|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 09 2013 18:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 16:12 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 07:41 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
ah but there's the rub
let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better
the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy. An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job. Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. If you are an aging senior without any sort of retirement plan, then whose problem is it really? Funny that most senior people I know have two or three retirement checks coming monthly, and some even have 401K on top of it. You reap what you sow. Also, it shouldn't take two years for a recent college grad to land a position where he can gain experience. After all, everyone had to start from somewhere. You have a college degree but can't find a job for two years? Give me a break. It's funny that most seniors I know are dead. It's funny that most college grads I know graduated near the top of their class with engineering degrees and had no problems finding jobs. It's funny that most the people I know have never known hunger. It's funny how anecdotal evidence is just short hand for "I think everybody is lying and my uneducated opinion is the TRUTH!" The job market is hard right now for long term unemployed and new entries to the work force. That's shown in statistics, as is with the state of 401k's in the nation. If you would like to counter those statistics with your own, by all means, find us the data.
You really need to get out and see how folks in some of the developing countries have to do to get by on daily basis. Can't find a job because the job market is hard? Give me a freaking break.
I just had a friend who got laid off - was given three months of notice, who couldn't find a suitable replacement job because the entire time he did not invest in himself. But even someone like him can find a job, although it may not be what he wants, but it's a job. He was actually offered a job of his profession in other locations, but Instead he's decided to stay put and just live off the unemployment for next two years while trying to better his resume. Can't blame him - why move to the other side of country with a pay cut when he can stay and collect unemployment?
Somewhere along the way the Americans became so spoiled that they must have a house, a car, fridge full of food, can't work weekends or more than 40 hours a week. Completely ridiculous. I've seen a 70 year of grandpa work two jobs so that he can buy enough food for the night's dinner while living in one room basement, after his entire saving was thrown out for a cancer treatment (what a great socialized healthcare system this S.Korea has, huh). I've seen a 14 year old kid who work three part time jobs so she can provide food to her younger brothers and keep them in school. Those are the ones who need the help, not some recent college grad with no social skills or aging grandpa who's life was all about spending the paycheck as they come.
But sure, keep on extending the unemployment benefits because, you know, after all the job market is hard and lots of people "can't find a job". If all fails, we can always tax the hell out of the rich folks, right?
|
United States43989 Posts
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way.
|
On December 08 2013 13:59 zlefin wrote:
there's plenty of easy ways to cook that don't take much time at all. There's also good ways to make bulk food that you can then store up precooked and microwave later.
It really does seem like a good thing they should teach in school.
I think I'm gonna email my local high school and ask if they have something like that, because it's a good idea.
When I went to high school in Holland this was actually part of the curriculum. At the time I thought it was a complete nonsense (but cooking was still more fun than studying French, so who cares, right), but looking back it was probably a good idea. My parents taught me to cook (and what to cook), but if my parents hadn't, the class would still have taught me the basics.
|
On December 09 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote:
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way.
To be fair, the resulting tenacity that comes from such desperation is a big part of the reason that Koreans dominate StarCraft. It's not that different from hearing stories of everyone from boxers to Barack Obama about the desperation of their youths and how it gave them the strength of character to push through any adversity.
|
On December 09 2013 16:12 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:On December 09 2013 07:41 KwarK wrote:On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch.
ah but there's the rub let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy. An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job. Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. If you are an aging senior without any sort of retirement plan, then whose problem is it really? Funny that most senior people I know have two or three retirement checks coming monthly, and some even have 401K on top of it. You reap what you sow.
Americans' savings habits (or more accurately, lack thereof) is a whole different problem apart from these employment issues that we have been discussing.
|
Norway28797 Posts
On December 09 2013 22:06 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote:
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way. To be fair, the resulting tenacity that comes from such desperation is a big part of the reason that Koreans dominate StarCraft. It's not that different from hearing stories of everyone from boxers to Barack Obama about the desperation of their youths and how it gave them the strength of character to push through any adversity.
Are you arguing that we should make current society worse to make future people better?
|
On December 09 2013 23:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 22:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 09 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote:
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way. To be fair, the resulting tenacity that comes from such desperation is a big part of the reason that Koreans dominate StarCraft. It's not that different from hearing stories of everyone from boxers to Barack Obama about the desperation of their youths and how it gave them the strength of character to push through any adversity. Are you arguing that we should make current society worse to make future people better?
