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.
It's not. You just don't like it because it ruins the corrupt narrative that you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
One may have the right to start a family but one does not have the right to insist that others pay for it.
This has nothing to do with others paying for anything. It has to do with society's responsibility to its members, i.e., to provide the opportunity for every worker to be able to pay their own way and secure their own future. It is easy to dispense with concern about such things when you have been blessed, as you and I evidently have, with privileges of birth and luck, but immoral to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
No, society does not owe anyone the means to afford something they choose.
You are simply wrong about that - and I don't mean "incorrect" - I mean "wrong" - callous toward society's inadequate efforts to do what it is supposed to do with regard to people other than yourself and people you care about.
Don't miss the point: It isn't about waving a magic wand and having a fair and just society instantaneously appear. The point is to recognize that what you've said is "wrong" - that society should be better than how you've indicated society should be - and that if you were born differently and had different luck you'd have no difficulty realizing that. The point is to set aside such notions such as what you've outlined, and to support efforts to put society back on track doing what it is supposed to do for those less fortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Why can't the no/low skilled workers get new skills?
There are a few problems with that logic.
First: At some point that simply increases competition for higher-skilled work: Greater supply = lower wages. So now you've managed to make people higher-skilled work have more trouble paying their own way and securing their own future. (And we've seen that. It isn't uncommon for 60 year olds, these days, to report that they are making 20%-30% less, adjusted for inflation, than they made 30 years ago, even though they've maintained their capability to perform higher-skilled work.)
Second: Society cannot operate efficiently if everyone in society is performing higher-skilled work. Operationally, there will always been a need for a significant number of lower-skilled workers. That doesn't mean that higher-skilled work and lower-skilled work should necessarily be paid the same, but rather higher-skilled work should earn such people luxuries. The ability to pay one's own way and secure one's own future isn't a luxury - it's a basic need - and therefore all work, higher-skilled and lower-skilled, should furnish that ability.
Third: The acquisition of new skills requires resources that the realities of economics generally withhold from many lower-skilled workers. The ignorance - and especially denial - of that reality is effectively nothing more than a defense mechanism - a rationalization trying to defend a status quo within which the denier has benefited from the disconnect. As Scooby Snacks said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks
How? It's a never ending vicious cycle. People work a full time low skilled job that doesn't cover their bills. If they go to college, they go into debt for it, can't work as many hours to pay the bills they weren't able to pay working full time, and have no guarantee of a better job at the end of their schooling. Blue collar jobs are disappearing, so trade school doesn't help either. And if they live in a high cost of living area, they can't afford to move somewhere cheaper because they don't have the extra money to leave California or wherever they are.
And again, the point is to confront the callous rationalizations that say, "They should do better and work harder [than I have to, and really harder than anyone practically can]." It's a scurrilous dodge of society's responsibility to people on the basis of their being human beings and therefore innately deserving of dignity.
That's simply not true, and shouldn't be true. Starting in 1912, the United States has made a very deliberate decision to be better than allowing wages to be solely about supply and demand.
We have rethought that decision for years. Here is one 1988 article where the Department of Labor actually placed a number on the jobs that would be eliminated or lost for every 10% increase in minimum wage: The Minimum-Wage Illusion - NYTimes.com. Then, if you want information that is current, here is another link looking at the effects in Seattle: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ers/431424001/.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
There's nothing "false" about that bottom. The only thing wrong with it is that it only accomplishes part of what it is intended to accomplish, i.e., being better than what you described.
We do not live in a Country with mandatory slave labor. Any employee has the power to say: I quit or to just look for another job. If an employer cannot find workers or has problems maintaining a workforce; they will be forced to pay more and provide better benefits - hence; supply and demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Immigration is a red herring, and automation isn't "coming" - automation has already had a great deal of impact, and perhaps as much as half of the impact it will ever have. Outsourcing is, of course, a most critical contributor to what you suggested ("may never see those days again"), but as I outlined earlier, not any ol' outsourcing but specifically off-shoring.
As far as immigration and red herrings; countries have to place the prosperity of their own citizens and those legally in their country first over the wishes of the world. We do not vote for politicians that don't represent our wishes. As was recently said: Americans are Dreamers too!
While automation has had a great impact; it is just starting according to all the experts: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...5-gartner-says. Many are predicting that it will not just be the low skilled jobs that disappear. There are 'experts' that claim the singularity will happen within the next 20 years and some that say it might take 1000 years: Predictions for life after the Singularity - Business Insider. Only time will tell. As far as outsourcing or off-shoring; the current administration is trying to bring back jobs. There are some positive signs that it might we working; as long as we do not trigger major trade wars. Another: Only time will tell. I have always questioned whether it is a wise policy to count on others to supply essential goods and services.
You are simply wrong about that - and I don't mean "incorrect" - I mean "wrong" - callous toward society's inadequate efforts to do what it is supposed to do with regard to people other than yourself and people you care about.
