Humbling.
-
That's the situation here, as well. Most people here live on just enough income to starve slowly. The jobs here pay minimum wage or slightly higher, just enough to make the rent on a hovel if you have a roommate to help with the expenses. If the car breaks (and many can't afford even a beat up used vehicle) the job is gone because repairs are out of reach. If one gets sick, there is no insurance, and one prays to survive it and get well without help. A toothache is something they just have to live with. Savings accounts are non-existent; most can't scrape enough together to make the minimum deposit to open a checking account, and so have to walk all over town to pay bills in cash. The so-called Economic Development people make lots of noise about how many new businesses they have attracted to the area, but never mention that the only kind they've attracted are more of the same. More part-time, no benefit, low wage jobs will do nothing but increase the incidence of homeless living, general despair, and of course, crime. The city's solution is to devote 30% of the budget to more cops.:sigh: "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
Thats odd. I've never met anyone of any intellectual ability who was not able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. The only truly poor, needy, people I have ever known were those who went to extreme lengths to fuck their lives up. EDIT - and no matter how much you did for them, or gave them, they still managed to find a way to end up as needy as ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
What troubles me the most is that it is not only underdeveloped third world nations facing this problem. It is apparent that even in our most developed and advanced societies these vast disparities among lifestyles exist. In the governing model of capitalism (<- no positive or negative connotation applied) the fact remains that there will always be economic competition that leaves the relatively inept and/or underprivileged behind and with less to show for their efforts than the relatively adept and/or privileged sects of society. Some of us are blessed with a capacity to compete that others simply do not possess. Some people are held from reaching their full potential due to unfortunate individual circumstances. When I am around someone who is pure of heart, has a solid character, and is hardworking yet is struggling through life in a subsistence existence simply because they are not blessed with great cognitive ability and/or have been given a difficult lot in life to work with I feel somewhat guilty that we have not collectively found a better way. All I can really do as one insignificant man though is continue to care about people and explore and share my ideals as well as expand them by listening to and learning from what others have to offer. Also I offer micro support (giving some loot to charity, talking to people, couple bucks to a random vagrant, etc.) to my local community (Ft.Lauderdale, bitches. ;) ). I keep my faith in the prevailing strengths of the good nature of mankind and the power of the human mind to eventually create a system that is in practice, more efficient and humane, yet still individually free. (I know , that is a tall philosophic order.) Legalize Marijuana I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the language spoken by all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh.
joshfl wrote: I keep my faith in the prevailing strengths of the good nature of mankind and the power of the human mind to eventually create a system that is in practice, more efficient and humane, yet still individually free. (I know , that is a tall philosophic order.) I would argue that the continued evolution of capitalism will ultimately provide such a world. We need to be decreasing the power and influence of political systems, and increasing the power and influence of free markets. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Thats odd. I've never met anyone of any intellectual ability who was not able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. The only truly poor, needy, people I have ever known were those who went to extreme lengths to fuck their lives up. EDIT - and no matter how much you did for them, or gave them, they still managed to find a way to end up as needy as ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I've never met anyone of any intellectual ability who was not able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. Perhaps your definition of intellectual ability is someone who is able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves ? Either way, the fact is that some people are just dumb. Assuming that such people are willing to find a job, don't you think that employers should provide some sort of security ? In australia, the majority of new jobs are casual. That means you get $10 an hour, and you can work anything from 0-40 hours a week. These people are not eligible for any sort of unemployment benefit, but they may well find that over a month, they earn $100 because they only get 10 hours work. And the government regards them as employed, when it tells us how low unemployment rates are. I don't agree with the idea of a nanny state. But I also don't agree with the idea of big corporations being allowed to exploit their workers. And at the end of the day, the person this affects is you, Stan. You and me. We're the guys who have managed to find good paying jobs, and buy nice houses in the areas that these people will rob because they can't get together the money to feed their families. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
