|
On March 31 2012 11:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which does not prove your point, sorry. It does the opposite. That extra 5,000 a year would be a big deal to most families but 36k is not bad at all. And most families were and still are dual-income. They would be a lot better off if the country hadn't gone on a debt binge with credit cards and home refinancings and stuff over the last decade.
$5,000 to a 36k salary is a 14% increase. Or 12% decrease from the 41k salary. It's a hell of a lot, especially at that level.
Also, woo hoo. Page 200.
|
On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less.
To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. EDIT: On top of that, I was treated like total expendable shit and had to suffer due to unhealthy surroundings, racist bosses, and what are commonly considered to be "low-life" or "dangerous" co-workers (ex-cons). I had a chemical 4x stronger than bleach in my eye due to the incompetence of one of my co-workers and I had to sign a waiver saying that I would not go to a doctor, lawyer, or any specialist if I wanted to keep my job (which was the only one I could secure in the area, and even then I was a "temp" laborer, in other words my job security was 0 and I could just not be requested back the next week). But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price.
The reason that I can't fully agree with the movement is because I feel that people with no skill set should not be treated equally to those that possess specific skills like I mentioned. However, 6.25/hour 55 hours/week put me at the TOP of my economic bracket at the time... I had no kids, no dependents, and plenty of charity to help me feed myself as I paid rent. After a year, I realized that my body was reaching its limits even with these advantages. This is simply not a livable lifestyle for many people. This is why this movement has strength behind it.
TL;DR wages for menial labor jobs are not nearly as high as you think and that life is hard as fuck both as a result of the labor and the low wages.
|
On March 31 2012 11:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What happens in second or third world countries is not relevant to a discussion about the US or other first world countries in this context, although what you said is very true.
Even disregarding the fact that the whole problem is basically globally relevant, it is still extremely relevant to the US specifically - seeing that US citizens are the ones losing those exact same jobs that end up going overseas.
Which implies that in order for US workforce to stay "competitive" (thus keep those jobs home), they would need to accept working under same or similar inhuman conditions for similar wages. Whether this is actually happening in reality is irrelevant, because that is their objective value within the system, and that fact alone has its consequences.
One of these consequences is that you are now claiming that the higher paid jobs in first world countries are "paid well" by contrasting them to what they "should be" paid based on that objective value - even though, judging by what a person can afford on that wage and the income distribution from selling the product they participated in making, they're being paid miserably at best. The most obvious consequence being, naturally, that they can easily end up unemployed and with no income at all.
There are always means of reducing labor cost and increasing productivity. Unfortunately, past a certain point it comes at a price of cheapening human lives to the point where they are only biologically human. And this is not some third world thing - US economy is participating in it to its fullest, and US citizens are beginning to feel it from the bottom of the class ladder up.
|
On March 31 2012 11:29 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less. To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price. The reason that I can't fully agree with the movement is because I feel that people with no skill set should not be treated equally to those that possess specific skills like I mentioned. However, 6.25/hour 55 hours/week put me at the TOP of my economic bracket at the time... I had no kids, no dependents, and plenty of charity to help me feed myself as I paid rent. After a year, I realized that my body was reaching its limits even with these advantages. This is simply not a livable lifestyle for many people. This is why this movement has strength behind it. TL;DR wages for menial labor jobs are not nearly as high as you think and that life is hard as fuck both as a result of the labor and the low wages.
Some info...
Average weekly earnings for manufacturing workers: $979.90
Average weekly earnings for construction workers: $990.39
Average weekly earnings for financial workers: $1066.78
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Obviously there's a lot of variation around the average, some will make less and some will make more, but average is still a good figure to discuss around.
|
On March 31 2012 11:39 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 11:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What happens in second or third world countries is not relevant to a discussion about the US or other first world countries in this context, although what you said is very true. Even disregarding the fact that the whole problem is basically globally relevant, it is still extremely relevant to the US specifically - seeing that US citizens are the ones losing those exact same jobs that end up going overseas. Which implies that in order for US workforce to stay "competitive" (thus keep those jobs home), they would need to accept working under same or similar inhuman conditions for similar wages. Whether this is actually happening in reality is irrelevant, because that is their objective value within the system, and that fact alone has its consequences. One of these consequences is that you are now claiming that the higher paid jobs in first world countries are "paid well" by contrasting them to what they "should be" paid based on that objective value - even though, judging by what a person can afford on that wage and the income distribution from selling the product they participated in making, they're being paid miserably at best. The most obvious consequence being, naturally, that they can easily end up unemployed and with no income at all. There are always means of reducing labor cost and increasing productivity. Unfortunately, past a certain point it comes at a price of cheapening human lives to the point where they are only biologically human. And this is not some third world thing - US economy is participating in it to its fullest, and US citizens are beginning to feel it from the bottom of the class ladder up.
