The Goverment and Money
- Thread starter mud duck
- Start date
Also one of the employers that pays so little that many of its workers can still file for and recieve government assistance on just about everything (from heating to medical care). Yet, the \'owners\' of the damn place make up most of the 10 riches folks in America.
So, while it seems Wal-mart works for our economy, it is also a drain on the very resources we need.
As far as Steelcults\' Farmer comment....it\'s unbelievable the amount of aid they get in regards to any other economic group.
They are the true \'welfare queens\' of the country, but no one calls them that in worries of offending the \'hard and honest ones\'. Pshaw! Sometimes is borderline institutionalized fraud!
For instance, a farmer here in Iowa can buy a new pickup and write a large portion of it off (as well as the licensing fees) because they \'need it for work\'. I cry foul, I need my truck to get to work, why should they be given a break and not me?
Farmers often let fields sit empty and unplanted because the government pays them NOT to work the land. (so prices can stay level). If there is a flood or hail damage, or a tornado, the government is there with a check to pay for it.
And then don\'t even get me started about the Ethanol joke, and how the demand for corn really has only forced food prices up. Ethanol actually takes more \'energy\' to make, lowers your gas mileage, steals money from our state treasury (the gov. subsidizes it heavily) and maybe WORSE for the environment in the long run.
The old joke is
\"do you know how a farmer can double his income?\"
\"Put up another mailbox.\"
I think that depends very heavily on where you live as well, and if you\'re trying to support a family or whatnot.
I worked for Wal-mart back in the 90\'s when I was going to school and did pretty well.
I made $9.50 an hour, well above every other retail store or Mom and Pop store in the area, had insurance, and they were very flexible with my scheduling to allow for school.
So in my experience, it\'s not the fault of Wal-mart if you\'re dumb enough to try and raise a family on so little.
So Wal-mart drains nothing, people with a sense of entitlement do.
I mean let\'s look at this another way:
If you fail to go to school, choose to take a job that pays below the standard of living in the area, then choose to have a family, knowing you can barely make it on your own is that really the employers fault?
fieldarchy
New member
Now see we are all talking about it. We don\'t like the state of affairs so why not do something about it?
Too often people believe they can\'t make a difference because of the way the system works. So they don\'t try. Well, hell, people if we don\'t try where are we going to get? What will we be able to accomplish? A revolution is still possible. Now maybe not in the same sense as when our country was founded but we can still rise up and fight. If enough people did then the government would have to listen.
But it\'s the people that feel defeated already that won\'t even try so the government gets to continue operating and no one is happy about it.
Why not get people together for demonstrations on the White House lawn? It\'s not that hard to get to . . . heck they\'ve even blocked off the street so cars can\'t drive past the White House any more. People stop there all the dang time. I\'ve even walked through a protest at the White House on my way to work one day. Now it wasn\'t a huge protest . . . but still at least people were TRYING to affect change.
Can\'t make change happen if no one tries. We can yack about it all day long but why not try to be more productive and organize?
Anyone? C\'mon! You know you want more money in that pay check!
Too often people believe they can\'t make a difference because of the way the system works. So they don\'t try. Well, hell, people if we don\'t try where are we going to get? What will we be able to accomplish? A revolution is still possible. Now maybe not in the same sense as when our country was founded but we can still rise up and fight. If enough people did then the government would have to listen.
But it\'s the people that feel defeated already that won\'t even try so the government gets to continue operating and no one is happy about it.
Why not get people together for demonstrations on the White House lawn? It\'s not that hard to get to . . . heck they\'ve even blocked off the street so cars can\'t drive past the White House any more. People stop there all the dang time. I\'ve even walked through a protest at the White House on my way to work one day. Now it wasn\'t a huge protest . . . but still at least people were TRYING to affect change.
Can\'t make change happen if no one tries. We can yack about it all day long but why not try to be more productive and organize?
Anyone? C\'mon! You know you want more money in that pay check!
I see your point, I really do, but ideals and reality seldom match.
Right, maybe those folks that didn\'t pay attention in school, or didn\'t get themselves a better job are to blame, but they still REALLY exist.
Be it thier fault or not, they still have mouths to feed, houses to warm, etc. etc.
It sounds good in principal to say \"pull yourselves up by your bootstraps\". But can you continue to say that when kids are sent to school with no winter coats? Be in their fault or no, we have a responsibility as a society to try to assist, or at least give them the tools to help themselves.
