NationStates Jolt Archive

The commentary in my other thread "American Right Doesn't Get It", has led me to broach a simliar but different topic.

This is all revolving around Barack Obama, as the personified agent of change. Obama, however, is really just a symptom of a wider cultural question mark, or at least I hope this is the case.

Let me explain:

For the past several decades, we have beheld a major restructuring of America in the corporate and political worlds. We have watched American business abdicate one responsibility after another in the name of "remaining competitive". The traditional corporate pension, which for years formed the backbone of the retired worker's financial resources, is all but extinct. We have moved, culturally, from the pension system (in which business assumed the financial responsibility of providing you with an annual stipend after your retirement) to a 401k system, where the company "helps you save for yourself". The company only matches what you retain from your paychecks yourself, and even this is often capped. American business just adores these plans, since it essentially costs them less to contribute to a 401k plan than it does for them to maintain traditional pensions. The recent economic crash has shown, however, the weakness of this strategy....the 401k system exposes the WORKER to the risks of the markets. When Wall Street imploded, it took out a lot of people's 401k's. Areas in Florida have the highest home foreclosure rates in the nation because the old retirees there lost their shirts in the crash and can no longer afford to stay in their homes. Contrary to conservative doctrine, a lot of these folks aren't irresponsible people who didn't know how to manage their money...they played the game set up by business according to the rules. They diversified. They owned stocks, bonds, overseas stocks, etc. They did everything you are supposed to do to minimize risk in the market, and they still lost, and lost BIG. They got ripped off by Wall Street fat cats who built a tremendous economic house of cards which they knew was quite unstable.

Similarly, those of us who are still in the work force are getting the shaft, too. As a working-class American, I have watched my purchasing power slip. I have seen other workers lose health benefits, retirement benefits. I have seen wages remain static in the face of minimum wage increases instead of rising to reflect the bump caused when the laws came into effect. Without going into too much detail about myself, I researched what I made last year, then compared it to what my corporation's Chief Executive Officer made during the same time period. His annual salary is 3000 times mine including his stock options. Some amongst will argue that massive executive pay is justified, that the executives take great risk and deserve to be rewarded accordingly. I certainly understand that people at the top of the corporate ladder deserve to earn more than those on the bottom. You cannot, however, tell me that they deserve a salary so vast in comparison to their ground-level employees. No matter how important and hardworking the CEO is, the CEO is not worth the equivalent of 3000 copies of me. In fact, I would argue that the CEO is exposed to less risk than me. If the company goes bankrupt, the CEO likely has provisions in his contract that provide for a golden parachute. He will relax, take a few weeks off, then call up one of his executive friends and end up on the board of some company with a nice, comfortable job. I, by contrast, will have no such soft landing. Unlike Wall Street (which engineered its' own collapse), there is no bailout package waiting for me should I fall to forces beyond my control.

The point I am trying to drive home is that the American people...especially the middle-class, average American worker...need to step back and really look critically at what is going on in our society today. Certain people are reaping ever more benefit at the expense of others. The conservatives claim that this is all perfectly acceptable, that somehow the people at the top deserve this obscene amount of wealth. I concede there will always be an upper class, and that we shouldn't see that as a bad thing, entirely. But for the love of God, when will Americans question the logic that states a single executive officer deserves so MUCH more than his employees, at a time when the company is systematically stripping employees of compensation and benefits in order to feed the bloated top?

It's Social Darwinism slowly trying to creep towards a comeback.

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

Because those people make up the entirety of that popular "below the poverty line" club that seems to be attracting so many members these days.

Because those people make up the entirety of that popular "below the poverty line" club that seems to be attracting so many members these days.

So I'm on the hook to pay for meth whores and crack heads?

Fuck them.

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

Fantasy worlds are fun. Gross oversimplifications and outright misrepresentations of the reality of the situation, but good times.

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

Simple, because the line between them and you is a lot thinner than you think it is and it wouldn't take more than an unfortunate event or two to push you into their side of it. It happens all the time. More often lately.

Fantasy worlds are fun. Gross oversimplifications and outright misrepresentations of the reality of the situation, but good times.

Yes, it's so obvious that meth whores aren't real...

So I'm on the hook to pay for meth whores and crack heads?

Fuck them.

The Reagan era called, they want their boogeyman talking point back...



(I know, I know, the 90s called and want their lame shtick back...one revival deserved another?)

The Reagan era called, they want their boogeyman talking point back...



(I know, I know, the 90s called and want their lame shtick back...one revival deserved another?)

Idiots who can't live without the government giving them a permanent handout never went away...

So I'm on the hook to pay for meth whores and crack heads?

Fuck them.

How about the disabled? The elderly who can no longer work? That guys who works damn hard every day but just isn't that bright and is struggling to make ends meet?

Who will you help out?

How about the disabled? The elderly who can no longer work? That guys who works damn hard every day but just isn't that bright and is struggling to make ends meet?

Who will you help out?

Those are fine. But I think that far too many people were fuck offs.

I've met people whose entire families have been generational fuck offs.

Why should I pay for them?

Idiots who can't live without the government giving them a permanent handout never went away...

They're just now called by different names. Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Chrysler, General Motors...

They're just now called by different names. Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Chrysler, General Motors...

I reiterate - why should I pay for their idiocy?

Why throw good money after bad - whether it's an individual who makes crap choices with their life, or a corporation run by mouthbreathers?

Those are fine. But I think that far too many people were fuck offs.

I've met people whose entire families have been generational fuck offs.

Why should I pay for them?

Well, if you had actually read the OP, you would have noted he is referring to people who have been working hard, and have been dumped on their asses anyway by the current mess.

But that would have got in the way of your rabid ranting.

Well, if you had actually read the OP, you would have noted he is referring to people who have been working hard, and have been dumped on their asses anyway by the current mess.

But that would have got in the way of your rabid ranting.

Then let us agree that the mouthbreathers (whether corporate or corporeal) need to be kicked to the curb.

