the things we do." If she wants to have a big 4-bdrm Section-8 house for 125.00 a month, free food, free childcare, and free medical, then she needs to quit her job, then she can live good as us."
Exactly! Perfectly Said! In other words, the people living off of WELFARE and NOT working, are living BETTER than the people who ARE working.
In Short, the POOR are destroying America, and the RICH aren't helping, it's the working middle class that are SUFFERING in the end.
And if you take out middle class, you are taking out the backbone to America.
Last edited by Surfside__; 06-16-2012 at 10:48 AM..
True of many professions. Not just technical design. True in the arts, in law, in business management ...
No, not really. Though there are some similarities with the arts, you can meaningfully train people in most disciplines. The problem with mathematics-based fields, is that talent in mathematics is essentially unnatural (in relation to our evolutionary history). On the other hand business management depends on many of the same sort of social skills used throughout human development.
Anyhow, my point is that there is a rather limited pool of tech-talent and the Average Joe can't fill it regardless of education. But this is more than just a problem for companies looking for tech-talent, these are the same people that are essentially destroying low/mid wage jobs with increased efficiency...and now these people have nowhere to go. Its not like the past where people moved off the farms and into factories, etc...there is a serious intellectual limitation that is preventing people from moving to one group or workers to another.
Hi Ms. Jackson ... good to hear you have a job.
Now then, 12.7 million people don't have jobs ...
and there are only 3.5 million job openings for those 12.7 million seekers ...
and before you say this scenario is not true, just go look up the national statistics,
because I personally know people who actually live this scenario.
And if all 12.7 million of these lazy leeches got off their butts there still would be
9.2 million fewer jobs than people needing to work to feed their "lazy" asses ...
There are also a few people who can't add and subtract in spite of having gone to school, gotten diplomas, and securing jobs ...
Somehow, I get the feeling that you are knocking the fact that I have a job. Yes, I do... I have held a job since I was 16 years old without one break in employment. I held full-time employment while being a full-time 4-year college student and single mother. As a single-mother (divorced my husband because he decided he wasn't going to work because in his words, "You make enough to support all of us, just keep doing whatever you were doing before we got married"... but I digress), I have never qualified for any type of public assistance or ever considered it... what I did determine was that I was not going to be one of the statistics you have so proudly put forth to make your argument, so forgive me for not being sympathetic or answering your question based upon your data... the only statistic I have on this subject to support my argument is my life experience, which may not amount to much, but it supports my argument nonetheless. I'm not being condescending, but only to show that even though there are only 3.5 million job openings, I was going to do whatever it took to secure and hold, at the very least, one of those 3.5 million jobs.
If you strategically interview effectively, one can even secure a well paying job, even without having the stated experience... which I have done! Just as the principle to work was passed down to me, I passed it down to my boys. I taught my 22-year old, while he was a young kid, how to prepare and strategically interview for jobs, and there is not one job that he has ever interviewed for that he did not get within his level of skill; he too has held a job since he was 16. Being African-American, I also gave my sons names that would at least get them an interview (that's another topic for another day), but there are other factors besides skills that are hindering many people for securing jobs, and someone who wants a job will have to do a little bit more so that they are what I call... interview-ready, even if it means changing your name from some of these ridiculous names ignorant parents have placed upon their children.
Another principle I was taught growing up, "If no one else will hire you, then hire yourself." With this principle in mind, even though I had a well-paying job, I secured a cosmetology license as a backup so that I would have a secondary skill. In the event I ever lost my job, I could employ myself by freelancing as a cosmetologist, while seeking other employment or as a way to supplement my income. There are many jobs, people can create for themselves, which may not eradicate the 9.2 million fewer jobs problem, but it sure would decrease it.
.. the only statistic I have on this subject to support my argument is my life experience, which may not amount to much, but it supports my argument nonetheless. I'm not being condescending, but only to show that even though there are only 3.5 million job openings, I was going to do whatever it took to secure and hold, at the very least, one of those 3.5 million jobs.