joshfl wrote: I keep my faith in the prevailing strengths of the good nature of mankind and the power of the human mind to eventually create a system that is in practice, more efficient and humane, yet still individually free. (I know , that is a tall philosophic order.) I would argue that the continued evolution of capitalism will ultimately provide such a world. We need to be decreasing the power and influence of political systems, and increasing the power and influence of free markets. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Yeah, because a company like K-Mart has a vested interest in paying it's workers well, and making sure they have a good standard of living. Face it, the prosperity that some people have exists off the back of others who are pushed down by our system. If the stores paid their workers a better wage, goods would cost more, and your income would have less value. If workers in places like China got paid anything half decent, you wouldn't be able to afford Nikes, although it would mean that at least workers in our countries could hope to see local factories again. Our prosperity is based on the low income lives of people in the third world, and also the low income lives of people in our own countries. And there is no way to help those with less, without giving up some of what we've got. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I've never met anyone of any intellectual ability who was not able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. Perhaps your definition of intellectual ability is someone who is able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves ? Either way, the fact is that some people are just dumb. Assuming that such people are willing to find a job, don't you think that employers should provide some sort of security ? In australia, the majority of new jobs are casual. That means you get $10 an hour, and you can work anything from 0-40 hours a week. These people are not eligible for any sort of unemployment benefit, but they may well find that over a month, they earn $100 because they only get 10 hours work. And the government regards them as employed, when it tells us how low unemployment rates are. I don't agree with the idea of a nanny state. But I also don't agree with the idea of big corporations being allowed to exploit their workers. And at the end of the day, the person this affects is you, Stan. You and me. We're the guys who have managed to find good paying jobs, and buy nice houses in the areas that these people will rob because they can't get together the money to feed their families. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Sorry, but I don't buy into any of that. I don't even believe there should be a minimum wage. Corporations should be free to pay their workforce whatever wage they deem most appropriate to their own profit margins. In that way, productivity is maximized, productivty is the cornerstone of economic growth and economic growth provides opportunity, and opportunity is the surest and most effective means of ending poverty and providing everyone with an upwardly mobile path. Opportunity will provide far more "dumb" people with what the need to thrive than all of your good intentions. Anything else you do to provide security merely decreases productivity, economic growth and opportuntiy, giving the poor little more than a continuation of the status quo, dooming them to lifetimes of poverty rather than of hope. The poor of the world are not the victims of capitalism, they are the victims of socialism. If we could thoroughly eliminate the socialist economic models around the world, within a generation or two the world's populations would all be middle class, even by western standards. And they would owe absolutle noting to all the liberal do gooders - they would only owe it to their own skills, abilities and fortitude. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Sorry, but I don't buy into any of that. I don't even believe there should be a minimum wage. Corporations should be free to pay their workforce whatever wage they deem most appropriate to their own profit margins. In that way, productivity is maximized, productivty is the cornerstone of economic growth and economic growth provides opportunity, and opportunity is the surest and most effective means of ending poverty and providing everyone with an upwardly mobile path. Opportunity will provide far more "dumb" people with what the need to thrive than all of your good intentions. Anything else you do to provide security merely decreases productivity, economic growth and opportuntiy, giving the poor little more than a continuation of the status quo, dooming them to lifetimes of poverty rather than of hope. The poor of the world are not the victims of capitalism, they are the victims of socialism. If we could thoroughly eliminate the socialist economic models around the world, within a generation or two the world's populations would all be middle class, even by western standards. And they would owe absolutle noting to all the liberal do gooders - they would only owe it to their own skills, abilities and fortitude. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: they would only owe it to their own skills, abilities and fortitude. So what's your solution for people with no special skills or abilities ? They are obviously not going to ever be well off on your model, because there are so many of them, and the corporations that use their labour do so at the least possible cost to themselves ( which is part of capitalism, after all ), keeping them in the same situation they are in now. So long as the govermnet offers unemployment benefits, and pushes people toward employment ( which they should do, I mean if there's a handout, it needs to be controlled ), but allows employers to employ people for any wage, on any terms, then people will accept these jobs because they have to. The laws of supply and demand do not dictate a situation where their lot will magically improve. The trouble is, those of us with some ability, who have done well by working hard, find it easy to look down on those who have not, without considering how their situation might limit their opportunities. The real question is, do we want to spend money on helping such people, or on paying the police the stop them from robbing us as they starve to death ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Thats odd. I've never met anyone of any intellectual ability who was not able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. The only truly poor, needy, people I have ever known were those who went to extreme lengths to fuck their lives up. EDIT - and no matter how much you did for them, or gave them, they still managed to find a way to end up as needy as ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. Three simultaneous jobs would just about do it here, though there would be no hope of things ever getting better. You seem to have managed to live an extraordinarily benevolent, and sheltered life. I