Yes, it's so obvious that meth whores aren't real...

And you'd rather they stay meth whores, instead of receiving some help? Why? And why should a multi millionaire give a shit about an extra thousand dollars, why does it matter if it helps people who are suffering? You know, diminishing marginal utility of money and all that, something you should be familiar with, given your recent interest in economists.

Those are fine. But I think that far too many people were fuck offs.

I've met people whose entire families have been generational fuck offs.

Why should I pay for them?

Return to work schemes, adult education, assistance with CV writing and interview practice.

All these things cost money but help get people off welfare. Would you object to the government paying for them?

Then let us agree that the mouthbreathers (whether corporate or corporeal) need to be kicked to the curb.

Fine, do so. But what are you going to do about the millions of other people who have lost or will lose jobs, savings, homes in the collapse? These are the people the OP was talking about, and if you want to 'kick the mouthbreathers to the curb', you need to be willing to help those harmed by it through no fault of their own.

Which, it seems, you aren't. Instead, you attack these people, calling them stupid, uneducated, lazy, scum, druggies, and worse.

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

You shouldn't spend any of your time worrying about them, Hotwife. We expect nothing from you.

To address your point, however: who are you to say that he "fucked off in the back of the class" and wasn't disadvantaged? I know its all good and well to say that America is full of equal opportunity, but that's a lie. Whether or not you will be successful in life is statistically correlated to your birth. You can essentially tell how successful a person will be before they are even born. America loves to tout itself as an egalitarian meritocracy, but we aren't.

And you'd rather they stay meth whores, instead of receiving some help? Why? And why should a multi millionaire give a shit about an extra thousand dollars, why does it matter if it helps people who are suffering? You know, diminishing marginal utility of money and all that, something you should be familiar with, given your recent interest in economists.

There isn't any hope for meth addicts.

You shouldn't spend any of your time worrying about them, Hotwife. We expect nothing from you.

To address your point, however: who are you to say that he "fucked off in the back of the class" and wasn't disadvantaged? I know its all good and well to say that America is full of equal opportunity, but that's a lie. Whether or not you will be successful in life is statistically correlated to your birth. You can essentially tell how successful a person will be before they are even born. America loves to tout itself as an egalitarian meritocracy, but we aren't.

Gosh, it worked out that way for me. What were you doing wrong?

You shouldn't spend any of your time worrying about them, Hotwife. We expect nothing from you.

To address your point, however: who are you to say that he "fucked off in the back of the class" and wasn't disadvantaged? I know its all good and well to say that America is full of equal opportunity, but that's a lie. Whether or not you will be successful in life is statistically correlated to your birth. You can essentially tell how successful a person will be before they are even born. America loves to tout itself as an egalitarian meritocracy, but we aren't.

I might add, it worked out quite well for Obama.

But I guess you missed that.

There isn't any hope for meth addicts.

Why should I agree?

I might add, it worked out quite well for Obama.

But I guess you missed that.

I don't expect you to listen, but let me explain what statistical significance is. It isn't saying that an outcome will be expected 100% of the time. It is saying that it will be expected most of the time. Even more than that, sometimes, but nothing is ever sure outside of your reality.

Obama was never poor, I might add. He was always well cared for and brought up in a middle class household. Get your facts straight before you mouth off.

Why should I agree?

Because long term, there are no methods of treating meth addiction (as in "clean longer than six months") that are better than 1 to 5% successful - and that's identical to doing nothing.

It would be more humane to shoot them.

I don't expect you to listen, but let me explain what statistical significance is. It isn't saying that an outcome will be expected 100% of the time. It is saying that it will be expected most of the time. Even more than that, sometimes, but nothing is ever sure outside of your reality.

Obama was never poor, I might add. He was always well cared for and brought up in a middle class household. Get your facts straight before you mouth off.

Yet he grew up to be President. I thought that was only for the rich kids who went to Yale.

Because long term, there are no methods of treating meth addiction (as in "clean longer than six months") that are better than 1 to 5% successful - and that's identical to doing nothing.


Source?

Yet he grew up to be President. I thought that was only for the rich kids who went to Yale.

Firstly, he did end up going to Harvard Law School, which could be considered comparable to Yale.

Secondly, you completely misunderstand statistics. Nobody is denying that some people do manage to work their way up from rags to riches. What we are saying is that, in the vast majority of cases, socioeconomic background determines 'success' in life. So in general, most people from poor families will end up poor as well. And for the converse, most people from wealthy backgrounds end up wealthy.

Yes, massive amounts of natural talent and luck can get you to the very top of the heap. But overall, your position at birth is a fairly good indicator of your final position, and thus success is in no way solely due to one's own merits.

Source?

Approaches to the development of medications for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence., Addiction, 2007 Apr;102 Suppl 1:96-106.

Approaches to the development of medications for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence.
Vocci FJ, Appel NM.

Division of Pharmacotherapies and Medical Consequences of Drug Abuse, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

BACKGROUND: Methamphetamine abuse has become an increasing problem in both the United States and globally with concomitant increases in adverse medical, social and environmental sequelae. Behavioral therapies have been used with some success to treat methamphetamine abusers and dependent individuals, but are not universally efficacious. Methamphetamine has a rich pharmacology that theoretically provides many opportunities for potential pharmacotherapeutic intervention. Nevertheless, there are no approved medications with an indication for treating methamphetamine abusers or addicts at this time. AIM: To describe briefly how methamphetamine functions and affects function in brain and report how basic researchers and clinicians are attempting to exploit and exploiting this knowledge to discover and develop effective pharmacotherapies. RESULTS: Scientifically based approaches to medications development by evaluating medications that limit brain exposure to methamphetamine; modulate methamphetamine effects at vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2); or affect dopaminergic, serotonergic, GABAergic, and/or glutamatergic brain pathways that participate in methamphetamine's reinforcing effects are presented. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports the rationale that pharmacotherapies to decrease methamphetamine use, or reduce craving during abstinence may be developed from altering the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methamphetamine or its effects on appetitive systems in the brain.