Wal-marts policy of pushing out the small mom and pop shops extends far beyond that. They have also pushed out the factories, as they can save eight cents per unit by going to China. Those factories are what the middle class folks have relied on for years. Where are those folks going to work?
Thats great, they are saving four cents on an item while shopping at Walley World, but they\'ve lost their jobs in the meantime. Sure, Wal-mart will hire them, at a fraction of the wage, where they can open up another megacenter, putting yet more people out of work and back onto the Walmart dole.
A country that produces nothing for itself is doomed to failure. Or at least doomed to always be dependant on profit only driven businesses. And the people that feel that squeeze the most are middle to lower class (economically speaking).
There should be far more outrage from the American public, that the factory jobs have migrated away. Already that same idea have permeated customer service (ship the jobs overseas, save a buck), computer programming, engineering, etc. ALL are beginning to move overseas. So an education may not even be the answer. You may be a highly educated Engineer who loses his job to an Indian firm that does it for a quarter of the price.
All sounds great for those companies, and the gap between the haves and have nots continues to grow.
Walmart is not to completely to blame obviously, as they just take advantage of the goofy economic situation our government has fostered for years.
But eventually, it will have to change, or we will all just be checkers are a country-wide Walmart making 9.50 an hour and relying on the Government for everything else.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Hm.
The human mind works that we ascribe success to our own personality traits and failures to contextual and situational causes. Neither is true.
We could all have ended up somewhere else entirely and realising that we ought to do our best to help people that get there. No kid chooses their parents and if I could chose I would give every kid an equal start.
But even if I could do that I am aware that the system we\'ve created benefits some and give others disadvantages. The easiest example to make is different kinds of disabilities.. but really my point is that there can never be justice in the current system. Inherited intelligence is inherited injustice just as inherited property is.
Or am I incorrect?
An answer to the question of what we should have instead is perhaps as complicated as describing the system we have today. But step-by-step we can change it all for the better... or worse. On a pragmatical level I would personally worry more about what the goverment actually does with the money instead of percentages. I would worry more about changing the goverment instead of leaving it powerless to work for our best. But if someone has another alternative?
I\'ll just repeat my old saying.. being cynic is as stupid as being naïve. Nothing is inevitable except death and raising taxes.
The human mind works that we ascribe success to our own personality traits and failures to contextual and situational causes. Neither is true.
We could all have ended up somewhere else entirely and realising that we ought to do our best to help people that get there. No kid chooses their parents and if I could chose I would give every kid an equal start.
But even if I could do that I am aware that the system we\'ve created benefits some and give others disadvantages. The easiest example to make is different kinds of disabilities.. but really my point is that there can never be justice in the current system. Inherited intelligence is inherited injustice just as inherited property is.
Or am I incorrect?
An answer to the question of what we should have instead is perhaps as complicated as describing the system we have today. But step-by-step we can change it all for the better... or worse. On a pragmatical level I would personally worry more about what the goverment actually does with the money instead of percentages. I would worry more about changing the goverment instead of leaving it powerless to work for our best. But if someone has another alternative?
I\'ll just repeat my old saying.. being cynic is as stupid as being naïve. Nothing is inevitable except death and raising taxes.
Yea, that is a very interesting thing about the way the human mind protects its pride. When we succeed, \'it\'s because of our talent and hard work\', and when we fail, \'it was because of some unpreventable situational factor\'.
However, in an entire population of a large country, tossing out the exceptionally fortunate and unfortunate, people are generally the result of the choices that they make.
Unemployment rates in the US are:
• 8.2 percent for high school dropouts.
• 4.7 percent for high school graduates with no college.
• 3.7 percent for workers with an associate\'s degree or some college.
• 2 percent for workers with a bachelor\'s degree and higher.
If a country takes the negative consequences away from negative actions, what is the logical conclusion in the long run? What if we could engineer a method of taking away physical pain? That would be a nightmare! There\'s a reason we feel pain; because we need to. If I step on a nail and I don\'t feel it, I\'m not going to notice and I\'m going to keep walking until my foot rots and falls off.