You are mixing two very different issues. If there are 12 million people looking for jobs and only 3.5 million jobs, well you're going to have 8.5 million without jobs. But employers don't hire randomly, they hire the best possible candidates and therefore there are many people that don't need to worry much about unemployment. Now, can those 8.5 million people improve their life by improving their skills, etc? Yes...but they will just be trading places with someone else. That is, someone that is currently employed will move into the unemployment group while they move into the employed group.
Also, "creating your own job" may create a job for yourself, but it doesn't necessarily create a job for the economy as a whole. If you start a painting business and it pulls demand away from other painters and they lay-off one of their employees, well...no net jobs were created. New painting jobs are only created when demand for painting services increases.
Anyhow, so we have a ruthlessly competitive system and those that were raised by good parents, into wealth, etc have a huge competitive edge over those raised in dysfunctional families, poor families, etc....and yet these people can usually be found glibly disparaging those without jobs.... Sick system really....
The plan seems to involve greatly reducing benefits after 2-years in the program (currently its up to 4 years) and reducing benefits to children with ineligible parents....which seems code for "illegal parents".
The cuts seem too broad, though 2-years is good for most, some may need more time. Also, seems like the support should be bettered tied to actually making progress....
There is an old say, "Give a person an inch, they'll take a mile" If you give them 4 years, they'll take 6. If you give them 2 years, then you possibly reduce benefits by 2 years, but at the same time leave yourself some cushion for extensions without going over the current 4 year cap. Seems like a good plan to me.
For example, using the current unemployment extensions, one of the reasons besides lack of jobs that there has been sustained unemployment is because unemployment benefits have been extended far beyond the usual benefit period. Again, "give a person an inch, they'll take a mile."
... one of the reasons besides lack of jobs that there has been sustained unemployment is because unemployment benefits have been extended far beyond the usual benefit period. Again, "give a person an inch, they'll take a mile."
I gather you don't have to use simple arithmatic -- or logic -- in your profession.
The reason there has been sustained unemployment is because there aren't anywhere near enough jobs to employ people. That's it. There ain't no more.
Somehow, I get the feeling that you are knocking the fact that I have a job. Yes, I do... I have held a job since I was 16 years old without one break in employment. I held full-time employment while being a full-time 4-year college student and single mother. As a single-mother (divorced my husband because he decided he wasn't going to work because in his words, "You make enough to support all of us, just keep doing whatever you were doing before we got married"... but I digress), I have never qualified for any type of public assistance or ever considered it... what I did determine was that I was not going to be one of the statistics you have so proudly put forth to make your argument, so forgive me for not being sympathetic or answering your question based upon your data... the only statistic I have on this subject to support my argument is my life experience, which may not amount to much, but it supports my argument nonetheless. I'm not being condescending, but only to show that even though there are only 3.5 million job openings, I was going to do whatever it took to secure and hold, at the very least, one of those 3.5 million jobs.
If you strategically interview effectively, one can even secure a well paying job, even without having the stated experience... which I have done! Just as the principle to work was passed down to me, I passed it down to my boys. I taught my 22-year old, while he was a young kid, how to prepare and strategically interview for jobs, and there is not one job that he has ever interviewed for that he did not get within his level of skill; he too has held a job since he was 16. Being African-American, I also gave my sons names that would at least get them an interview (that's another topic for another day), but there are other factors besides skills that are hindering many people for securing jobs, and someone who wants a job will have to do a little bit more so that they are what I call... interview-ready, even if it means changing your name from some of these ridiculous names ignorant parents have placed upon their children.
Another principle I was taught growing up, "If no one else will hire you, then hire yourself." With this principle in mind, even though I had a well-paying job, I secured a cosmetology license as a backup so that I would have a secondary skill. In the event I ever lost my job, I could employ myself by freelancing as a cosmetologist, while seeking other employment or as a way to supplement my income. There are many jobs, people can create for themselves, which may not eradicate the 9.2 million fewer jobs problem, but it sure would decrease it.