The journal article explores how there is effectively no real treatment, and it will take some time before a pharmacotherapy becomes available.

In the meantime, meth addicts are really out of luck.

The journal article explores how there is effectively no real treatment, and it will take some time before a pharmacotherapy becomes available.

In the meantime, meth addicts are really out of luck.

That alone doesn't support what you're saying by any means. Can you post a link or the whole thing?

This is all revolving around Barack Obama, as the personified agent of change. Obama, however, is really just a symptom of a wider cultural question mark, or at least I hope this is the case.
Isn't the basic American Dream all about the dissolution of the Social Contract? I mean, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is rooted in the idea of breaking free from obligation to the state and pursuing your own interests regardless of the instructions from above.

Not that I agree with it, but it seems core to what America was founded for.

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

You seem to be suggesting that I fuck off in the back of class, and that I deserve to be far beneath the executive in pay. I do not, however. I carry a recorded 3.1 GPA, have received above-average marks in all of my annual performance reviews, pay my taxes on time, and helped the little old lady across the street take out the trash. I am not perfect, but I resent the elitist view that the rich have the right to do as they will with me because they are rich. That does not make you a better person than I. Just ask Madoff...very wealthy man, yet I think we can all agree he's the scum of the Earth..

Isn't the basic American Dream all about the dissolution of the Social Contract? I mean, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is rooted in the idea of breaking free from obligation to the state and pursuing your own interests regardless of the instructions from above.

Not that I agree with it, but it seems core to what America was founded for.

One of the tenets of America is that you rise according to your own merit. Meritocracy assumes that reward is equivalent to effort and talent put forward. Some of these executives, however, are at the best disingenuous. At worst, they are flaming, incompetent assholes. The current American system actually REWARDS executive stupidity. If an executive crashes the company, the company will fire him. According to the exec's contract, however, you cannot simply fire him...you have to fulfill the terms of his buyout package, which generally amounts to paying the rest of his salary up front. In other words, his compensation is in no way based on merit...it's contracted by his small, personal army of high-priced lawyers. It's actually PROFITABLE to be an idiot in an executive position because you'll get your money up front. Plus, one of your buddies at another company will hire you sooner or later for one thing or another. Great system if you're a part of it.

Why should I care...

Because without them, there'd be no you.

You don't realise this - and fortunately for you, neither do they.

Isn't the basic American Dream all about the dissolution of the Social Contract? I mean, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is rooted in the idea of breaking free from obligation to the state and pursuing your own interests regardless of the instructions from above.

Not that I agree with it, but it seems core to what America was founded for.

No, it comes from Locke's "life, liberty and property" or something like that which is rooted in the idea of a social contract that allows you to have order and morality and all that.

The commentary in my other thread "American Right Doesn't Get It", has led me to broach a simliar but different topic.

This is all revolving around Barack Obama, as the personified agent of change. Obama, however, is really just a symptom of a wider cultural question mark, or at least I hope this is the case.

Let me explain:

For the past several decades, we have beheld a major restructuring of America in the corporate and political worlds. We have watched American business abdicate one responsibility after another in the name of "remaining competitive". The traditional corporate pension, which for years formed the backbone of the retired worker's financial resources, is all but extinct. We have moved, culturally, from the pension system (in which business assumed the financial responsibility of providing you with an annual stipend after your retirement) to a 401k system, where the company "helps you save for yourself". The company only matches what you retain from your paychecks yourself, and even this is often capped. American business just adores these plans, since it essentially costs them less to contribute to a 401k plan than it does for them to maintain traditional pensions. The recent economic crash has shown, however, the weakness of this strategy....the 401k system exposes the WORKER to the risks of the markets. When Wall Street imploded, it took out a lot of people's 401k's. Areas in Florida have the highest home foreclosure rates in the nation because the old retirees there lost their shirts in the crash and can no longer afford to stay in their homes. Contrary to conservative doctrine, a lot of these folks aren't irresponsible people who didn't know how to manage their money...they played the game set up by business according to the rules. They diversified. They owned stocks, bonds, overseas stocks, etc. They did everything you are supposed to do to minimize risk in the market, and they still lost, and lost BIG. They got ripped off by Wall Street fat cats who built a tremendous economic house of cards which they knew was quite unstable.

Similarly, those of us who are still in the work force are getting the shaft, too. As a working-class American, I have watched my purchasing power slip. I have seen other workers lose health benefits, retirement benefits. I have seen wages remain static in the face of minimum wage increases instead of rising to reflect the bump caused when the laws came into effect. Without going into too much detail about myself, I researched what I made last year, then compared it to what my corporation's Chief Executive Officer made during the same time period. His annual salary is 3000 times mine including his stock options. Some amongst will argue that massive executive pay is justified, that the executives take great risk and deserve to be rewarded accordingly. I certainly understand that people at the top of the corporate ladder deserve to earn more than those on the bottom. You cannot, however, tell me that they deserve a salary so vast in comparison to their ground-level employees. No matter how important and hardworking the CEO is, the CEO is not worth the equivalent of 3000 copies of me. In fact, I would argue that the CEO is exposed to less risk than me. If the company goes bankrupt, the CEO likely has provisions in his contract that provide for a golden parachute. He will relax, take a few weeks off, then call up one of his executive friends and end up on the board of some company with a nice, comfortable job. I, by contrast, will have no such soft landing. Unlike Wall Street (which engineered its' own collapse), there is no bailout package waiting for me should I fall to forces beyond my control.

The point I am trying to drive home is that the American people...especially the middle-class, average American worker...need to step back and really look critically at what is going on in our society today. Certain people are reaping ever more benefit at the expense of others. The conservatives claim that this is all perfectly acceptable, that somehow the people at the top deserve this obscene amount of wealth. I concede there will always be an upper class, and that we shouldn't see that as a bad thing, entirely. But for the love of God, when will Americans question the logic that states a single executive officer deserves so MUCH more than his employees, at a time when the company is systematically stripping employees of compensation and benefits in order to feed the bloated top?

