City of Philadelphia gets richer as some suburbs get poorer

[Cnote11]

Also, I'm pretty sure "libs" can grasp that concept. How about I just go about posting that "conservs" can't grasp how not to be racist, or think independently of biblical traditions or some non-sense like that. Or that "libs" value cows more than babies. Keep the rubbish generalizations in the trash bin, please.

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by Cnote11

Its the reality you choose to create. It reminds me of a film I watched yesterday about the impact of the Chinese economic reforms on smaller villages in China, where they are encouraging competition instead of cooperation. This focus on individual success and reward instead of communal success and togetherness has caused the village to deteriorate. It is an inflated wage only if you follow a certain maxim, which is in no way a universal truth. Therefore it is only an inflated wage from a singular perspective you choose to follow. The world isn't necessarily a competitive world, and it is a shame that you feel that way. Competition exists for several reason, but it only becomes an overtly competitive world when you choose to make it so. The domino has been tipped, and here we are.

This is why I was thinking there should be "welfare zones". Not all kinds of governance / social structures suit all kinds of people. But the people who flat out reject this system and then tank themselves have no way to escape it. So instead of converting one of our states to a kind of 100% socialist country for them (and then dropping welfare in the rest of the US), just have welfare zones everywhere. Imo they should have a binary option to live in a system where they are "fully taken care of" or one where they more less aren't at all.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

This is why I was thinking there should be "welfare zones". Not all kinds of governance / social structures suit all kinds of people. But the people who flat out regret this system and then tank themselves have no way to escape it. So instead of converting one of our states to a kind of 100% socialist country for them (and then dropping welfare in the rest of the US), just have welfare zones everywhere. Imo they should have a binary option to live in a system where they are "fully taken care of" or one where they more less aren't at all.

I wish there were zones like that if only because it would force people like you to see how vital welfare wage earners are to the system. You do realize that the majority of adult food stamp recipients are employed right? I know it doesn't go along with the binary tale of a producing and a leeching class but the fact is that consumer spending accounts for something like 70% of the economy and welfare wage earners consume and spend all they have while paying taxes into a collapsing system that serves to benefit a minuscule fraction of people.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by Angus215

If you can pay someone in China or Mexico to do the same unskilled work, then yes, it is absolutely an inflated wage. As with any commodity, the market determines the fair price for goods and services. Forget about the ridiculous benefits, pensions, and work rules that come with it. What libs can't seem to grasp is that this is a competitive world. If we can't do something well, and for a competitive price, somebody else will do it. By trying to artificially create a non-market structure, you only make things worse and drive jobs away. America is a relatively expensive place to live. If you want to afford to live here, then you either need a higher-value added job, which commands a higher wage, or you need a job serving those who have higher-value added jobs. That's just reality.

"The free market" is colluded and controlled. You just come off as indoctrinated.

Is it only low wage jobs that will be corrected in our competitive World? CEO pay isn't inflated due to near slave labor/child labor, "free market" pressure/influence, western military power and foreign political turmoil? Financial positions aren't highly over compensated?

Things like pensions and time off aren't "lib things"-they were fought for during the labor movement that subsequentially created the American Middle Class-the largest in the history of the World. Wall Street and Multi-National Corporations, with the help of The Federal Reserve have been usurping wealth from the Middle Class since the 1980s. We have now reached a point where wealth has never been more monopolized and our "too big to fail" banks have never been bigger or more powerful. Wake up.

[Angus215]

Job security, free healthcare, and pensions for life are a thing of the past, and they are not needed to support a middle class. Soon, teachers and government workers won't have them either. I've never had them in my life, nor do I feel that I am entitled to them. If organized labor demands them in this country, then jobs will continue to be moved offshore.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by Angus215

Job security, free healthcare, and pensions for life are a thing of the past, and they are not needed to support a middle class. Soon, teachers and government workers won't have them either. I've never had them in my life, nor do I feel that I am entitled to them. If organized labor demands them in this country, then jobs will continue to be moved offshore.

But Corporate welfare, bailouts, tax breaks, lobbyists with absurd Government control and connections, etc. are needed to support an Upper Class?

Too Big To Fail Banks need 0% interest rate loans from their buddies at The Federal Reserve in order to mass-mail out 29% interest rate credit cards for the poor?

You can't have it both ways.

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by Angus215

Job security, free healthcare, and pensions for life are a thing of the past, and they are not needed to support a middle class. Soon, teachers and government workers won't have them either. I've never had them in my life, nor do I feel that I am entitled to them. If organized labor demands them in this country, then jobs will continue to be moved offshore.

So...how's our middle class been doing lately anyhow, now that all those capitalism crushing benefits are nearly extinct?

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

This is why I was thinking there should be "welfare zones". Not all kinds of governance / social structures suit all kinds of people. But the people who flat out reject this system and then tank themselves have no way to escape it. So instead of converting one of our states to a kind of 100% socialist country for them (and then dropping welfare in the rest of the US), just have welfare zones everywhere. Imo they should have a binary option to live in a system where they are "fully taken care of" or one where they more less aren't at all.

Do you think that it's a "kind of person" who get welfare benefits? And do you think that all, or most people who get welfare expect to be "fully taken care of", and don't ever want to get off of welfare?

This reminds me of an earlier comment (I believe) you made about how people who want to be homeless should go do it somewhere warm.

[FindingZen]

Although the discussion has veered away from a metro Philadelphia focus, the respectful tone has been appreciated. Continuing to debate in a civil manner will maximize the life of this thread.