And how about the fact that poverty class citizens get big benefits for having babies and as a result many feel rather inclined to reproduce at higher rates? From an economic standpoint, what is going to happen if the offspring of productive citizens cost their parents a lot of money (however will likely become productive to society in that they contribute more than they take out) and poverty children get their parents extra benefits? Not only do those benefits only trickle down to the children in part (how much of the $1200 per child really is going to be spent on the child?), but because of the way our society designs incentives, obviously there is going to be a disproportunate number of births being born per poverty-parent versus each middle-class parent. That only compounds the problem (fortunately we\'ve still managed to battle this unfortunate handicap and shrink the lower class by 3.5% in the last two decades. How much would it have gone down if there was no incentive to be poor?).
If we could take pain away from bad choices, that would be better I suppose (still sad though because if there was zero pain, where would the drive to succeed be?). The problem is that we take it from those \'not at fault (legitimately in many cases)\' and hand it to others who it is really not their fault, only, they can take the pain better.
However, in an entire population of a large country, tossing out the exceptionally fortunate and unfortunate, people are generally the result of the choices that they make.
Unemployment rates in the US are:
• 8.2 percent for high school dropouts.
• 4.7 percent for high school graduates with no college.
• 3.7 percent for workers with an associate\'s degree or some college.
• 2 percent for workers with a bachelor\'s degree and higher.
If a country takes the negative consequences away from negative actions, what is the logical conclusion in the long run? What if we could engineer a method of taking away physical pain? That would be a nightmare! There\'s a reason we feel pain; because we need to. If I step on a nail and I don\'t feel it, I\'m not going to notice and I\'m going to keep walking until my foot rots and falls off.
And how about the fact that poverty class citizens get big benefits for having babies and as a result many feel rather inclined to reproduce at higher rates? From an economic standpoint, what is going to happen if the offspring of productive citizens cost their parents a lot of money (however will likely become productive to society in that they contribute more than they take out) and poverty children get their parents extra benefits? Not only do those benefits only trickle down to the children in part (how much of the $1200 per child really is going to be spent on the child?), but because of the way our society designs incentives, obviously there is going to be a disproportunate number of births being born per poverty-parent versus each middle-class parent. That only compounds the problem (fortunately we\'ve still managed to battle this unfortunate handicap and shrink the lower class by 3.5% in the last two decades. How much would it have gone down if there was no incentive to be poor?).
If we could take pain away from bad choices, that would be better I suppose (still sad though because if there was zero pain, where would the drive to succeed be?). The problem is that we take it from those \'not at fault (legitimately in many cases)\' and hand it to others who it is really not their fault, only, they can take the pain better.
And as for outsourcing jobs in America, I think it\'s really interesting that the unemployment rate in America was about 4.5% in 1950. Today? Up because of the recession at 5.0% (as of 12/07). Hmmm.
How long have Democrats been saying that \'all of our jobs will be sent overseas\'? Outsourcing is nothing new to the US (sorry to those that aren\'t US citizens, I don\'t want to be ego-centric, I just don\'t know much about foreign economies) and yet we still have 95% of our citizens employed dispite the pure evilness of American businesses. How DARE they ship our mindless jobs to starving countries with unemployment rates of 50% and, in return, create a greater demand for more skillful workers in America! It just seems so logically true that if Company X sends it\'s factory to Country Z, we will lose jobs. And yet that simple logic is missing the big picture. We. Do. Not. Live. In. A. Zero. Sum. Economy/world. Jobs are destroyed all the time and yet they are created just as fast, so by shipping our factories overseas we are making our country better! It\'s a win/win situation because less of our citizens have to have jobs like tightening widgets all day long, those overseas in countries BEGGING for a way to earn money can have a job (crappy, albeit, but as more factories fill up a high-unemployment country, the less supply of workers and thus, the more more money they each get paid), and we get more highly skilled job openings waiting to be filled.
A simple analogy. If there was an island with 1000 people and they were all brilliant at what they did, they could all have a mansion, two cars, etc. We don\'t need poor people. If everyone were extremely productive, we would produce tons of good quality stuff and everyone would get more than they needed.