You shouldn't spend any of your time worrying about them, Hotwife. We expect nothing from you.

To address your point, however: who are you to say that he "fucked off in the back of the class" and wasn't disadvantaged? I know its all good and well to say that America is full of equal opportunity, but that's a lie. Whether or not you will be successful in life is statistically correlated to your birth. You can essentially tell how successful a person will be before they are even born. America loves to tout itself as an egalitarian meritocracy, but we aren't.

double QFT. nice to hear americans recognising the west's lack of genuine meritocracy and speaking out against gross inequality

You shouldn't spend any of your time worrying about them, Hotwife. We expect nothing from you.

To address your point, however: who are you to say that he "fucked off in the back of the class" and wasn't disadvantaged? I know its all good and well to say that America is full of equal opportunity, but that's a lie. Whether or not you will be successful in life is statistically correlated to your birth. You can essentially tell how successful a person will be before they are even born. America loves to tout itself as an egalitarian meritocracy, but we aren't.

To be even more specific, the single greatest predictor of a child's future education level is that of their mother (IE, if she has a high school diploma, so will they. If she has a PhD, so will they).

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

I am willing to bet money I got better grades than you in high school. Seriously. Tell us your grades, and if you actually had a higher GPA than me, I will send you money.

Granted, it won't be very much money, because no one wants to hire me at the moment, fantastic grades notwithstanding, but I am seriously willing to stake what little I have left on this bet. Put your money where your mouth is - if you're so sure you're superior to me, prove it.

Just remember that Weasels are bad, and you should surround them with barbed wire....Or something...

This is all revolving around Barack Obama, as the personified agent of change. Obama, however, is really just a symptom of a wider cultural question mark, or at least I hope this is the case.

" Barack Obama, as the personified agent of change".

lol, sorry but I could not resist this great post.

Those are fine. But I think that far too many people were fuck offs.

I've met people whose entire families have been generational fuck offs.

Why should I pay for them?

I hate to break it to you, but you aren't the economic or intellectual titan you believe you are

To be even more specific, the single greatest predictor of a child's future education level is that of their mother (IE, if she has a high school diploma, so will they. If she has a PhD, so will they).Really? Both my siblings and I graduated with degrees, even though my mother did not. My wife is in a similar boat. She has a degree while her mother doesn't. If anything, it made it more likely. My mother wouldn't settle for any of us stopping at high school.

Then again we might all be outliers. I had just never heard that before.

Really? Both my siblings and I graduated with degrees, even though my mother did not. My wife is in a similar boat. She has a degree while her mother doesn't. If anything, it made it more likely. My mother wouldn't settle for any of us stopping at high school.

Then again we might all be outliers. I had just never heard that before.
The only source I have on hand is printed text...I'll see what I can find online, but yes, you would be the outlier. Look to inner city youth and mothers for the base line.

The American dream is just that, a dream.


Don't remember where I heard that, but its has always rung true.

Yes, massive amounts of natural talent and luck can get you to the very top of the heap. But overall, your position at birth is a fairly good indicator of your final position, and thus success is in no way solely due to one's own merits.

This reminds of a guest speaker in one of the last classes (twas a business paper) I had at Uni before final exams (and finally getting that scrap of paper which tells people I have me sum edumacashun). She stated that as a general rule, people at best aspire to being 10% better than their parents. So a primary school teacher might beget a secondary school teacher who might beget a university lecturer etc.
Then she stated that she used this rule when hiring people: She would ask them what their parents did, and if they replied, 'cleaner' she wouldn't hire them as this meant they wouldn't amount to much more than that. Instead she'd hire the one who's parent was a manager as they obviously (somehow) had what it took to become a manager themselves.
The circular reasoning was lost on her of course, but it was interesting from a sociological perspective to see how and why certain people nearly always end up at the top while other certain people nearly always end up at the bottom.

This reminds of a guest speaker in one of the last classes (twas a business paper) I had at Uni before final exams (and finally getting that scrap of paper which tells people I have me sum edumacashun). She stated that as a general rule, people at best aspire to being 10% better than their parents. So a primary school teacher might beget a secondary school teacher who might beget a university lecturer etc.
Then she stated that she used this rule when hiring people: She would ask them what their parents did, and if they replied, 'cleaner' she wouldn't hire them as this meant they wouldn't amount to much more than that. Instead she'd hire the one who's parent was a manager as they obviously (somehow) had what it took to become a manager themselves.
The circular reasoning was lost on her of course, but it was interesting from a sociological perspective to see how and why certain people nearly always end up at the top while other certain people nearly always end up at the bottom.

that really is some quite amazing horseshit from your speaker, right there. both my folks were the children of farm labourers with no education, both worked their way to university (funded by the labour govt. of the day, hooray!), and worked as top-level managers of large national and multinational corporations in London. since then they've worked their asses off with their own company, but, since the '92 recession, have been hugely in debt mostly due to Black Wednesday and having lots of continental european clients at the time, as well as the backstabbing nature of people in a recession.

why am i saying this? because if hard work made you rich, an awful lot of people, especially poor ones, would be fucking rich by now. if you are arrogant enough to assume that only your own decisions matter, and there's nothing exogenous or any other considerations, then you're a deluded moron in my view. my family has worked its way up from nothing, and lost it all, and its taken almost 20 years to start to claw it back. you can lose everything you gain much quicker than you gained it, or gain it back... unless you happen to be one of the rich elite, in which case you can probably get another high paying job from a pal quickly enough. even the most hard working and well off can find themselves relying on the help and support of strangers, and to assume things will always go well, because you have made things work for yourself so far, is arrogant in the extreme.

all i'm trying to say is that even an arrogant fuck like Hotwife might find himself, one day, at the mercy of other people's help. and only then will people like him realise the support of a welfare state is there for everyone, and not just for the poor; and, of course, that the poor aren't always deserving of their situation. some are, many aren't. some of the most hardworking people i know in my life are dirt poor, and most of the rich people i know are fucking bone idle... especially the 'old money' ones.

i don't think i'll ever get my head around the arrogance and selfishness of many people on the economic right :(

/rant

Why should I care about the jackasses who fucked off in the back of class when we were in high school? The fact that they never studied, didn't do their homework, and got shit grades translated into them working low wage dead end jobs for the rest of their lives (when they weren't unemployed).

