|
Post by malicious_bloke on Apr 27, 2009 11:20:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 27, 2009 11:32:38 GMT -5
Yeah but that's easier said than done. Maybe he can't get a better job. That's the attitude I hate right there--"well, just go get a better job!" As if there's so many jobs out there right now. I basically have three jobs, but I'm not making any money hardly because they all pay shit. If I'd chosen to go to school for something more lucrative I'm sure I'd be less poor too, but I just wasn't interested in IT/computers, medicine or law or any of that stuff. And even if I was I wouldn't be able to afford the education. I'd rather be just poor and have no debt than be poor AND have a shit ton of debt in student loans. That made more sense in my head than it did when I wrote it. -_- Please don't misunderstand me, I'm in know way tring to say that it is easy.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 27, 2009 11:34:20 GMT -5
I agree the when someone is right on one of those cutoff points it can be hard. The system needs more steps to help avoid situations like this. Of course this setup would not preventing this man from taking a 40 hours a week job that pays more. He still can make more money then he does right know with a better job. You missed the important part of Sky's story, and for once he was actually onto something. Let's ignore the fact the only job Sky can hold down is a crapassed paper route, and concentrate on his colleague - the one with the DISABILITY pension... He can't do 40 hrs. It's probably mental rather than physical, but he can't do 40 hrs. (Edit to add: and a mental disability can be FAR more debilitating than a physical one) Of course the actual specifics of Sky's story fall immensely flat, with the cut-offs, his dependant mother etc... (ooops forgot to post the link...) www.ssa.gov/pubs/10095.html#part2So Sky-baby, are YOU actually saying welfare is TOO LITTLE, and doesn't catch enough people? ?
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Apr 27, 2009 12:01:45 GMT -5
…just to contrast myself against other people I've met. When I worked at a grocery store, I met some of the worst people on the planet. This includes rednecks, drug addicts, drunks, relentless assholes, and people who spend their entire lives in and out of jail -- these were the people I worked with, not the people who wandered into the store. So you had a job where other people, some of whom had habits you disagreed with, also happened to work. And they were the worstest people on Earth – badder even than death squad members, apparently – because some of them were rednecks, drunks, and drug addicts. (But you’re not a redneck; you’re merely a fiscal conservative with “no pity for poor people.”) Your tendency to paint with a really, really broad brush has caused me to question the accuracy of your assessment here. No.Again, no.First of all, lower middle class isn’t “poor.” Secondly, yeah, sure, that explains why woman in the same jobs as men tend to earn 78 cents on the dollar – because they only work 78% as hard. And as for people with disabilities – the dollar an hour some of them make in government-sponsored sheltered work-shops, which supplements their tiny social assistance payment, is totally what they’ve earned. I totally agree. And we should grind them up for food, instead. If you contribute to society, you may eat of the Soylent Green. If not, you become it.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 27, 2009 12:25:27 GMT -5
And even then, the answer should never be "fuck'em" Well, I agree with you completely. But I also understand that's where other people's moral philosophy on how to handle things might stop. Unfortunately that's all too true
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 27, 2009 13:48:26 GMT -5
I hate the phrase "redistribution of wealth."
Mostly because it's that more than anything else which put us in this hole. We redistributed the wealth to the top 5%, and we significantly lowered he buying power of the average American, let alone the poor. That money which could go to education, repairing our highways, and rebuilding the levies, let alone helping the poor, instead went into the coffers of large industries and the wealthy private citizenship.
And I'm sorry, but I hope I never become so jaded as to rule on a group of people simply based on their dregs. Had someone said something about their experience with black people, they would have been ripped a new one. The logic also sounds dangerously like the republican justification for torture, which is again to rule for the overwhelming body on the perception of a minority issue (in their case, the contrived ticking time bomb).
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 27, 2009 13:53:27 GMT -5
Oh, and one more thing. For all this talk about how we all have the same ability to move upward and make something of ourselves, the US has the lowest upward mobility in the industrial world (I'll go post a source if anyone needs it). Those socialist countries that take care of their poor with programs that are being talked about as enabling have higher social mobility and fewer poor people, even though their standards are much stricter about what counts as "poor" and "impoverished."