How long have Democrats been saying that \'all of our jobs will be sent overseas\'? Outsourcing is nothing new to the US (sorry to those that aren\'t US citizens, I don\'t want to be ego-centric, I just don\'t know much about foreign economies) and yet we still have 95% of our citizens employed dispite the pure evilness of American businesses. How DARE they ship our mindless jobs to starving countries with unemployment rates of 50% and, in return, create a greater demand for more skillful workers in America! It just seems so logically true that if Company X sends it\'s factory to Country Z, we will lose jobs. And yet that simple logic is missing the big picture. We. Do. Not. Live. In. A. Zero. Sum. Economy/world. Jobs are destroyed all the time and yet they are created just as fast, so by shipping our factories overseas we are making our country better! It\'s a win/win situation because less of our citizens have to have jobs like tightening widgets all day long, those overseas in countries BEGGING for a way to earn money can have a job (crappy, albeit, but as more factories fill up a high-unemployment country, the less supply of workers and thus, the more more money they each get paid), and we get more highly skilled job openings waiting to be filled.
A simple analogy. If there was an island with 1000 people and they were all brilliant at what they did, they could all have a mansion, two cars, etc. We don\'t need poor people. If everyone were extremely productive, we would produce tons of good quality stuff and everyone would get more than they needed.
Well, I think as a whole, the American people don\'t mind helping those that genuinely need help.
The true problem, I think, lies that in many cases that that help is A.) Abused by those that truly don\'t need it. B.) Is often not used to actually help those in need C.) is often no help at all but a way to win votes.
A.) We\'ve all seen, in the UK we would refer to them as Chavs, here it\'s the able bodied youths that believe something is owed to them.
B.) is often perpetuated by both those who receive governmental aid and the government itself. ie During Katrina the sales of \"wants\" went up because the \"needs\" were being taken care of. Very few have taken the opportunity to better their lives with the help offered to them by the American Taxpayer, but they do have nice stuff. We still have huge trailer parks full of the Katrina victims, New Orleans is being rebuilt by immigrant workers, because, yes, there are some things, some Americans don\'t want to do because it interferes with their free ride.
C.) is mostly visible in large cities such as Chicago and New Orleans where there are often huge populations of poor minorities that are promised increases in welfare benefits and whatnot, bussed to the voting booths bussed back and promptly forgotten until the next election. The most recent, visible time this took place was with Ray Nagin\'s re-election.
One idea that was brought up by a politician out here was the idea of \"workfare\" rather than \"welfare.\" This would be those living completely off the Taxpayers would be required to put in 40 hours of community service with vocational classes and higher education counting towards those hours. They would be doing things that improved their neighborhoods, picking up trash, painting buildings, etc. etc.
The idea is that no one is so disabled that we couldn\'t find something for them to do.
I see this as having two major effects 1.) Those that want to work but can\'t get a job, can take some pride in the fact that they are able to benefit their neighborhoods and their society in some way. 2.) Those that don\'t want to work will quickly realize that they can make more by just getting a job. If you\'re going to have to work anyway you might as well be making some real money at it. And those who like the work and are happy living off the Government? More power to them, at least they\'re doing something, and the taxpayers are getting something for their money.
Unfortunately, the politician who mentioned this idea, happened to have the name of David Duke, which immediately made this a race issue. (Which I find odd, since Senator Byrd obviously found forgiveness. /shrug)
I, myself, view welfare as a particularly insidious form of slavery, one that\'s becoming multi-generational. It\'s not helping.
I\'d much rather take the time and effort to teach someone to read and make it on their own than simply give them a check with a clean conscience.
But giving them the check is infinitely easier...
The true problem, I think, lies that in many cases that that help is A.) Abused by those that truly don\'t need it. B.) Is often not used to actually help those in need C.) is often no help at all but a way to win votes.
A.) We\'ve all seen, in the UK we would refer to them as Chavs, here it\'s the able bodied youths that believe something is owed to them.
B.) is often perpetuated by both those who receive governmental aid and the government itself. ie During Katrina the sales of \"wants\" went up because the \"needs\" were being taken care of. Very few have taken the opportunity to better their lives with the help offered to them by the American Taxpayer, but they do have nice stuff. We still have huge trailer parks full of the Katrina victims, New Orleans is being rebuilt by immigrant workers, because, yes, there are some things, some Americans don\'t want to do because it interferes with their free ride.
C.) is mostly visible in large cities such as Chicago and New Orleans where there are often huge populations of poor minorities that are promised increases in welfare benefits and whatnot, bussed to the voting booths bussed back and promptly forgotten until the next election. The most recent, visible time this took place was with Ray Nagin\'s re-election.