And now I'm supposed to give up a large portion of my income, which I worked hard for all my life, because they were fucking stupid?

Well quite. If people want the freedom to enjoy the benefits of success, so too they should enjoy the implications of failure.

I am willing to bet money I got better grades than you in high school. Seriously. Tell us your grades, and if you actually had a higher GPA than me, I will send you money.

Granted, it won't be very much money, because no one wants to hire me at the moment, fantastic grades notwithstanding, but I am seriously willing to stake what little I have left on this bet. Put your money where your mouth is - if you're so sure you're superior to me, prove it.
Getting a job requires a lot more than good grades. High School or College grades. I passed on hiring a guy with 3.94 from Georgia Tech because he wasn't going to fit in with the company. On the other hand, I've hired new grads with much lower GPAs because they've done things other than study. One guy worked for a secular charity, others have done well with co-op programs, and still others like to 'tinker'. It's the person, not the grades, that determines whether or not they'll get a job from me.

Getting a job requires a lot more than good grades. High School or College grades. I passed on hiring a guy with 3.94 from Georgia Tech because he wasn't going to fit in with the company. On the other hand, I've hired new grads with much lower GPAs because they've done things other than study. One guy worked for a secular charity, others have done well with co-op programs, and still others like to 'tinker'. It's the person, not the grades, that determines whether or not they'll get a job from me.

Well quite. You who have recently railed against intellectualism, and clearly carry enough chips on your shoulder to satisfy John Prescott.

What bearing do your personal business practices have upon those of other employers?

The point I am trying to drive home is that the American people...especially the middle-class, average American worker...need to step back and really look critically at what is going on in our society today. Certain people are reaping ever more benefit at the expense of others. The conservatives claim that this is all perfectly acceptable, that somehow the people at the top deserve this obscene amount of wealth. I concede there will always be an upper class, and that we shouldn't see that as a bad thing, entirely. But for the love of God, when will Americans question the logic that states a single executive officer deserves so MUCH more than his employees, at a time when the company is systematically stripping employees of compensation and benefits in order to feed the bloated top?
No argument about the need to critically examine what's going on around us. Too many people can name the last 18 American Idol winners, but have never wrote a letter to their representative in Congress or the State legislature.

Looking past the wall of envy in that post, I wonder how much of the pension reductions, cash-outs, etc, has been due to the increasing difficulty in complying with the increasingly complex tax laws?

Well quite. You who have recently railed against intellectualism, and clearly carry enough chips on your shoulder to satisfy John Prescott.

What bearing do your personal business practices have upon those of other employers?
Judging by conversations with others that make decisions in business, I think I'm pretty mainstream. Anyone who hires an employee, based only on their grades, is not making a good decision. Additionally, grades and especially high school grades are too inflated to use as an accurate gauge of a person's ability.

Judging by conversations with others that make decisions in business, I think I'm pretty mainstream. Anyone who hires an employee, based only on their grades, is not making a good decision. Additionally, grades and especially high school grades are too inflated to use as an accurate gauge of a person's ability.

Surely, however, the issue is more that a degree is still necessary? The qualities used to differentiate between degrees are peripheral against the fact that, for most decent jobs, a degree remains necessary.

Surely, however, the issue is more that a degree is still necessary? The qualities used to differentiate between degrees are peripheral against the fact that, for most decent jobs, a degree remains necessary.
Degrees are necessary. But about all a degree guarantees in a technical business is that we can speak a common language. The real value of a degree, in my opinion, is that by obtaining one, the candidate has demonstrated that he can apply himself to a long term project and succeed.

Getting a degree only gets you in the door. Getting the job depends so much more on the person -- what he is capable of doing, what he's interested in doing, and what he has done to demonstrate that. Just getting an A on the senior design project isn't all that convincing of a qualification, when others may have solved practical problems, worked with others, and demonstrated some enthusiasm and curiosity about the subject matter at hand.

The Reagan era called, they want their boogeyman talking point back...

(I know, I know, the 90s called and want their lame shtick back...one revival deserved another?)
In Soviet Russia, lame schtick revives YOU!

But aye this kind of thing is a bit sad but at the same time, MC people can become poor pretty quickly. Going to happen to a lot of people in the next couple of years before we all get richer in 2011.

The commentary in my other thread "American Right Doesn't Get It", has led me to broach a simliar but different topic.
Let me explain:

AThe traditional corporate pension, which for years formed the backbone of the retired worker's financial resources, is all but extinct. We have moved, culturally, from the pension system (in which business assumed the financial responsibility of providing you with an annual stipend after your retirement) to a 401k system, where the company "helps you save for yourself". The company only matches what you retain from your paychecks yourself, and even this is often capped. American business just adores these plans, since it essentially costs them less to contribute to a 401k plan than it does for them to maintain traditional pensions.

B Similarly, those of us who are still in the work force are getting the shaft, too. As a working-class American, I have watched my purchasing power slip. I have seen other workers lose health benefits, retirement benefits. I have seen wages remain static in the face of minimum wage increases instead of rising to reflect the bump caused when the laws came into effect.

CWithout going into too much detail about myself, I researched what I made last year, then compared it to what my corporation's Chief Executive Officer made during the same time period. His annual salary is 3000 times mine including his stock options.

DSome amongst will argue that massive executive pay is justified, that the executives take great risk and deserve to be rewarded accordingly.

E No matter how important and hardworking the CEO is, the CEO is not worth the equivalent of 3000 copies of me. In fact, I would argue that the CEO is exposed to less risk than me.