No ma'am. I am happy for anyone that has a job. What does not make me happy is when employed people judge others based on their own good fortune -- be it luck or born talents or born personality strengths that have been supported by fortunate experiences to develop usefully.
You write that you are not being condescending -- but you are. I served in a war, came back -- with permanent disabilities -- and earned undergrad and graduate degrees full time while working full time, simultaneously buying a home and raising a family, and then spent over 35 years self-employed ... I also raised four children as a single parent after their mother died in my arms. And I don't judge and stereotype people I haven't met -- particularly basing judgement on my good fortune to have the "right stuff" to be one of the employed in hard times.
No matter how many people have the "right stuff", if everyone had your determination to be one of the 3.5 million employed, 8.5 million people would still be out of work -- "right stuff" or not. Just as thousands of hard-working, talented, passionate high school football players can't all win a few hundred athletic scholarships to NCAA Tier 1 colleges.
Self-employed? Yes, 8.5 million can open small businesses -- that don't exist now for a reason. Where is all this patronage going to come from in times when there are so many unemployed and falling buying power is, well, not buying much?
You are chiding over 7 million people who used to work, until recently. They didn't quit. They didn't get fired for incompetence or bad behavior. And 12.7 million of them don't fit into a 3.5 million people bag.
Also, "creating your own job" may create a job for yourself, but it doesn't necessarily create a job for the economy as a whole. If you start a painting business and it pulls demand away from other painters and they lay-off one of their employees, well...no net jobs were created. New painting jobs are only created when demand for painting services increases.
Better to share a slice of the pie than give it away to someone who just folds their hands, and sleeps and slumbers, waiting for a government benefit from your labor.
We have never, nor will we ever see zero unemployment, so stressing the 8.5 million is pointless because it could just mean that it is structural unemployment, which is why I stated that in order to secure a job one may need to garner a new skill. However, 8.5 million unemployed is far better than having 12 million unemployed... that falls under the optimistic view of "seeing the glass half-full"
I believe the issue and most of the discussion has been directed towards that portion of society that is not looking for work and is not counted in the numbers of the unemployed, as you are probably already aware, only those actively looking for work and those waiting to begin or return to a job are classified as unemployed. So, while I am sympathetic towards the truly unemployed and not entirely arguing against your point of view, my comments were directed towards the able-bodied portion of society that is not classified as unemployed, but rather free-loaders of the working-class.
Better to share a slice of the pie than give it away to someone who just folds their hands, and sleeps and slumbers, waiting for a government benefit from your labor.
We have never, nor will we ever see zero unemployment, so stressing the 8.5 million is pointless because it could just mean that it is structural unemployment, which is why I stated that in order to secure a job one may need to garner a new skill. However, 8.5 million unemployed is far better than having 12 million unemployed... that falls under the optimistic view of "seeing the glass half-full"
I believe the issue and most of the discussion has been directed towards that portion of society that is not looking for work and is not counted in the numbers of the unemployed, as you are probably already aware, only those actively looking for work and those waiting to begin or return to a job are classified as unemployed. So, while I am sympathetic towards the truly unemployed and not entirely arguing against your point of view, my comments were directed towards the able-bodied portion of society that is not classified as unemployed, but rather free-loaders of the working-class.
All well and good and better expressed than previously ... but still missing the reality that the numbers of chronically unemployed are quite small ... so what exactly is the point of judging them or blaming them for any significant problems or drain to the economy? We have always existed with a certain level of unemployment -- and managed to grow and prosper in spite of this very small minority. As I have expressed many times in other commentary: the damages of significance to our society and culture and civilization really come almost entirely from the avarice, greed, violence, and general amoral sociopathy of the highly educated and wealthy ...
Meanwhile, the common man seems to revel in vilifying the ignorant poor while Nero burns Rome.
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.
Those crimes are committed at all levels of society and education. I would suggest, in fact, that the people capable of pulling off child-porn rings and trafficking and such are more often the better educated.