One idea that was brought up by a politician out here was the idea of \"workfare\" rather than \"welfare.\" This would be those living completely off the Taxpayers would be required to put in 40 hours of community service with vocational classes and higher education counting towards those hours. They would be doing things that improved their neighborhoods, picking up trash, painting buildings, etc. etc.
The idea is that no one is so disabled that we couldn\'t find something for them to do.
I see this as having two major effects 1.) Those that want to work but can\'t get a job, can take some pride in the fact that they are able to benefit their neighborhoods and their society in some way. 2.) Those that don\'t want to work will quickly realize that they can make more by just getting a job. If you\'re going to have to work anyway you might as well be making some real money at it. And those who like the work and are happy living off the Government? More power to them, at least they\'re doing something, and the taxpayers are getting something for their money.
Unfortunately, the politician who mentioned this idea, happened to have the name of David Duke, which immediately made this a race issue. (Which I find odd, since Senator Byrd obviously found forgiveness. /shrug)
I, myself, view welfare as a particularly insidious form of slavery, one that\'s becoming multi-generational. It\'s not helping.
I\'d much rather take the time and effort to teach someone to read and make it on their own than simply give them a check with a clean conscience.
But giving them the check is infinitely easier...
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
First we don\'t have the same welfare-system in Sweden as you do in the U.S. So my arguments might miss the target sometimes. The funny thing though is that the same rethorics and arguments are used everywhere despite the difference in taxation and welfare-construction.
@James9487:
Well the important part is that while we provide an incentive to work with a whip, we need to make sure that there is a good way out as well. High School dropouts need to be able to finish their studies later on as well as college fees need to be kept at a minimum.
I can go on saying that in 4th grade most of us already pretty much \"knew\" who would do good in life and who would be risking to frop out from high-school or end up in crime and so on. Sure, some did well despite of their odds and some who you thought would do good didn\'t. But childhood and upbringing, the class you come from is a sharp determinant for how you will do in life. Therefor the school must be focused on trying to give everyone the resources they need to be able to succeed.
An incentive to be poor? The average cost of bringing up a child to their 18th birthday is, at least here in Sweden, about 170 000$ And we don\'t have to worry about insurances and stuff. For UK the figure is about 160 000£ I read somewhere.
About the fantastic island. Who will build their houses, get rid of their trash, cut their hair, take care of their elder etc. etc. There will always be certain parts of the economy giving huge revenues and others not as much. Industrial production will in the future not hold many employments still the U.S, Swedish and world economy grows every year. The important part is to get the money into circulation.
\"The problem is that we take it from those \'not at fault (legitimately in many cases)\' and hand it to others who it is really not their fault, only, they can take the pain better.\"
Could you develop this a bit further, I don\'t really grasp it.
@Evil Dave: I agree.. we ought to help people not put them in dependence of welfare-checks. But that doesn\'t mean we should remove welfare. Think about a single mother of 3 having several jobs to make enough money to provide for her kids.
Workfare is a good idea but it can be so much more then just picking up trash.. there is a large variety of ways you can arrange it. Say you are an engineer that hasn\'t got a job, the goverment give some relief to an employer to employ you (important to regulate though so it won\'t be used instead of a real employment). Pride as you say is very important.
Another job that I think of is visiting and helping older people in their daily life.. big problem here in Sweden is loneliness.
@James9487:
Well the important part is that while we provide an incentive to work with a whip, we need to make sure that there is a good way out as well. High School dropouts need to be able to finish their studies later on as well as college fees need to be kept at a minimum.
I can go on saying that in 4th grade most of us already pretty much \"knew\" who would do good in life and who would be risking to frop out from high-school or end up in crime and so on. Sure, some did well despite of their odds and some who you thought would do good didn\'t. But childhood and upbringing, the class you come from is a sharp determinant for how you will do in life. Therefor the school must be focused on trying to give everyone the resources they need to be able to succeed.
An incentive to be poor? The average cost of bringing up a child to their 18th birthday is, at least here in Sweden, about 170 000$ And we don\'t have to worry about insurances and stuff. For UK the figure is about 160 000£ I read somewhere.
About the fantastic island. Who will build their houses, get rid of their trash, cut their hair, take care of their elder etc. etc. There will always be certain parts of the economy giving huge revenues and others not as much. Industrial production will in the future not hold many employments still the U.S, Swedish and world economy grows every year. The important part is to get the money into circulation.
