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.
While I agree that the excessive debt which people voluntarily took on constitutes a form of slavery, the use of slavery as a metaphor for our economic system is hyperbole at best, massive overkill for sure. That's because there is no force or coercion involved. We are all free simply to not participate. That's what I did, from the moment I managed my own fianances at age 18 (which was 48 years ago), I chose to live within my means and mainly as a result of that choice I was not locked in to the Social Security "full retirement age". This is not so rare as you seem to think. When people can opt out of something with no penalty then that something is not slavery. People have "enslaved" themselves (if you insist on the term) by their own stupidity; the government has not enslaved them.
This is the beauty of the system, is it is voluntarily. Social security numbers are a perfect example.
There is no law mandating that you have a social security number. (research it) Think about it, have you ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for not having a social security number?
But tell the average person having a social security number is voluntary and they will look at you like you have two heads.
Without one you will not be able to get anyone to hire you, you will not be able to open a bank account, or obtain credit, you cannot even go to a car dealer and purchase a car with cash without one. Unless you want to go be a mountain man you will have a pretty hard time surviving.
And yet it is completely voluntary. How do you revolt against a system that is voluntary? It is brilliant, simply brilliant.
The income tax also survives on voluntary compliance, but we all know what happens to those who don't volunteer! Like Jim says: It is brilliant, simply brilliant.
Last edited by CosmicWizard; 11-12-2010 at 12:04 PM..
Getting a social security number doesn't force you to do anything, of course employers will force you to pay social security taxes. But taxes have always been part of civilization, you can't have a civilization without them. If someone doesn't want to be taxed, well, by all means go move out to the bush somewhere.
Anyhow, I agree with the other poster, people commit themselves to a condition of "slavery", nothing in this nation forces it on them. Although, its often hard for people to escape the conceptual framework they were born into, so socio-economic upward mobility is fairly uncommon.
The only shackles in this country are in our heads, there are no laws or even cultural taboos preventing people from "moving up".
Hey, remember those low-paying, minimum wage "entrance-level" jobs? The kind you got in high school or to work your way through college?
Well, they've re-positioned them, re-named them just for we broke Baby Boomers.
They're calling them "Exit-Level" jobs now. For many of us, that's the reality of our working future.
And for others they are now "careers". Even these part time "career" jobs now offer health benefits although many workers have to put their kids in medicaid anyway.
This is the new face of America...low pay, no skill jobs.
The income tax also survives on voluntary compliance, but we all know what happens to those who don't volunteer! Like Jim says: It is brilliant, simply brilliant.
There is nothing voluntary about paying taxes, and why should there be? Why should you get a free ride and let me pay for your police and fire protection, your public library, paving the streets for you to drive on, picking up your trash, and a ton of other things. Your thinking seems to be very confused.
The problem is not the with long-term job creation. The problem is that boomers feel they are entitled to a decent paying job in competitive, globalized economy.
You see it all the time. Some boomer will complain about how he was replaced by a kid who knew nothing and would work for cheap. It just shows how clueless some people are. The kid is often brought in because he had an up-to-date skills that boomer just doesn't have. When you add in the flexibility, lower income demands, and malleability of the kid, it makes it a no-brainer hiring decision.
What is rarely mentioned though is fate of boomers who have been flexible and kept their professional skills up-to-date. For them, their incomes have gone meteoric, and to a certain extent, out of proportion for the wealth they actually create.
The jobs will be created. The question is whether boomers will adjust their expectations. For the last twenty years, we've heard all about how GenXers and millenneals will have to be flexible and have several careers. Well the future has gotten quicker than expected, and those rules will apply to boomers as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin
Okay, we've covered the problem in depth and very intelligently, is it appropriate to inquire if any of us have a solution?
What can be done for job creation? Is it a lost cause? Sling me some hope, C-D'ers.
What can be done for job creation? Is it a lost cause? Sling me some hope, C-D'ers.
Its simply, increase aggregate demand via government stimulus, but this action is being blocked by a certain political party. But more jobs isn't going to change the structural issues that are starting to effect the boomers though.
I repeat, no one in my lower middle class demographic when I was growing up (post WWII) lost their job or their house
Do you mean that you knew of?
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.