Since you put it this way I'll go ahead and laugh about it.
LOL.
Guys, Im in the US, lets have anti-child labor laws and laws of minimum wage and fair treatment of employees and ethical standards in law, and lets create laws to prevent our companies from using slaves or anything similar to slave labor, and tell companies they must clean up their heavy metals and other waste products or face huge fines or imprisonment.
A Wild US corporate CEO appears! "Gentlemen, in an effort to make more money off sneakers and soda and computer parts, lets send these productions over seas where no laws exist. The laws are limiting our money making abilities!".
And it happened. Soda plants that have by-products of heavy metals dump directly into african village lakes killing fish and water usage for farmers, sneakers and computer chips go to asian countries where workers get so fed up that they would rather kill themselves than keep working for the same prices.
And now, US laborers are out of the job because, while it was right, moral, and just to prevent any US person from suffering those working conditions and being slaves, send it overseas and suddenly its not a problem to benefit from slave labor. Now US workers have to lower themselves to that OR stay unemployed. Karma's a bitch. Systems balance. Nothing is lost or hidden.
Im saying, We US people made this bed for ourselves by having low ethical standards for our products. It was natural for companies to go where the most money can be made, where labor laws dont exist, and environmental regulation is non-existent. It's the nature of a corporate entity to seek out such places to exploit, as a capitalistic venture.
There's tons of sociological volumes explaining this.
This bed was made by the US people themselves. I know, because I am one.
edit: minimum wages and laws about sewage are socialistic in nature, they are intended to garnish the growth of individuals or companies to provide better life status for the whole. a truly capitalistic country would have zero laws regarding exploitation.
|
On March 31 2012 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 11:29 Jealous wrote:On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less. To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price. The reason that I can't fully agree with the movement is because I feel that people with no skill set should not be treated equally to those that possess specific skills like I mentioned. However, 6.25/hour 55 hours/week put me at the TOP of my economic bracket at the time... I had no kids, no dependents, and plenty of charity to help me feed myself as I paid rent. After a year, I realized that my body was reaching its limits even with these advantages. This is simply not a livable lifestyle for many people. This is why this movement has strength behind it. TL;DR wages for menial labor jobs are not nearly as high as you think and that life is hard as fuck both as a result of the labor and the low wages. Some info... Average weekly earnings for manufacturing workers: $979.90 Average weekly earnings for construction workers: $990.39 Average weekly earnings for financial workers: $1066.78 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdfObviously there's a lot of variation around the average, some will make less and some will make more, but average is still a good figure to discuss around.
Average doesn't justify the lowest of the bunch. Average is a poor description of the financial status of a population whose incomes you are averaging, because I was trying to make a point about the difficulty and ultimately hazardous nature of the jobs that many of these people hold (and at the same time make BELOW that average, sufficiently so that their life is spent counting pennies and deciding whether they should buy medication or food). The bottom quartile of all manufacturing workers makes less than 600 a week, let's say, not just less than 950 for example (an example of where the range and other statistics are important). I don't claim to know these statistics accurately, but I do know that there were many people who were far worse off than me and my life was pretty shitty. What you've said basically explains the mentality of a clerk when a person trying to get welfare because they earn 400 a week (while working as much as they can, mind you) asks the clerk for money welfare clerk says "Average household income is 41k annually and bananas are 2 for a dollar at Shop Rite, suck it up."
|
A certified welder or mechanic working on a oil rig is obviously the same as someone who frames houses.
|
On March 31 2012 11:58 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2012 11:29 Jealous wrote:On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less. To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price. The reason that I can't fully agree with the movement is because I feel that people with no skill set should not be treated equally to those that possess specific skills like I mentioned. However, 6.25/hour 55 hours/week put me at the TOP of my economic bracket at the time... I had no kids, no dependents, and plenty of charity to help me feed myself as I paid rent. After a year, I realized that my body was reaching its limits even with these advantages. This is simply not a livable lifestyle for many people. This is why this movement has strength behind it. TL;DR wages for menial labor jobs are not nearly as high as you think and that life is hard as fuck both as a result of the labor and the low wages. Some info... Average weekly earnings for manufacturing workers: $979.90 Average weekly earnings for construction workers: $990.39 Average weekly earnings for financial workers: $1066.78 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdfObviously there's a lot of variation around the average, some will make less and some will make more, but average is still a good figure to discuss around. Average doesn't justify the lowest of the bunch. Average is a poor description of the financial status of a population whose incomes you are averaging, because I was trying to make a point about the difficulty and ultimately hazardous nature of the jobs that many of these people hold (and at the same time make BELOW that average, sufficiently so that their life is spent counting pennies and deciding whether they should buy medication or food). The bottom quartile of all manufacturing workers makes less than 600 a week, let's say, not just less than 950 for example (an example of where the range and other statistics are important). I don't claim to know these statistics accurately, but I do know that there were many people who were far worse off than me and my life was pretty shitty. What you've said basically explains the mentality of a clerk when a person trying to get welfare because they earn 400 a week (while working as much as they can, mind you) asks the clerk for money welfare clerk says "Average household income is 41k annually and bananas are 2 for a dollar at Shop Rite, suck it up."