\"The problem is that we take it from those \'not at fault (legitimately in many cases)\' and hand it to others who it is really not their fault, only, they can take the pain better.\"
Could you develop this a bit further, I don\'t really grasp it.
@Evil Dave: I agree.. we ought to help people not put them in dependence of welfare-checks. But that doesn\'t mean we should remove welfare. Think about a single mother of 3 having several jobs to make enough money to provide for her kids.
Workfare is a good idea but it can be so much more then just picking up trash.. there is a large variety of ways you can arrange it. Say you are an engineer that hasn\'t got a job, the goverment give some relief to an employer to employ you (important to regulate though so it won\'t be used instead of a real employment). Pride as you say is very important.
Another job that I think of is visiting and helping older people in their daily life.. big problem here in Sweden is loneliness.
If I had the power, I would propose a slow phasing out of much of the welfare we have. If we did away with it overnight, yes, those who have already made their choices wouldn\'t have too much chance (once you\'ve mentally developed, it\'s very difficult to change). That\'s why we must keep in mind a macro-focus and not get hung up on single cases (what about John Doe who grew up uneducated but was molded to a particular skill that is now obsolete and he therefore has no chance for success) but instead consider the overall good of people in the long run. What if my proposal was extremely painful, much worse than expected? It would hardly matter in 50 years or 200 years, when things are MUCH better and virtually all citizens laughed at the proposal of human entitlement (\"People used to get money for not working? They could drop out of school at 15, impregnate a few different women, and get paid? Really?\"). Isn\'t a little pain worth a lot of gain? If we measured Gross Domestic Pain (I definitely just made that up), I think we should develop long-term phasing out of the contributors to it even if it temporarily increases. Surgery might be a bigger pain than just leaving a wound be in the short term, but obviously it\'s worth undertaking.
Incentive to be poor: That was my point in that children are very expensive to raise because that statistic was probably based on middle class citizens who don\'t get cash-for-their-kids, will spend a lot of money providing for their family, will pay for college and other various investments in their children\'s futures. Very poor people get big checks per kid each year and they statistically aren\'t the ones that will be spending most of it on the kids. Their children are very likely to be exactly the same way and not go to college.
The cash-per-kid benefit is also somewhat of a problem with foster kids. Every now and then we see on the news some foster parents that locked their \'kids\' in cages in the basement and neglected them to near death. They just adopt kids to get the max benefits and then spend as little as possible. Quite a little \'business\'.
As for the island, it would be very interesting to see what would happen. Would the least picky person on the island take care of the trash? He\'d definitely get paid a TON to do it (because everyone can afford to pay a lot and no one else would be willing to do it). I am certain that in the long run machines and other technology would definitely solve those problems because there is great demand for the machines and great supply of the brainpower to create them. As of right now we haven\'t made machines do those tasks because we\'ve got tons of citizens that can\'t do much else. Also, those jobs would be great for teenagers who could use the lessons that can only be learned in a crappy job like McDonald\'s and it would also be a good motivator to stay in school and work hard.
Incentive to be poor: That was my point in that children are very expensive to raise because that statistic was probably based on middle class citizens who don\'t get cash-for-their-kids, will spend a lot of money providing for their family, will pay for college and other various investments in their children\'s futures. Very poor people get big checks per kid each year and they statistically aren\'t the ones that will be spending most of it on the kids. Their children are very likely to be exactly the same way and not go to college.
The cash-per-kid benefit is also somewhat of a problem with foster kids. Every now and then we see on the news some foster parents that locked their \'kids\' in cages in the basement and neglected them to near death. They just adopt kids to get the max benefits and then spend as little as possible. Quite a little \'business\'.
As for the island, it would be very interesting to see what would happen. Would the least picky person on the island take care of the trash? He\'d definitely get paid a TON to do it (because everyone can afford to pay a lot and no one else would be willing to do it). I am certain that in the long run machines and other technology would definitely solve those problems because there is great demand for the machines and great supply of the brainpower to create them. As of right now we haven\'t made machines do those tasks because we\'ve got tons of citizens that can\'t do much else. Also, those jobs would be great for teenagers who could use the lessons that can only be learned in a crappy job like McDonald\'s and it would also be a good motivator to stay in school and work hard.
