Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

To those who believe in the "American Dream"Follow

#52 Dec 21 2004 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Totem, you seriously believe someone's future should be dictated by what they achieve by the age of 14???

I guess I should be a G.I. Joe melter then...


#53 Dec 21 2004 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without.


That's the entitlement speaking. You don't need any of those things to survive unless you're incompetent. They all make life much easier, which is why they're in such high demand, but none of them are necessary. Food and shelter are necessities.


Quote:
Again, what factual information is this opinion based on? It is a common misconception taht everyone who lives below the poverty line does so because they are "stupid and lazy". For the large majority of those below the poverty line this is simply not true. Even it it was, you still have to ask yourself what you believe to be more important: stopping abusers from abusing the system, or helping out those in need.



It's a common occurence when someone says something like 'poor people are poor for a reason' that someone immediately begins beating the 'lazy and stupid' horse. There are many reasons for being poor. Lazy and stupid are among them, but I've known plenty of middle and upper income people who are also stupid and lazy. But then they have money already, so stupidity and laziness are luxuries they can afford, at least for the time being.
#54 Dec 21 2004 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Actually, I was gonna respond to the rest of the points in your post, but they're all fairly ridiculous, so I'll just let them stand.


#55 Dec 21 2004 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
But, Pickle, if an owner cannot place workers behind the counter then he raises the base wage. On the other hand, if people are willing to work for minimum, then he is under no pressure to raise worker's wages except if other market forces are at work, such as training costs due to a high turnover rate of employees.

I'm not certain why an business owner should be obligated to artificially raise wages for a particular subset of an economic class. I imagine that if people feel that strongly about it, they should purchase their own franchise and give their workers a phenomenally wonderful salary, but to force a particular labor market which utilizes non-skilled workers into paying a skilled laborer's wages is antithetical to the basis on which this country's economic power comes from.

Totem
#56 Dec 21 2004 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Totem wrote:
But, Pickle, if an owner cannot place workers behind the counter then he raises the base wage. On the other hand, if people are willing to work for minimum, then he is under no pressure to raise worker's wages except if other market forces are at work, such as training costs due to a high turnover rate of employees.

I'm not certain why an business owner should be obligated to artificially raise wages for a particular subset of an economic class. I imagine that if people feel that strongly about it, they should purchase their own franchise and give their workers a phenomenally wonderful salary, but to force a particular labor market which utilizes non-skilled workers into paying a skilled laborer's wages is antithetical to the basis on which this country's economic power comes from.

Totem


It's not about OBLIGATION.

Sheez. Forget it.

#57 Dec 21 2004 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TStephens wrote:
Quote:
Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without.


That's the entitlement speaking. You don't need any of those things to survive unless you're incompetent. They all make life much easier, which is why they're in such high demand, but none of them are necessary. Food and shelter are necessities.
That's a very good point. There's absolutely no reason why today's employees shouldn't be living in thatch huts on rented parcels of company land.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Dec 21 2004 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
"Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without." --Deloused

I guess my grandparents and nearly every other person in the United States in the '30's were living without those basic necessities, right? All of those things were around, but only the rich could afford them, yet here you are making the assumption that their lives were somehow diminished by the lack of them. I suspect that my grandparents would heartily disagree with you.

Totem
#59 Dec 21 2004 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Oh, for further reading on this subject, you should check out:

http://www.henryholt.com/holt/nickelanddimed.htm

I picked it up a couple of years ago. A very good read. I'd call it informative for those who have never had to live hand to mouth.
#60 Dec 21 2004 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
That's a very good point. There's absolutely no reason why today's employees shouldn't be living in thatch huts on rented parcels of company land.


They still do in a lot of places. Buncha whiners in this country.
#61 Dec 21 2004 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I suspect that my grandparents would heartily disagree with you.
I suspect that had you offered your grandparents affordable electricity, etc they would have happily agreed and had a higher quality of life for it. What's your point?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Dec 21 2004 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Totem wrote:
"Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without." --Deloused

I guess my grandparents and nearly every other person in the United States in the '30's were living without those basic necessities, right? All of those things were around, but only the rich could afford them, yet here you are making the assumption that their lives were somehow diminished by the lack of them. I suspect that my grandparents would heartily disagree with you.

Totem


Just stop.

