|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 20:51:15 GMT -5
Well, Yahweh does tend to be in contact with reality, so it bothers me that she would hold to this idea as well.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Apr 27, 2009 21:55:58 GMT -5
You must have ignored the information where the CRA is NOT to blame. That comes later on in this thread. It's pretty well documented, actually, that CRA had next to nothing to do with the banking crisis. I was trying to distill a very complex issue down to a bitesize chunk, I apologize if I took some facts out of context. I've removed the offending link to the CRA wiki page. With that being said, we have to face reality: some people are simply failures; no amount of government assistance, affirmative action, welfare, or pity is going to change that. You realize you just called me, and everyone else on Disability, "failures"... Thanks a lot, man, you're just *so* fucking compassionate. Please don't put words in my mouth that I don't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 28, 2009 0:13:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but your info about the housing market is only partly correct. ...If the CRA was the cause, then much of the loans that were in default would have originated from the 1990s -- or at least as far back as the 1970s. But they don't. They come from the 2005-2007 era. If the CRA was the problem, it would've happened a long time ago..... Not only that but the Banks that participated in the CRA were the least likely to be making the bad loans. www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135259+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107Plus I am not sure I understand Yahweh's reasoning. Why would people who had no interest in bettering their lot take out loans to better their lot?
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 28, 2009 0:39:11 GMT -5
You must have ignored the information where the CRA is NOT to blame. That comes later on in this thread. It's pretty well documented, actually, that CRA had next to nothing to do with the banking crisis. I was trying to distill a very complex issue down to a bitesize chunk, I apologize if I took some facts out of context. I've removed the offending link to the CRA wiki page. You realize you just called me, and everyone else on Disability, "failures"... Thanks a lot, man, you're just *so* fucking compassionate. Please don't put words in my mouth that I don't agree with. I'm not -- YOU FUCKING SAID THAT EVERYONE ON FUCKING "WELFARE" (WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE ON DISABILITY) ARE FAILURES. I quote you: "Your place in society is determined by *exactly* how much hard work you put in."
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Apr 28, 2009 2:10:58 GMT -5
I'm willing to go with "Poor word choice" on Yahweh's part, unless she corrects me herself. She probably didn't intend to include people on disability in that. Word choice could have been better, of course.
That being said, I'm a damn hard worker, but there are certain things I simply will not do. Not out of not wanting to do them, or out of it being too much effort. But because I value being mentally stable. I know my limits and what I can and can't do. I can work 40 hours a week. Easily. Hell, I can pull overtime regularly and not care. What I despise doing, and avoid as much as I can, is shifts that will fuck with my sleep schedule. I cannot bounce around between different sleep/wake periods. The "normal" shifts are bad enough as is, since they do to me what graveyards do to most people. But when I've got to bounce between mornings and nights, it ends up with me being sleep deprived because of my... interesting circadian rhythm. Being bipolar, that's a bad thing. I don't like being manic, and functioning at all is rather difficult when manic.
There's also a certain stress level I pass stuff up at. Again, I'm happy to be stable. And as much good as kicking up my med dose could help alleviate that, I don't want to dump any more into me than needed.
"Your place in society is determined by *exactly* how much hard work you put in" is an oversimplification. Hard work is certainly vital if you want to succeed, long-term. But there are cases where you're pretty much fucked period. You can move up some, but you're not realistically gonna go from poverty-line family to not worrying about paying all your bills on time every month, barring something major happening. And this is counting being smart about debt.
You lucked out, Yahweh, in that you've got a gift for programming and you also love doing it. That one of the things you excel at is also a rather profitable profession is good luck on your part. I love to do stuff with acting. I know for a fact that the odds of me ever being able to make a living off it are infinitesimally small. It's one of those lines of work that requires the right connections and, often, being in a place you can afford to live from paycheck to paycheck.
That doesn't negate any of the hard work you did to become as good as you are, or get the degrees and certifications you need to get a programming job. Again with the acting example, someone could put in the same amount of effort and yield no return. Because you need to meet the right people and impress them to land anything lucrative. And there's a lot more competition, too.
The best goal of welfare of any variety is to ensure that someone can make it through bad periods, or, in the case of long term disabilities, supplement their income so that they can make as much as a healthy individual, provided they work just as hard.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Apr 28, 2009 5:13:55 GMT -5
Ultimately, poverty is essential to a capitalist system, as is endemic un/under-employment, which drives down real wages. In my forty-odd year working career, my real spending power derived from wages has slipped considerably. If I had to raise my family today with what I earn, none of my children would have attended university. My home would be out of reach, financially.
Our current system requires a certain level of unemployment to "thrive". This is evident in the shifting of jobs to third world countries, at the expense of western workers. The entire "global market" philosophy is to employ workers at the lowest possible wage, which concentrates wealth in the hands of the few while the rest are left with less, since there are many, many more people competing for a piece of a much smaller pie.