Fs. The conservatives claim that this is all perfectly acceptable, that somehow the people at the top deserve this obscene amount of wealth. I concede there will always be an upper class, and that we shouldn't see that as a bad thing, entirely.

GBut for the love of God, when will Americans question the logic that states a single executive officer deserves so MUCH more than his employees, at a time when the company is systematically stripping employees of compensation and benefits in order to feed the bloated top?


A. There is an actual reason for this: 30-ish years ago, the average adult worked at no more than 3 different jobs in his/her lifetime. now, the average is 7. It doesn't behoove a company in any manner to offer pensions to people who do not have a long-term investiture in the company.

B. Indeed - I think the whole idea of raising "minimum" wage is a farce; it should be called, "lowering the middle-income" EVERY time the min. wage has increased, so have prices overall.

C. :eek: that is obscene.

D. His education has to be greater, and his decisions have a bigger impact, and subsequently in some ways "takes greater risks," however...

E. he doesn't have a job UNLESS you do. Doesn't matter what a company offers: service, merchandise, information. If some grunt isn't doing the work, the CEO is CEO of nothing. Let's do the math - nothing goes into nothing, carry the nothing, comes out... nothing.

This is one of the biggest fallacies by which modern businesses operate: it is, in fact, what created unions in the first place. "Y'all have a great Idea, there, Mr. Ford: but without actual PEOPLE to make it, it's just an idea."

CEO's and shareholders need to realize - they ride on the backs of the those actually doing the work. If they kill, brutalize or mistreat those workers, they run the risk of losing everything.

F. I'm a conservative; I agree with you. Just thought you should know - not every conservative supports the system!

G. Bug's Life Defines the Corporate World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlWZZSD4irM)

D. His education has to be greater, and his decisions have a bigger impact, and subsequently in some ways "takes greater risks," however...

E. he doesn't have a job UNLESS you do. Doesn't matter what a company offers: service, merchandise, information. If some grunt isn't doing the work, the CEO is CEO of nothing. Let's do the math - nothing goes into nothing, carry the nothing, comes out... nothing.

This is one of the biggest fallacies by which modern businesses operate: it is, in fact, what created unions in the first place. "Y'all have a great Idea, there, Mr. Ford: but without actual PEOPLE to make it, it's just an idea."

CEO's and shareholders need to realize - they ride on the backs of the those actually doing the work. [/URL]
This is kinda putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without a good idea, there would be nothing for those workers to do. Without good decisions about marketing, pricing, buying, and building being made at the top, those workers wouldn't have jobs for very long. So are the workers important? Yes, but only in an abstract sort of way. You need workers to carry out the plan, but they can easily be replaced. Is the plan important? Absolutely. Who develops the plan? The CEO/President/Owner. Is he important? Absolutely. The company won't exist without his guidance.

When you can get that same guidance from the guy that cleans the restrooms, then you can start crowing about how important the workers are to a company's overall success.

that really is some quite amazing horseshit from your speaker, right there. both my folks were the children of farm labourers with no education, both worked their way to university (funded by the labour govt. of the day, hooray!), and worked as top-level managers of large national and multinational corporations in London. since then they've worked their asses off with their own company, but, since the '92 recession, have been hugely in debt mostly due to Black Wednesday and having lots of continental european clients at the time, as well as the backstabbing nature of people in a recession.

why am i saying this? because if hard work made you rich, an awful lot of people, especially poor ones, would be fucking rich by now. if you are arrogant enough to assume that only your own decisions matter, and there's nothing exogenous or any other considerations, then you're a deluded moron in my view. my family has worked its way up from nothing, and lost it all, and its taken almost 20 years to start to claw it back. you can lose everything you gain much quicker than you gained it, or gain it back... unless you happen to be one of the rich elite, in which case you can probably get another high paying job from a pal quickly enough. even the most hard working and well off can find themselves relying on the help and support of strangers, and to assume things will always go well, because you have made things work for yourself so far, is arrogant in the extreme.

all i'm trying to say is that even an arrogant fuck like Hotwife might find himself, one day, at the mercy of other people's help. and only then will people like him realise the support of a welfare state is there for everyone, and not just for the poor; and, of course, that the poor aren't always deserving of their situation. some are, many aren't. some of the most hardworking people i know in my life are dirt poor, and most of the rich people i know are fucking bone idle... especially the 'old money' ones.

i don't think i'll ever get my head around the arrogance and selfishness of many people on the economic right :(

/rant

Because the welfare state induces apathy and reliance; as many people exploit as do use it, and frankly, I find that an unacceptable use of the money of those who did get and education, saved prudently and worked.

With all due respect, I feel your economic opinions are conditioned more by your parents situation than by wider considerations; they strike me as having been incredibly unfortunate, and I fear this has disposed you to doubt that hard work does bring rewards.

Because the welfare state induces apathy and reliance; as many people exploit as do use it, and frankly, I find that an unacceptable use of the money of those who did get and education, saved prudently and worked.

With all due respect, I feel your economic opinions are conditioned more by your parents situation than by wider considerations; they strike me as having been incredibly unfortunate, and I fear this has disposed you to doubt that hard work does bring rewards.
And my parents have never been on benefits and worked their arses off, and I still support the welfare state. I'd rather the poor were getting tax money than resorting in high numbers to theft to feed and clothe themselves.

And my parents have never been on benefits and worked their arses off, and I still support the welfare state. I'd rather the poor were getting tax money than resorting in high numbers to theft to feed and clothe themselves.

I'd rather raise the minimum wage; I suspect much apathy and unemployment arises from the undoubted futility and frustration of working however many hours a day and being in no significantly better financial situation than on umemployment benefit.

If accompanied by attenuation of welfare provision, and thus tax relief for business, I don't envisage any great impact on business either.

This is kinda putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without a good idea, there would be nothing for those workers to do. .

that's called an agrarian society!!!

Before there were china plates, and Louis Vitton handbags, people raised their own food, made their own clothes from the plants and animals they raised, and built their own stuff as needed. The stuff they needed to buy was a necessity for life, for the average person (like a spinning wheel, or a knife).