You're passing into Gbajiish-Even-You-Don't-Believe-Your-Argument territory now.
#63 Dec 21 2004 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TStephens wrote:
They still do in a lot of places. Buncha whiners in this country.
I'm a little confused on if you're trolling or really just a moron.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Dec 21 2004 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
"Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without." --Deloused

I guess my grandparents and nearly every other person in the United States in the '30's were living without those basic necessities, right? All of those things were around, but only the rich could afford them, yet here you are making the assumption that their lives were somehow diminished by the lack of them. I suspect that my grandparents would heartily disagree with you.

Totem
#65 Dec 21 2004 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,311 posts
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having running water, plumbing, and electricity is a luxury to you? These are basic necessities that nobody should be without.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TSNotverywellinformed replied:

That's the entitlement speaking. You don't need any of those things to survive unless you're incompetent. They all make life much easier, which is why they're in such high demand, but none of them are necessary.
They are considered necessities in most municipalities today. If you're living in a home without these basic services, it can, and eventually will be condemned.

What our grandparents did or did not have available seventy five years ago is not relevant to this conversation.
#66 Dec 21 2004 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
In the 30's, people were more equipped to live without electricity and running water, obviously. Homes had fireplaces to heat them in the winter, and they usually had a well or spring nearby to get water from.

You just don't have those options today. My house doesn't have a fireplace, and I can't remember the last time I saw an actual working well or fresh-water spring.

And it goes beyond the electricty and water. Try doing anything without a phone, and I don't mean just to gossip with your sister or make a booty call. If you do business with any type of utility, or try to get a job without a phone, it's near to impossible.

Bah, I'm better at these kinds of discussions in person. Stream of consciousness doesn't do well online, heh.
#67 Dec 21 2004 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
**
530 posts
Quote:
There's absolutely no reason why today's employees shouldn't be living in thatch huts on rented parcels of company land.


That is strange that is almost word for word paragraph 15.4 in my companies employee handbook right after the selling of the soul and all that.

I could see min. wage increase = inflation, but not more.

I live in an area where no-one on minimum wage could afford to live with in 60 miles of. But 70 sure, there is such a thing as comuting.

People just would rather complain than look for the solution, because that would require some sort of sacrifice on thier part.

If you want to help the working people, do something about healthcare, something that people should not have to sacrifice for.



Edited, Tue Dec 21 15:42:37 2004 by kullayen
#68 Dec 21 2004 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
They are considered necessities in most municipalities today. If you're living in a home without these basic services, it can, and eventually will be condemned.

Hehe. BAM.


#69 Dec 21 2004 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
InvisibleWar wrote:
Quote:
How about you find me the percentage of people who actually *need* to support themselves who are working at the federal minimum wage rate.


ummm....i know a mother who has to support 5 count five children, how does she do it (she even makes more than minimum wage) i dont know. but she does get her water,electric,phone turned off every other month, for some people minimum wage isnt really minimum wage


Here goddamn fault for popping out five kids.. Welcome to the motherfu[/u]ckin 21st century *****! We have this thing called medicine which means cumbuckets like her who can't get by can at least raise one or two kids without fear of them dying from a common cold.
#70 Dec 21 2004 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Warlord Lefein wrote:
InvisibleWar wrote:
Quote:
How about you find me the percentage of people who actually *need* to support themselves who are working at the federal minimum wage rate.


ummm....i know a mother who has to support 5 count five children, how does she do it (she even makes more than minimum wage) i dont know. but she does get her water,electric,phone turned off every other month, for some people minimum wage isnt really minimum wage


Here goddamn fault for popping out five kids.. Welcome to the motherfu[/u]ckin 21st century *****! We have this thing called medicine which means cumbuckets like her who can't get by can at least raise one or two kids without fear of them dying from a common cold.


Lefein,

I think the statement above proves you're gay.

Look into it.
#71 Dec 21 2004 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
I would agree that a person making minimum wage wouldn't be able to afford thier own housing, but common sense would also say that if they really wanted to survive on their own, they should have a little more sense to know that 5 bucks an hour isn't going to cover anything other than food, gas, and drugs.
#72 Dec 21 2004 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
My point, Jo, is that these supposed neccesities are figments of your imagination, just like those "needs" of your little boy who thinks he needs that latest toy for Christmas.