I wasn't trying to justify anything and now you are being ridiculous. People aren't denied benefits because the average income went up.
You claimed that another post was 100% false because your anecdotal evidence said so and I in turn posted some wage data. We all know that some people don't earn a lot and so you don't need to go crazy pointing that out.
|
On March 31 2012 11:52 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 11:39 Talin wrote:On March 31 2012 11:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What happens in second or third world countries is not relevant to a discussion about the US or other first world countries in this context, although what you said is very true. Even disregarding the fact that the whole problem is basically globally relevant, it is still extremely relevant to the US specifically - seeing that US citizens are the ones losing those exact same jobs that end up going overseas. Which implies that in order for US workforce to stay "competitive" (thus keep those jobs home), they would need to accept working under same or similar inhuman conditions for similar wages. Whether this is actually happening in reality is irrelevant, because that is their objective value within the system, and that fact alone has its consequences. One of these consequences is that you are now claiming that the higher paid jobs in first world countries are "paid well" by contrasting them to what they "should be" paid based on that objective value - even though, judging by what a person can afford on that wage and the income distribution from selling the product they participated in making, they're being paid miserably at best. The most obvious consequence being, naturally, that they can easily end up unemployed and with no income at all. There are always means of reducing labor cost and increasing productivity. Unfortunately, past a certain point it comes at a price of cheapening human lives to the point where they are only biologically human. And this is not some third world thing - US economy is participating in it to its fullest, and US citizens are beginning to feel it from the bottom of the class ladder up. Since you put it this way I'll go ahead and laugh about it. LOL. Guys, Im in the US, lets have anti-child labor laws and laws of minimum wage and fair treatment of employees and ethical standards in law, and lets create laws to prevent our companies from using slaves or anything similar to slave labor, and tell companies they must clean up their heavy metals and other waste products or face huge fines or imprisonment. A Wild US corporate CEO appears! "Gentlemen, in an effort to make more money off sneakers and soda and computer parts, lets send these productions over seas where no laws exist. The laws are limiting our money making abilities!". And it happened. Soda plants that have by-products of heavy metals dump directly into african village lakes killing fish and water usage for farmers, sneakers and computer chips go to asian countries where workers get so fed up that they would rather kill themselves than keep working for the same prices. And now, US laborers are out of the job because, while it was right, moral, and just to prevent any US person from suffering those working conditions and being slaves, send it overseas and suddenly its not a problem to benefit from slave labor. Now US workers have to lower themselves to that OR stay unemployed. Karma's a bitch. Systems balance. Nothing is lost or hidden. Im saying, We US people made this bed for ourselves by having low ethical standards for our products. It was natural for companies to go where the most money can be made, where labor laws dont exist, and environmental regulation is non-existent. It's the nature of a corporate entity to seek out such places to exploit, as a capitalistic venture. There's tons of sociological volumes explaining this. This bed was made by the US people themselves. I know, because I am one. edit: minimum wages and laws about sewage are socialistic in nature, they are intended to garnish the growth of individuals or companies to provide better life status for the whole. a truly capitalistic country would have zero laws regarding exploitation.
That's actually fascinating.
I can't think of a better post that explains everything I'm trying to say.
I also can't think of a better post that would convince any sane person that a "truly capitalistic society" is something they should oppose no matter the cost.