And that's not counting the race and gender gap. If people are truly paid what they're worth and have the same chances, then women either only want about 3/4 what a man wants or are only worth 3/4 what a man is. It sounds racist when you put it that way, but that's what the arguments of getting paid what you're worth or being able to rise as readily as our ambitions.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 27, 2009 14:58:08 GMT -5
Oh, and one more thing. For all this talk about how we all have the same ability to move upward and make something of ourselves, the US has the lowest upward mobility in the industrial world (I'll go post a source if anyone needs it). Those socialist countries that take care of their poor with programs that are being talked about as enabling have higher social mobility and fewer poor people, even though their standards are much stricter about what counts as "poor" and "impoverished." And that's not counting the race and gender gap. If people are truly paid what they're worth and have the same chances, then women either only want about 3/4 what a man wants or are only worth 3/4 what a man is. It sounds racist when you put it that way, but that's what the arguments of getting paid what you're worth or being able to rise as readily as our ambitions. I think that's about it, if there was something that gave motivation and helped the poorer class, they'd advance. But when you get hit down and are constantly pounded on emotionally and financially, you really don't have any motivation to go up, just to survive is hard enough of a struggle.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 27, 2009 16:14:54 GMT -5
...and that risk could have been avoided by doing the proper checks and giving people loans they could afford. The banks that did these things are the ones that are still ok. When you have people doing sit-in protests inside your branches, standing outside the homes of your employees and shouting, and generally doing what they can to make your life hell because they think you're being racist, things like "credit checks" tend to fall by the wayside. I can't quite go into details, but between his disability and the fact that it was diagnosed so late in his life (it's mental in nature) means that throwing papers is about all he can do at present; getting a better job isn't an option, both because of the nature of his disability and the fact that the late designation ruined his educational opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 27, 2009 16:23:37 GMT -5
Someone likes his Blackadder. As he should, as he should. It's a great show.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 27, 2009 16:26:23 GMT -5
Welfare DOES come with mandatory job training. Some states have it set up differently, but PA, for example, does an excellent job of helping people transition from welfare to work. It's just easier to take pot shots at the poor instead of looking to see what really causes poverty. Depends where you are. I saw a man arrested for harassing a welfare worker because he had a letter from an employer who said he would hire the guy if he had work boots and gloves. All he wanted from welfare was a voucher for workboots and gloves . As he was being dragged out by security/police, he was screaming at the worker, "So you'll pay me to stay on welfare, but you wont give me a pair of boots?" I felt so sorry for that guy. As for Yahweh: So you're an incredibly strong person, stronger mentally/emotionally than others. You got out. Congratulations. I don't follow the belief that because I'm strong enough to do something, everyone else should be. Who knows what emotional/mental problems are crippling these people. I agree that they need hands up, not hands out. But cutting them off of welfare, tearing down low end housing, and acts like this are not helping people. As far as the loans go, the companies handed out the loans. So it's partly the fault of the person that got the loan for over extending themselves, partly the company who gave the high risk loan (although high risk loans usually come with exorbitant rates) and partly the fault of the companies that were buying these high risk loans and passing them off as safe investments.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 27, 2009 16:31:43 GMT -5
Secondly, yeah, sure, that explains why woman in the same jobs as men tend to earn 78 cents on the dollar – because they only work 78% as hard. This right here caught my attention. Contrary to the common belief, this issue is actually one of much controversy within the world of business. Whenever people go to look at the purported wage gap, all they ever look at is the raw $$$ numbers; rarely does anyone ever actually sit down and go above that. The truth of the matter is that men and women tend to take different approaches to how they go about things. Men are more likely to be aggressive in the early years of their career. This includes working longer hours in a week, working more overtime, and being more forceful in regards to both when they get raises and what amount they get. The result is that men tend to go up the corporate ladder faster and with more cash in hand. OTOH, there's a tendency for women to prefer work-life balance through such rewards as flexible scheduling, and the tendency also extends to workplace harmony. The end result is that women aren't as likely to work overtime (especially if they have families) and are less forceful about promotions. Sounds like women are destined to get passed over, right? Wrong. Early aggression in one's career can lead to a number of health issues later in life, ranging from stress ulcers to extreme neuroticism. In fact, the whole "Type A" vs. "Type B" psychological identifier came when a pair of psychologists noted that your aggressive businessmen tended to have a similar set of physical and mental disorders.