Interestingly, significant portions of my time in the military included entire months where running water and indoor plumbing were nonexistent.

Would my grandparents have taken them if they were offered to them for a reasonable price? Maybe. They had other priorities than to spend money on things which did not help the family out in significant and demonstrable ways.

Funny thing is, my kids thought that having a car was a necessity. Much to their amazement, I disagreed with them. So the point is, one generation's absolute and utter needs are based on a sliding scale of perceived neccesities when the reality is quite different. Either that, or your grandparents were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and never knew the deprivations of the Great Depression.

Totem
#73 Dec 21 2004 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
I contend that the worse we make the bottom rung of society the more likely people will be encouraged to get the eff out of it. Who knows, Im not a psychology expert or anything. And I'm sorry, but a lady who continues having children she cannot sustain is a *** dumpster less a mind cogniscent of her own well being and the lives she is bringing into this world.

I refuse to subsidize the shortfalls of my fellow man, with my hard work. I am so sick of having to cry about someone elses roblems and fix them. I have my own lot in life. No, I didnt always make the best decisions but I didnt pidgeonhole myself into mediocrity by doing so. In closing, your life will only be as good as the decisions you make. I absolutely refuse to think that someone was given a short end of the stick at birth unless they were born deformed mentally or physically. Economic mediocrity is a chocie to be made. I can be happy and self sufficient at 40k a year and I am well on my way to attaining that. Tell me why I should feel sorry for or change the social structure for people who had just as much opportunity in life as me but chose not to take advantage of it?
#74 Dec 21 2004 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
My point, Jo, is that these supposed neccesities are figments of your imagination, just like those "needs" of your little boy who thinks he needs that latest toy for Christmas.
My point is that the fact that your grandparents got by without electricity is no more relevant than the fact that cavemen got by without agriculture.

Quote:
Interestingly, significant portions of my time in the military included entire months where running water and indoor plumbing were nonexistent.
As was noted, trying to raise a family in a building without adequate plumbing will bring down the wrath of the health department, building code department and department of child and family services. It's not even an option.

Quote:
Would my grandparents have taken them if they were offered to them for a reasonable price? Maybe. They had other priorities than to spend money on things which did not help the family out in significant and demonstrable ways.
Of course they would have. There's a reason why it's a standard fixture in every dwelling. I know you want to pretend that your grandparents would have blown off modern sanitation and running water but I don't think anyone is going to believe it anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Dec 21 2004 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
There are entire areas of the country that do not indoor plumbing or running water, Jophiel. Significant portions of Louisianna, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, California, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Kentucky, Michigan, and Arizona are without these basic necessities that you think are so terribly needed. Moreover, the Health Department doesn't come knocking either. Are these in towns or cities? No, but that doesn't mean that large segments of society have these either.

It's just that when you live with these goodies for so long you begin to take it for granted and can't imagine life without them.

Totem
#76 Dec 21 2004 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
***
3,112 posts
Totem wrote:
The difficulty with the application of turning minimum wage positions like hamburger flipper into "living wage" jobs that allow someone to make the necessary income to afford a home, utilities, food, a car note, the gas to run it, insurance, a telephone, and medical coverage, it causes that $0.63 burger into a $25 overpriced slab of meat and bun.

There is no way all the amenities we take for granted will remain at a cost that we can subsidize on a whim, like driving into the drive-through. Moreover, since Mr. Hamburger Flipper is now making $20 an hour, those of us who are skilled labor would have to make an additional $100 an hour just to differenciate our skillset from the manual laborer-- unless you are advocating that everyone everywhere should earn the same thing as everybody else? Because if so, you are definitely living in the wrong country, because a free market economy doesn't run that way.

Good luck with that ditch digger on a CEO's salary pipedream, because it ain't gonna happen. If you don't want to make minimum wage then get an education that allows you upward mobility.

Totem


What makes you so special? Okay okay, you've played MS Flight Simulator for countless hours. Whoopdie doo. What makes the president so special? Cocaine and Jim Bean? Oh, yeah. What makes the burger flipper so stupid? Oh, yeah, he does all the above, but didn't get a certificate for doing so. What is the difference be between a guy who feeds hundreds of people per day, and one who moves the sick and dying to a better place 10-20 times per day? Not much really.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 302 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (302)