Now, a LOT of these companies (McDonald's, Yves St. Lauren, Victoria's Secret) make products that people do not need, but that they want for some reason.

And the banks that ripped people off so badly??? They don't "make" anything at all. Their SOLE purpose was supposed to be for the safekeeping of people's investments, not the trashing thereof.

Without good decisions about marketing, pricing, buying, and building being made at the top, those workers wouldn't have jobs for very long.

Only in a modern marketplace. "Marketing" used to be hanging a shingle outside your house. "Pricing" used to be "how much can I sell this for to cover costs?" The modern way of doing business is heavy w/ psychological tampering.

So are the workers important? Yes, but only in an abstract sort of way. You need workers to carry out the plan, but they can easily be replaced.

slippery slope, that. if you hire good workers, treat them like crap, and they leave, how do you guarantee you can replace them with good workers? More likely, you end up replacing good workers with mediocre workers, and eventually w/ crappy workers.

Is the plan important? Absolutely. Who develops the plan? The CEO/President/Owner. Is he important? Absolutely. The company won't exist without his guidance.

No, the CEO doesn't "develop" the plan. That's what his staff is for - he basically is for brainstorming new ideas, and telling other people what to do. He may guide the ship, and is important in that way - but a GOOD CEO recognizes that he has a symbiotic relationship w/ his workers, and treats them thusly.

When you can get that same guidance from the guy that cleans the restrooms, then you can start crowing about how important the workers are to a company's overall success
let me ask you a simply question: do YOU want to work at a company where the toilets are filthy and stinky?

Don't underestimate the high value of the smallest cog; yes, a broken cog can get replaced, and usually is - but the CEO who makes the mistake of not recognizing everyone's value will not see his/her company thrive past his/her lifetime - if even that. (I work at a store that is now in "second generation" leadership - the sons inherited it from the father. Going downhill fast. I have seen it many, MANY times.)

I'd rather raise the minimum wage; I suspect much apathy and unemployment arises from the undoubted futility and frustration of working however many hours a day and being in no significantly better financial situation than on umemployment benefit.
Not a bad call.
If accompanied by attenuation of welfare provision, and thus tax relief for business, I don't envisage any great impact on business either.
I dunno, welfare is, in many cases, pretty necessary. Can't blame people when there's no jobs in their town for whatever reason, let's be honest.

I dunno, welfare is, in many cases, pretty necessary. Can't blame people when there's no jobs in their town for whatever reason, let's be honest.

In that case, I really would expect the unemployed to move, or simply relocate them if they're living in such council housingt as exists.

Label me callous if you will, but I'd rather be severe than lax with welfare.

that's called an agrarian society!!!

Before there were china plates, and Louis Vitton handbags, people raised their own food, made their own clothes from the plants and animals they raised, and built their own stuff as needed. The stuff they needed to buy was a necessity for life, for the average person (like a spinning wheel, or a knife).

Now, a LOT of these companies (McDonald's, Yves St. Lauren, Victoria's Secret) make products that people do not need, but that they want for some reason.

And the banks that ripped people off so badly??? They don't "make" anything at all. Their SOLE purpose was supposed to be for the safekeeping of people's investments, not the trashing thereof.



Only in a modern marketplace. "Marketing" used to be hanging a shingle outside your house. "Pricing" used to be "how much can I sell this for to cover costs?" The modern way of doing business is heavy w/ psychological tampering.



slippery slope, that. if you hire good workers, treat them like crap, and they leave, how do you guarantee you can replace them with good workers? More likely, you end up replacing good workers with mediocre workers, and eventually w/ crappy workers.

No, the CEO doesn't "develop" the plan. That's what his staff is for - he basically is for brainstorming new ideas, and telling other people what to do. He may guide the ship, and is important in that way - but a GOOD CEO recognizes that he has a symbiotic relationship w/ his workers, and treats them thusly.


let me ask you a simply question: do YOU want to work at a company where the toilets are filthy and stinky?

Don't underestimate the high value of the smallest cog; yes, a broken cog can get replaced, and usually is - but the CEO who makes the mistake of not recognizing everyone's value will not see his/her company thrive past his/her lifetime - if even that. (I work at a store that is now in "second generation" leadership - the sons inherited it from the father. Going downhill fast. I have seen it many, MANY times.)
You win. I can't even figure out how many misunderstandings there are in this post, let alone find time to answer them...

We'll start in the middle, though. The CEO/President/Owner has the vision. If he doesn't then the product will fail. When I say workers, I mean everyone but the CEO/President/Owner. The workers don't have the vision. They just carry out tasks, in varying degrees of complexity, to implement the vision. If you want to squawk because I said 'plan' and now I'm saying 'vision', suck it up. I'm trying to make it clear what makes a company run.

Everyone else can be replaced. Sometimes it's harder, but as you find the workers that do the more menial tasks, it becomes easier. I don't know why you are keying on treating workers poorly. Most companies treat their workers pretty well. They pay them for hours worked. Some even have additional benefits. What more could you ask for? Pay for work -- what a great thing!

You need a little more experience before we can talk about pricing and marketing, but we'll stick that in the vision category for now.

And since you want to throw in a personal anecdote, that's really meaningless, I'll fire back with one. I owned a company. I do know what the smallest cog is and how they affect the business. We never had dirty bathrooms, offices, conference rooms, or break rooms. I refuse to have people work in an unpleasant environment. On the other hand, I never discouraged anyone from finding more fitting employment elsewhere, if they were not in tune with my vision.

So, it's not that the CEO/President/Owner recognizes everyone's value, it's that he recognizes how well they can do the job that he needs to have done. How well they can implement his vision is what's important. You can't just give a job to someone that wants to work. You have to be sure that they can do the work.

In that case, I really would expect the unemployed to move, or simply relocate them if they're living in such council housingt as exists.

Label me callous if you will, but I'd rather be severe than lax with welfare.