The industrialists have not yet learned that by wage-cutting their primary market for goods and services, they are actually reducing their own growth potential in the marketplace, since the people employed in producing products are unable to afford to purchase the products they construct. In the long term, businesses must adress this, or fail. Part of our economic self-destruction is a result of this philosophy, since a thriving working class is the actual engine of growth, not top-heavy (monetarily speaking) corporations.
The more wealth that is concentrated into the hands of the few, the worse off we all are, becoming mere vassels in supporting the few in extravagance. Eventually, though, the shrinking market for products due to the shrinking wages of workers will cause economic meltdown, sort of like where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2009 5:42:03 GMT -5
I hate the phrase "redistribution of wealth." No kidding... Every single financial transaction between two separate parties is a redistribution of wealth. Getting rich in the first place is having some wealth redistributed your way - wealth being distributed the other way as part of fulfilling your social contract and obligations as a citizen - oh the horror!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2009 5:44:12 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? boobs?
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2009 5:44:58 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. All of this!
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 28, 2009 6:56:13 GMT -5
I'm sorry, that's just not true. Women in higher ed do get a raw deal. My B-Law teacher brought something about this up when we were going over the chapter on employment discrimination. At a college he was previously with, a female law professor raised a massive fuss on the basis that she was seemingly denied a promotion on the basis of her gender. This included getting student rallies together all for the sake of getting her promoted. Everything came to a crashing halt when another female law professor fired off a response message. It turns out that the reason why the professor in question never got promoted was because no one in the department liked her, in large part owing to her habit of over-reacting to things. Not only did this immediately halt the rallies, he implied that it may have ended her career.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 28, 2009 7:00:12 GMT -5
I'm sorry, that's just not true. Women in higher ed do get a raw deal. My B-Law teacher brought something about this up when we were going over the chapter on employment discrimination. At a college he was previously with, a female law professor raised a massive fuss on the basis that she was seemingly denied a promotion on the basis of her gender. This included getting student rallies together all for the sake of getting her promoted. Everything came to a crashing halt when another female law professor fired off a response message. It turns out that the reason why the professor in question never got promoted was because no one in the department liked her, in large part owing to her habit of over-reacting to things. Not only did this immediately halt the rallies, he implied that it may have ended her career. So one female prefessor over reacted and that means some other female professors have not gotten passed over because they are women?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 28, 2009 7:07:51 GMT -5
Our current system requires a certain level of unemployment to "thrive" This is true, but not for the reason you think. Even in a strong economy, we're still looking at no less than 3% to 4% unemployment. That slim unemployment percentage reflects not only people who cannot or will not be employed, but people who are fit to be employed yet are having to switch gears for some reason. It's that latter category - competent & willing workers switching gears - that represents a good chunk of the potential employment pool. It's also where a lot of our entrepreneurs come from, as unemployment tends to be mentally liberating in the sense that it pushes people to do things like start their own business. Get rid of this category somehow, and the nation is boned since we'll have a shortage of potential new hires or new business owners.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 28, 2009 7:55:51 GMT -5
Skyfire, you can take your "b-law" professor's anecdotal story, or you can actually go read the massive amounts of evidence that indicate it doesn't work that way. I know which one you'll pick, but at least realize you're chucking reality in favor of a personal story.
If it's personal stories you want, they're all over the place, from graduate school to the tenure track.
Let me tell you a few things about your b-law prof's little story -- and as a prof myself, I assume you will credit my information as being equally valid. First, it's common practice that students "rally" to get you promoted. We put letters and emails from students in our evaluation files all the time. In fact, when you're up for tenure, which it sounds as though this woman is, that's usually the only way you're "promoted" in academia, the committee may request letters of recommendation from your students. Because they actually want to know why and if they like you. Imagine that. Second, and most importantly, no one gets denied a promotion or tenure because you're hard to get along with. If that's the reason, you could sue the hell out of them. Academic promotion is very cut and dry: there is a set of publishing requirements, teaching requirements and committee/service requirements. If you meet those criteria, and you haven't done something incredibly stupid like sleep with a student, you get tenure/promotion. It's as simple as that. Getting along with somebody is not required. At all. And if that's the story your prof is sticking to, the woman had every right to sue.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 28, 2009 10:56:20 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. You are one twisted, bigoted motherfucker.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 28, 2009 11:04:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry, that's just not true. Women in higher ed do get a raw deal. My B-Law teacher brought something about this up when we were going over the chapter on employment discrimination. At a college he was previously with, a female law professor raised a massive fuss on the basis that she was seemingly denied a promotion on the basis of her gender. This included getting student rallies together all for the sake of getting her promoted. Everything came to a crashing halt when another female law professor fired off a response message. It turns out that the reason why the professor in question never got promoted was because no one in the department liked her, in large part owing to her habit of over-reacting to things. Not only did this immediately halt the rallies, he implied that it may have ended her career. Remember this the next time you get butthurt when someone suggests Mormons are polygamists who believe ridiculous things like eternal celestial skygodsex. This is not intended to attack your religion, but rather to demonstrate that it's not fun when you're the recipient of rule by stereotype or rule by minority. ETA: Or, in light of DV's argument, rule by Bullshit, as this case seems to be.
|
|