*So while women might not get paid as much or might not get as high on the corporate ladder, they often manage to avoid the health issues that men get later in life. *Interestingly enough, it was their secretary who first noticed it. Whenever these men would be in the waiting room, they'd spend so much time sitting on the edge of the seat and gripping the armrests on their chairs that they'd wear the fabric down, causing the chairs to be sent for reupholstering at an alarming rate. The secretary noted how much money the practice was spending on the chairs and brought it to the attention of the two psychologists. When she told them where the chairs were wearing out at (instead of simply wearing all over), the pair made an effort to monitor how these people behaved in the waiting room.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 27, 2009 16:33:01 GMT -5
...and that risk could have been avoided by doing the proper checks and giving people loans they could afford. The banks that did these things are the ones that are still ok. When you have people doing sit-in protests inside your branches, standing outside the homes of your employees and shouting, and generally doing what they can to make your life hell because they think you're being racist, things like "credit checks" tend to fall by the wayside. Citation of banks falling under this plz. and no, one instance does not qualify as tens of thousands of times over
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 27, 2009 16:47:48 GMT -5
Secondly, yeah, sure, that explains why woman in the same jobs as men tend to earn 78 cents on the dollar – because they only work 78% as hard. This right here caught my attention. Contrary to the common belief, this issue is actually one of much controversy within the world of business. Whenever people go to look at the purported wage gap, all they ever look at is the raw $$$ numbers; rarely does anyone ever actually sit down and go above that. The truth of the matter is that men and women tend to take different approaches to how they go about things. Men are more likely to be aggressive in the early years of their career. This includes working longer hours in a week, working more overtime, and being more forceful in regards to both when they get raises and what amount they get. The result is that men tend to go up the corporate ladder faster and with more cash in hand. OTOH, there's a tendency for women to prefer work-life balance through such rewards as flexible scheduling, and the tendency also extends to workplace harmony. The end result is that women aren't as likely to work overtime (especially if they have families) and are less forceful about promotions. Sounds like women are destined to get passed over, right? Wrong. Early aggression in one's career can lead to a number of health issues later in life, ranging from stress ulcers to extreme neuroticism. In fact, the whole "Type A" vs. "Type B" psychological identifier came when a pair of psychologists noted that your aggressive businessmen tended to have a similar set of physical and mental disorders.*So while women might not get paid as much or might not get as high on the corporate ladder, they often manage to avoid the health issues that men get later in life. *Interestingly enough, it was their secretary who first noticed it. Whenever these men would be in the waiting room, they'd spend so much time sitting on the edge of the seat and gripping the armrests on their chairs that they'd wear the fabric down, causing the chairs to be sent for reupholstering at an alarming rate. The secretary noted how much money the practice was spending on the chairs and brought it to the attention of the two psychologists. When she told them where the chairs were wearing out at (instead of simply wearing all over), the pair made an effort to monitor how these people behaved in the waiting room. Wow. No words. And before you come back and go "IKNORITE?" I'm not talking about the story itself. Ugh. So, your whole argument is... women get paid less because they're not as stressed out as men? But it's cool, it's cool - cause hey, they have fewer health problems, probably for the best, too - considering they're, you know, the weaker sex.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 17:09:59 GMT -5
Women don't always prefer a "work/life" balance, Skyfire. Our culture makes it largely unacceptable for women to NOT "prefer" to take care of their family in favor of an "aggressive" career. The sheer number of businesses with inadequate maternity and family leave alone proves that point. That flex scheduling you're pointing out took decades of feminist protesting to achieve. And even then, many places rarely offer flextime, so don't act like it's such a given. Men are given a pass when it comes to choosing career over family. Women are not. Some mild reading on the matter would clear that right up for you.
The "raw data", by the way, is based on women and men doing the exact same job with the exact same qualifications. Not comparing apples to oranges. If they're doing the same work with the same skills, why are they still being paid less?
|
|