He is arguing something stupid. I've had the same argument back when I was a student with a guy who was in one of the most elitist french school. He was the son of a rich dude, and he argued that middle class and lower class people had more success in elitists schools because they had the "rage" to succeed.
His argumentation still had some difficulty to explain why there are less than 5% children of the lower class in such school, and approximatly 75% of upper class kids.
This myth that difficulty actually help people is so retarded. For most kids, difficulties are nothing more than difficulties.
I have a young girl (16) in my class who didn't do anything since the beginning of the year. She almost didn't came to any of my class and showed up once in a while to laugh with her friends. Just last week I learned that she was in fact a brilliant girl who was accepted to a special program for young kids but her mother refused to let her enter this program because she needed her to take care of the kids : the dad is absent, the mother work her ass off just to get enough money to feed her kids.
What should I do ? Should I tell that girl to use her desperation and work more, use the rage in her and stop whining ? Plus she is black, she could be Obama or Tyson if she channeled her desperation enough.
Retarded.
It's true that the few that actually succeed despite social difficulties are usually better than average, in sociology we call that "sur-selection".
|
So, we have to guess which school it is now ? I hope it is mine :p
It's pretty incredible to see how my friends, sons of teachers and engineers are complaining that we attack our prépa system, because it is apparently good for lower-class people, which they sometimes find by twisting figures real hard or by splendid anecdotal evidence. Reality denial at its best.
Still, I need to create that French Politics Megathread.
|
On December 10 2013 00:02 corumjhaelen wrote:
So, we have to guess which school it is now ? I hope it is mine :p
It's pretty incredible to see how my friends, sons of teachers and engineers are complaining that we attack our prépa system, because it is apparently good for lower-class people, which they sometimes find by twisting figures real hard or by splendid anecdotal evidence. Reality denial at its best.
Still, I need to create that French Politics Megathread.
Prepa needs to be completly absorbed by universities. You hear it from a teacher in SES. But it will never be done because the teacher in prepa are corporate and have too much power in institutions.
French politics megathread is useless, we're too few on TL ;D
|
I do think it's more a symptom than a problem but I have absolutely no problem with the idea. Take it from a Polytechnicien 
|
On December 09 2013 23:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 22:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 09 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote:
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way. To be fair, the resulting tenacity that comes from such desperation is a big part of the reason that Koreans dominate StarCraft. It's not that different from hearing stories of everyone from boxers to Barack Obama about the desperation of their youths and how it gave them the strength of character to push through any adversity. Are you arguing that we should make current society worse to make future people better?
No but tough times aren't a new phenomenon and all the people in developed countries have to go through it. Better to suffer by choice than by necessity, but anything worth doing requires hard work and dedication.
What I'm getting at is that society should mitigate the suffering of poverty but we don't owe it to anyone to shield them completely from it, particularly if it has resulted from their own choices. Arguably we already do this to a sufficient degree.
|
On December 10 2013 00:07 corumjhaelen wrote:I do think it's more a symptom than a problem but I have absolutely no problem with the idea. Take it from a Polytechnicien
It's definitly not the problem, the problem is the lack of vision, financial means, and the problem of the programs. But it's definitly a solution to all that.
|
On December 09 2013 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 23:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2013 22:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 09 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote:
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way. To be fair, the resulting tenacity that comes from such desperation is a big part of the reason that Koreans dominate StarCraft. It's not that different from hearing stories of everyone from boxers to Barack Obama about the desperation of their youths and how it gave them the strength of character to push through any adversity. Are you arguing that we should make current society worse to make future people better? He is arguing something stupid. I've had the same argument back when I was a student with a guy who was in one of the most elitist french school. He was the son of a rich dude, and he argued that middle class and lower class people had more success in elitists schools because they had the "rage" to succeed. His argumentation still had some difficulty to explain why there are less than 5% children of the lower class in such school, and approximatly 75% of upper class kids. This myth that difficulty actually help people is so retarded. For most kids, difficulties are nothing more than difficulties. I have a young girl (16) in my class who didn't do anything since the beginning of the year. She almost didn't came to any of my class and showed up once in a while to laugh with her friends. Just last week I learned that she was in fact a brilliant girl who was accepted to a special program for young kids but her mother refused to let her enter this program because she needed her to take care of the kids : the dad is absent, the mother work her ass off just to get enough money to feed her kids. What should I do ? Should I tell that girl to use her desperation and work more, use the rage in her and stop whining ? Plus she is black, she could be Obama or Tyson if she channeled her desperation enough. Retarded. It's true that the few that actually succeed despite social difficulties are usually better than average, in sociology we call that "sur-selection".