salute you!:-D "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I've never met anyone of any intellectual ability who was not able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves if they were willing to work hard enough to do it. Perhaps your definition of intellectual ability is someone who is able to provide a comfortable existence for themselves ? Either way, the fact is that some people are just dumb. Assuming that such people are willing to find a job, don't you think that employers should provide some sort of security ? In australia, the majority of new jobs are casual. That means you get $10 an hour, and you can work anything from 0-40 hours a week. These people are not eligible for any sort of unemployment benefit, but they may well find that over a month, they earn $100 because they only get 10 hours work. And the government regards them as employed, when it tells us how low unemployment rates are. I don't agree with the idea of a nanny state. But I also don't agree with the idea of big corporations being allowed to exploit their workers. And at the end of the day, the person this affects is you, Stan. You and me. We're the guys who have managed to find good paying jobs, and buy nice houses in the areas that these people will rob because they can't get together the money to feed their families. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote: you get $10 an hour That's Management here - average folks get $6, maybe $7, with no benefits and no guarantee of 40 hours. Rents start at about $650 a month, utilities around $300 a month, insurance (if you can afford a car) no less than $80 a month and it's mandatory or you instantly lose your driver license. A good used car costs about $300 a month, if you have credit; otherwise you'd better have $6,000 or more in the bank to spare. The worst offender here is Walmart - yeah, the great American success story. They're followed closely by Home Depot. Both received huge tax relief packages from the city to induce them to settle here, in return for producing lots of jobs at high wages. The high wage people they brought with them from other locations, and they hired the locals part-time at slightly better than prevailing wages and no benefits. I don't blame the companies - controlling labor costs is prudent management - and I don't favor laws that require higher wages. What repels and disgusts me is the city's efforts to attract more of the same, rather than investing in the infrastructure that would attract light manufacturing and technical industry employers. The single largest complaint about the area is a lack of transportation for shipping to market, and the city plans no investment in alternative transportation corridors. We have a railhead 20 miles away - the cost of a spur into the town would surely be less than a five year waiver of sales and property tax for Walmart! Grrrrr!!!!:mad: "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
-
Christian Graus wrote: you get $10 an hour That's Management here - average folks get $6, maybe $7, with no benefits and no guarantee of 40 hours. Rents start at about $650 a month, utilities around $300 a month, insurance (if you can afford a car) no less than $80 a month and it's mandatory or you instantly lose your driver license. A good used car costs about $300 a month, if you have credit; otherwise you'd better have $6,000 or more in the bank to spare. The worst offender here is Walmart - yeah, the great American success story. They're followed closely by Home Depot. Both received huge tax relief packages from the city to induce them to settle here, in return for producing lots of jobs at high wages. The high wage people they brought with them from other locations, and they hired the locals part-time at slightly better than prevailing wages and no benefits. I don't blame the companies - controlling labor costs is prudent management - and I don't favor laws that require higher wages. What repels and disgusts me is the city's efforts to attract more of the same, rather than investing in the infrastructure that would attract light manufacturing and technical industry employers. The single largest complaint about the area is a lack of transportation for shipping to market, and the city plans no investment in alternative transportation corridors. We have a railhead 20 miles away - the cost of a spur into the town would surely be less than a five year waiver of sales and property tax for Walmart! Grrrrr!!!!:mad: "...putting all your eggs in one basket along with your bowling ball and gym clothes only gets you scrambled eggs and an extra laundry day... " - Jeffry J. Brickley
Roger Wright wrote: and I don't favor laws that require higher wages. No, I don't either. I do favour a system that creates more jobs that are permanent, with a guarenteed number of hours, so that employers have a committment to the people they employ, instead of just chewing them up and spitting them out. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
I recently read a book about the 'working poor' in this country, and it really got me thinking. I'm on a pretty decent wage for where I live, and with outside work, I'm making 3 times what the average is in this part of the woods. We don't live an extravegant life, although I buy too many toys. But either way, we sure don't worry about money. It really left me thinking about the plight of people who go to work, don't sit on the dole, and still struggle through life. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
If you want a decent living it is not enough to work. You have to work on something other people need. Only this way it is possible to get results of their work (that you need) in return. Unfortunately some people are poor on their choice of career. But that's just reality. Imagine a world with 10 people where 9 people would like to produce potatos and the remaining one would need to produce everything elese. Those 9 people would be poor (well, at least they would have something to eat) and it would not make the world any better or more just place if you distribute goods produced by the one to them for free. I think access to education and skills as well as free market with as little entry conditions and other limitations as possible is a good foundation for moral society. The rest is up to individuals. Tomaz