I'd be "rather severe" too - especially given this option, which I personally think is WAY better than regular welfare:

Move 'em out! Heading for the hills - and free land! (http://www.thehappyrock.com/2007/10/10/40-acres-and-a-mule-free-land-still-available-in-the-united-states/)

Getting a job requires a lot more than good grades.

I'm well aware of that. It's DK who's arguing that people are unemployed because they were lazy slackers who goofed off in high school, which is utter crap.

In that case, I really would expect the unemployed to move, or simply relocate them if they're living in such council housingt as exists.

Label me callous if you will, but I'd rather be severe than lax with welfare.
Cross-county council housing would be a ballache. Let's just be honest here. Nobody wants to give it to anyone, let alone people who're already in it.
I'd be "rather severe" too - especially given this option, which I personally think is WAY better than regular welfare:

Move 'em out! Heading for the hills - and free land! (http://www.thehappyrock.com/2007/10/10/40-acres-and-a-mule-free-land-still-available-in-the-united-states/)
Uhu... "live like a total pleb in the middle of nowhere! It's the American way!"

You win. I can't even figure out how many misunderstandings there are in this post, let alone find time to answer them...

We'll start in the middle, though. The CEO/President/Owner has the vision. If he doesn't then the product will fail. When I say workers, I mean everyone but the CEO/President/Owner. The workers don't have the vision. They just carry out tasks, in varying degrees of complexity, to implement the vision. If you want to squawk because I said 'plan' and now I'm saying 'vision', suck it up. I'm trying to make it clear what makes a company run.

Everyone else can be replaced. Sometimes it's harder, but as you find the workers that do the more menial tasks, it becomes easier. I don't know why you are keying on treating workers poorly. Most companies treat their workers pretty well. They pay them for hours worked. Some even have additional benefits. What more could you ask for? Pay for work -- what a great thing!

You need a little more experience before we can talk about pricing and marketing, but we'll stick that in the vision category for now.

And since you want to throw in a personal anecdote, that's really meaningless, I'll fire back with one. I owned a company. I do know what the smallest cog is and how they affect the business. We never had dirty bathrooms, offices, conference rooms, or break rooms. I refuse to have people work in an unpleasant environment. On the other hand, I never discouraged anyone from finding more fitting employment elsewhere, if they were not in tune with my vision.

So, it's not that the CEO/President/Owner recognizes everyone's value, it's that he recognizes how well they can do the job that he needs to have done. How well they can implement his vision is what's important. You can't just give a job to someone that wants to work. You have to be sure that they can do the work.

There is no misunderstanding in my post: just in your way of thinking.

Because, by the anecdotal evidence you supplied from your own life, you support my bottom line: CEO's and workers need to recognize their symbiotic relationship. And if they don't, it is to their mutual harm.

The kind of boss you say you were is the kind of boss a CEO should be - but likewise, based on what you said, I highly doubt you were abusive, that you cheated your employees, or demanded an unrealistic level of work from them. Likewise, however, I am sure that you did REQUIRE work from them in keeping w/ their pay and job descriptions. Otherwise, why pay them?

and btw - I am married to a marketer. I know ALL about marketing, and it's challenges. Marketing can be good - and it is essential in a modern business. But let's not fool ourselves - the GREATER number of businesses don't have "marketing departments," and rely on old fashioned good service and local & "word of mouth" advertising to keep in business.

CEO's are important: but, dude (or dudette) - if you didn't have any workers, where would your business have gone?

It's GOT to be a symbiotic relationship. As soon as the suits fail to acknowledge that, the company starts to go downhill. I have seen it w/ my own eyes MANY MANY times.

Cross-county council housing would be a ballache. Let's just be honest here. Nobody wants to give it to anyone, let alone people who're already in it.

Uhu... "live like a total pleb in the middle of nowhere! It's the American way!"

Actually - it is!!!!!!!!! ;)

Seriously, though: you'd find out what was really going through people's minds: given the chance to live independently and create their own environment, vs. living in a crappy place on welfare, which would they choose (given that they could have help building their house and developing the land).

Actually - it is!!!!!!!!! ;)

Seriously, though: you'd find out what was really going through people's minds: given the chance to live independently and create their own environment, vs. living in a crappy place on welfare, which would they choose (given that they could have help building their house and developing the land).
Farmers don't create their own environment. They're victims of it.

Farmers don't create their own environment. They're victims of it.

sometimes. I lived in farm country growing up. Some of them did VERY well for themselves. Yeah, some don't - but some do.

sometimes. I lived in farm country growing up. Some of them did VERY well for themselves. Yeah, some don't - but some do.
Yeah, once again, though, farmers do not create their own environment, they try to do their best in it.

Apparently, California is about to be forced to release 58,000 felons from prison.

Add to that the fact that California is about to run out of money for welfare payments, and you have the "broken contract" in spades.

Probably millions of welfare recipients, and a pile of felons on top of that.

Good times...

Isn't the basic American Dream all about the dissolution of the Social Contract? I mean, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is rooted in the idea of breaking free from obligation to the state and pursuing your own interests regardless of the instructions from above.

Not that I agree with it, but it seems core to what America was founded for.

Just to be clear, in general the idea of a "social contract" is attributed to the political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau while "life, liberty and [property, Jefferson fudged it a little]" is an idea of John Locke's.

These two political philosophers are essentially incompatible, so to blend their ideas is a little wrong.

You win. I can't even figure out how many misunderstandings there are in this post...

It's simple. Your basic premise is wrong.

You are under the misapprehension that the CEO/owner, etc must have some different vision of the work/product/world that makes him/her special.

This is, of course, bullshit - which is why companies often change ownership/CEOs etc.

What is different about the owner of the company, is usually simply a matter of capital. What is different about the CEO, is usually a matetr of opportunity.

Simple test - how many of today's CEOs/owners started off working under someone else? You create a false dichotomy because you want to believe that the 'worker' and the 'management' are different. And the 'management' often want you to believe that too. More fool you for buying it.