I'm not the son of a rich person nor did I go to an elite French school nor do I think that "rage" is important to success. But feel free to keep stuffing my mouth with straw.
|
On December 10 2013 00:13 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 09 2013 23:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2013 22:06 coverpunch wrote:On December 09 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote:
It's odd to me that you aspire for the richest country in the world to be forcing 14 year old kids to work three part time jobs to feed their younger brothers and 70 year olds to work two just to feed themselves. Surely there must be some better way. To be fair, the resulting tenacity that comes from such desperation is a big part of the reason that Koreans dominate StarCraft. It's not that different from hearing stories of everyone from boxers to Barack Obama about the desperation of their youths and how it gave them the strength of character to push through any adversity. Are you arguing that we should make current society worse to make future people better? He is arguing something stupid. I've had the same argument back when I was a student with a guy who was in one of the most elitist french school. He was the son of a rich dude, and he argued that middle class and lower class people had more success in elitists schools because they had the "rage" to succeed. His argumentation still had some difficulty to explain why there are less than 5% children of the lower class in such school, and approximatly 75% of upper class kids. This myth that difficulty actually help people is so retarded. For most kids, difficulties are nothing more than difficulties. I have a young girl (16) in my class who didn't do anything since the beginning of the year. She almost didn't came to any of my class and showed up once in a while to laugh with her friends. Just last week I learned that she was in fact a brilliant girl who was accepted to a special program for young kids but her mother refused to let her enter this program because she needed her to take care of the kids : the dad is absent, the mother work her ass off just to get enough money to feed her kids. What should I do ? Should I tell that girl to use her desperation and work more, use the rage in her and stop whining ? Plus she is black, she could be Obama or Tyson if she channeled her desperation enough. Retarded. It's true that the few that actually succeed despite social difficulties are usually better than average, in sociology we call that "sur-selection". I'm not the son of a rich person nor did I go to an elite French school nor do I think that "rage" is important to success. But feel free to keep stuffing my mouth with straw.
You still believe in the myth that "the desperation" give "the strength of character to push through any adversity". For most, desperation just crush any hope left.
|
Strength of character is totally distinct from hope. But the point is how much should someone's difficult circumstances convert into support paid by other people? I think not much more than they get now.
|
Norway28797 Posts
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted.
|
Unified empowering policies? Like what?
|
On December 09 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Americans who are buying insurance plans over online exchanges, under what is known as Obamacare, will have limited access to some of the nation’s leading hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centres.
Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients’ access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country.
Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law. sourceMeanwhile, if you like your hospital, sorry, you'll have to find another. In Obama's new health care market, the top hospitals aren't covered as insurers try to cope with their newfound mandated costs.
So overly expensive hospitals should be propped up for the good of the people, the market be damned? You're getting closer to sam!zdat every day...
Do you care to explain why in your glorious capitalist mindset you don't want overly expensive and/or inefficient hospitals to have to actually monitor their costs to stay in the market? I think that's called competition, which is the driving force in capitalism. Competition which, up until now has not been present in this market.
|
On December 10 2013 01:08 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote:Americans who are buying insurance plans over online exchanges, under what is known as Obamacare, will have limited access to some of the nation’s leading hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centres.
Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients’ access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country.
Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law. sourceMeanwhile, if you like your hospital, sorry, you'll have to find another. In Obama's new health care market, the top hospitals aren't covered as insurers try to cope with their newfound mandated costs. So overly expensive hospitals should be propped up for the good of the people, the market be damned? You're getting closer to sam!zdat every day... Do you care to explain why in your glorious capitalist mindset you don't want overly expensive and/or inefficient hospitals to have to actually monitor their costs to stay in the market? I think that's called competition, which is the driving force in capitalism. Competition which, up until now has not been present in this market.
The argument of the article is that not every expensive hospital is inefficient. Sometimes quality comes with an increase in cost, and the ACA isn't recognizing that distinction.
|
The complaint is the exact opposite of what you're saying. Super expensive hospitals aren't covered by insurance so they can keep their doors open only to elite patients and keep out the riffraff that actually needs insurance to pay.
This is crony capitalism, where the people who can afford $35000 political dinners get their own exclusive hospitals while the rest of us saps live with bureaucratic offices posing as health care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