No Such Agency
New member
Governments are pretty useful for a lot of things. Organizing common defense, infrastructure, law enforcement, social welfare etc. If government was run by decent, honest people all these things would be paid for with reasonable tax rates, efficiently and fairly.
Sadly, it is generally run by lying shit bags, and to be blunt, they didn\'t get their jobs in an armed coup. We elected them. Every time a \"values voter\" votes for a philandering swindler because they call themselves pro-life or publicly kiss the flag, the system becomes just a little more fucked. Every time someone votes blindly for a member of their own religion, ethnic group or gender, they essentially guarantee the continued desecration of the democratic process.
Just a reminder, politicians bribe us with our own money because it works.
Sadly, it is generally run by lying shit bags, and to be blunt, they didn\'t get their jobs in an armed coup. We elected them. Every time a \"values voter\" votes for a philandering swindler because they call themselves pro-life or publicly kiss the flag, the system becomes just a little more fucked. Every time someone votes blindly for a member of their own religion, ethnic group or gender, they essentially guarantee the continued desecration of the democratic process.
Just a reminder, politicians bribe us with our own money because it works.
funnymouth
Active member
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
@James9487
On which basis do you believe that the world would be a better place? We\'ve had this kind of system many times before and on many places, never ever has it come out the way you describe it to. There\'s nothing new with marcet economy, capitalism and a minimal state. You have to add some revolutionary ingredience to it that would make it work. Economic growth doesn\'t mean that everybody automatically will get a share. That\'s clear from statistics on the topic.
Same with your incredible rich island. In a decades of time things will look very different. We can\'t all be geniouses you know... And why if we make a robot that can do our tasks for us, who\'ll get the money? What do you suggest we do with all the left-over people who aren\'t brilliant inventors etc.
So you mean that poor people get kids because of financial benefits and then neglect them? Controversial to say the least. I think you reason as if anyone being poor can just decide to take a \"proper\" job and then they will be rich again. It\'s not that easy. The fosterparents issue are isolated events... you can\'t seriously say it\'s a large problem?
@Funnymouth:
Hm. The study you must be talking about showed both relative and absolute income has an affect on happiness. But that it was the wealth realtive to ones age and peer-group that was most important. Meaning, you don\'t want to feel like a failure in the face of people you can compare yourself with. The results are only base on U.S. citizens (meaning it can be other more specific policy-based explanations) and is still controversial... other studies as well as psychology experiments shows a more diversed picture. Envy is not as large a driving force as some people set it out to be. And happiness is a rather difficult thing to capture in a study.. The implications are anyways for more of a reduction in income-inequality.
Another thing to add to the discussion look at this chart:
http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp
On which basis do you believe that the world would be a better place? We\'ve had this kind of system many times before and on many places, never ever has it come out the way you describe it to. There\'s nothing new with marcet economy, capitalism and a minimal state. You have to add some revolutionary ingredience to it that would make it work. Economic growth doesn\'t mean that everybody automatically will get a share. That\'s clear from statistics on the topic.
Same with your incredible rich island. In a decades of time things will look very different. We can\'t all be geniouses you know... And why if we make a robot that can do our tasks for us, who\'ll get the money? What do you suggest we do with all the left-over people who aren\'t brilliant inventors etc.
So you mean that poor people get kids because of financial benefits and then neglect them? Controversial to say the least.
I think you reason as if anyone being poor can just decide to take a \"proper\" job and then they will be rich again. It\'s not that easy. The fosterparents issue are isolated events... you can\'t seriously say it\'s a large problem?@Funnymouth:
Hm. The study you must be talking about showed both relative and absolute income has an affect on happiness. But that it was the wealth realtive to ones age and peer-group that was most important. Meaning, you don\'t want to feel like a failure in the face of people you can compare yourself with. The results are only base on U.S. citizens (meaning it can be other more specific policy-based explanations) and is still controversial... other studies as well as psychology experiments shows a more diversed picture. Envy is not as large a driving force as some people set it out to be. And happiness is a rather difficult thing to capture in a study.. The implications are anyways for more of a reduction in income-inequality.
Another thing to add to the discussion look at this chart:
http://bullandbearwise.com/GovDefChart.asp
But, to quote a politician from a few years back,
Working in a potato chip plant is not the same as working in a computer chip plant.
Unemployment isn\'t the issue, jobs are there, but they are not jobs that one can properly raise a family and have hopes for college for the kids.