Nope, you are the one 100% absolutely wrong. Society does NOT owe anyone else the means to accomodate their choices. That IS mandating someone else PAY for it. Just because it is your "right" to do something doesn't obligate society to provide you the means to do it.
It is your "right" to have six kids but society doesn't haveto provide you a job that can support six kids. It's your "right" to sit home all day and watch tv and not work but society doesn't have to provide for you since you choose not to.
I'm not wasting any more time on this because it's a fact of life you are never going to get your way and this society is never going to act according to your whacked ideals.
How? It's a never ending vicious cycle. People work a full time low skilled job that doesn't cover their bills. If they go to college, they go into debt for it, can't work as many hours to pay the bills they weren't able to pay working full time, and have no guarantee of a better job at the end of their schooling. Blue collar jobs are disappearing, so trade school doesn't help either. And if they live in a high cost of living area, they can't afford to move somewhere cheaper because they don't have the extra money to leave California or wherever they are. And forget having a kid; there's even less money for that. Rent control would be a great start at helping people pay their bills since housing is the single greatest expense. Hardly anyone can afford a $2400/month apartment, which is the average apartment rent in LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joee5
Solution is simple. Move out of California or find a better job. Me personally, I would never want to live in California
See my post directly above yours. No, the solution is not simple. As I mentioned, an unskilled employee cannot just "find a better job." And an unskilled employee cannot live on not enough money while they work three or four more years at their crap job in an attempt to move up the ranks. Creditors won't wait that long. And when they have no money, they can't move out of the state either. But when you're a C-D poster at home typing on your computer in the comfort of your living room, the solution is very simple.
Blue collar jobs are disappearing, so trade school doesn't help either.}}}} °they are?
. That's not what I am hearing and seeing all around.
The problem is lack of interest in such careers and lack of qualified candidates
See my post directly above yours. No, the solution is not simple. As I mentioned, an unskilled employee cannot just "find a better job." And an unskilled employee cannot live on not enough money while they work three or four more years at their crap job in an attempt to move up the ranks. Creditors won't wait that long. And when they have no money, they can't move out of the state either. But when you're a C-D poster at home typing on your computer in the comfort of your living room, the solution is very simple.
I know right. People take for granted the costs in a move, even within a given state. For everyone that was able to move on $50, you can find 5 who couldn't even on $250. Mileage varies and it deoends on the situation. If you can move to a low COL area with family or a friend who will allow you to have room and board for barter until a job is found, you have the deck stacked against you.
I know right. People take for granted the costs in a move, even within a given state. For everyone that was able to move on $50, you can find 5 who couldn't even on $250. Mileage varies and it deoends on the situation. If you can move to a low COL area with family or a friend who will allow you to have room and board for barter until a job is found, you have the deck stacked against you.
Some people have said they were able to so I am giving that a little credence. I think the poster I heard this from bartered for gas and used churches for food.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,652,907 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Some people have said they were able to so I am giving that a little credence. I think the poster I heard this from bartered for gas and used churches for food.
I think the suggestion is is that if you are so down on your luck that you have to move to another area to "make it", that you should sell everything you own except for a few pairs of clothes so you can travel light to the new city, and then worry about re-aquiring things again
That's simply not true, and shouldn't be true. Starting in 1912, the United States has made a very deliberate decision to be better than allowing wages to be solely about supply and demand.
There's nothing "false" about that bottom. The only thing wrong with it is that it only accomplishes part of what it is intended to accomplish, i.e., being better than what you described.
Immigration is a red herring, and automation isn't "coming" - automation has already had a great deal of impact, and perhaps as much as half of the impact it will ever have. Outsourcing is, of course, a most critical contributor to what you suggested ("may never see those days again"), but as I outlined earlier, not any ol' outsourcing but specifically off-shoring.
You missed the point of something being a "right": It isn't your place to say whether or not someone else should or shouldn't do it; it isn't your place to dictate the parameters of how that decision should be made; and cutting to the point, it isn't your place to say that financial considerations should be either predominant or overriding considerations in such decisions. The point of highlighting what are universal human rights is to elevate certain inviolable and therefore more critical considerations over the petty considerations that you've tried to place above them.
Again you've utterly failed to understand the context of a human right. It isn't about telling a person what they can do - it is about telling society what it must accommodate. When we make clear as a society that gender-based wage discrimination is wrong we are not telling women that they can earn as much as men; we are telling society that it has to pay men and women the same for the same work. The same applies for human rights as they apply to matters of affluence and poverty.
Again, it isn't your place to say. Since by using the word "We're" you're pretending to speak for society, I'll address "you" as society: As society, it is "your" place to adjust and adapt to circumstances such that those human rights are accommodated by how "you" have chosen to structure society, and ensure that "you" haven't structured society so that all people can enjoy those human rights the same.
That is, of course, if "you" want to be a moral society rather than an amoral one.
Wow! This post hit the trifecta of SJW drivel, big governmenment statism, and “Economics is for chumps!”
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.