|
On March 31 2012 20:52 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 11:52 Spieltor wrote:On March 31 2012 11:39 Talin wrote:On March 31 2012 11:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What happens in second or third world countries is not relevant to a discussion about the US or other first world countries in this context, although what you said is very true. Even disregarding the fact that the whole problem is basically globally relevant, it is still extremely relevant to the US specifically - seeing that US citizens are the ones losing those exact same jobs that end up going overseas. Which implies that in order for US workforce to stay "competitive" (thus keep those jobs home), they would need to accept working under same or similar inhuman conditions for similar wages. Whether this is actually happening in reality is irrelevant, because that is their objective value within the system, and that fact alone has its consequences. One of these consequences is that you are now claiming that the higher paid jobs in first world countries are "paid well" by contrasting them to what they "should be" paid based on that objective value - even though, judging by what a person can afford on that wage and the income distribution from selling the product they participated in making, they're being paid miserably at best. The most obvious consequence being, naturally, that they can easily end up unemployed and with no income at all. There are always means of reducing labor cost and increasing productivity. Unfortunately, past a certain point it comes at a price of cheapening human lives to the point where they are only biologically human. And this is not some third world thing - US economy is participating in it to its fullest, and US citizens are beginning to feel it from the bottom of the class ladder up. Since you put it this way I'll go ahead and laugh about it. LOL. Guys, Im in the US, lets have anti-child labor laws and laws of minimum wage and fair treatment of employees and ethical standards in law, and lets create laws to prevent our companies from using slaves or anything similar to slave labor, and tell companies they must clean up their heavy metals and other waste products or face huge fines or imprisonment. A Wild US corporate CEO appears! "Gentlemen, in an effort to make more money off sneakers and soda and computer parts, lets send these productions over seas where no laws exist. The laws are limiting our money making abilities!". And it happened. Soda plants that have by-products of heavy metals dump directly into african village lakes killing fish and water usage for farmers, sneakers and computer chips go to asian countries where workers get so fed up that they would rather kill themselves than keep working for the same prices. And now, US laborers are out of the job because, while it was right, moral, and just to prevent any US person from suffering those working conditions and being slaves, send it overseas and suddenly its not a problem to benefit from slave labor. Now US workers have to lower themselves to that OR stay unemployed. Karma's a bitch. Systems balance. Nothing is lost or hidden. Im saying, We US people made this bed for ourselves by having low ethical standards for our products. It was natural for companies to go where the most money can be made, where labor laws dont exist, and environmental regulation is non-existent. It's the nature of a corporate entity to seek out such places to exploit, as a capitalistic venture. There's tons of sociological volumes explaining this. This bed was made by the US people themselves. I know, because I am one. edit: minimum wages and laws about sewage are socialistic in nature, they are intended to garnish the growth of individuals or companies to provide better life status for the whole. a truly capitalistic country would have zero laws regarding exploitation. That's actually fascinating. I can't think of a better post that explains everything I'm trying to say. I also can't think of a better post that would convince any sane person that a "truly capitalistic society" is something they should oppose no matter the cost.
Agreed. Although on the spectrum from pure capitalism to pure communism, as you head towards the center capitalism improves much faster.
On March 31 2012 12:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 11:58 Jealous wrote:On March 31 2012 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2012 11:29 Jealous wrote:On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less. To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price. The reason that I can't fully agree with the movement is because I feel that people with no skill set should not be treated equally to those that possess specific skills like I mentioned. However, 6.25/hour 55 hours/week put me at the TOP of my economic bracket at the time... I had no kids, no dependents, and plenty of charity to help me feed myself as I paid rent. After a year, I realized that my body was reaching its limits even with these advantages. This is simply not a livable lifestyle for many people. This is why this movement has strength behind it. TL;DR wages for menial labor jobs are not nearly as high as you think and that life is hard as fuck both as a result of the labor and the low wages. Some info... Average weekly earnings for manufacturing workers: $979.90 Average weekly earnings for construction workers: $990.39 Average weekly earnings for financial workers: $1066.78 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdfObviously there's a lot of variation around the average, some will make less and some will make more, but average is still a good figure to discuss around. Average doesn't justify the lowest of the bunch. Average is a poor description of the financial status of a population whose incomes you are averaging, because I was trying to make a point about the difficulty and ultimately hazardous nature of the jobs that many of these people hold (and at the same time make BELOW that average, sufficiently so that their life is spent counting pennies and deciding whether they should buy medication or food). The bottom quartile of all manufacturing workers makes less than 600 a week, let's say, not just less than 950 for example (an example of where the range and other statistics are important). I don't claim to know these statistics accurately, but I do know that there were many people who were far worse off than me and my life was pretty shitty. What you've said basically explains the mentality of a clerk when a person trying to get welfare because they earn 400 a week (while working as much as they can, mind you) asks the clerk for money welfare clerk says "Average household income is 41k annually and bananas are 2 for a dollar at Shop Rite, suck it up." I wasn't trying to justify anything and now you are being ridiculous. People aren't denied benefits because the average income went up. You claimed that another post was 100% false because your anecdotal evidence said so and I in turn posted some wage data. We all know that some people don't earn a lot and so you don't need to go crazy pointing that out.
There's two different types of average - mean and median. Usually it's the former, but to get a better estimate it's better to use median since you're getting data from the 50th percentile. Mean is higher because people on the top make a lot more compared to the middle than the middle makes compared to the bottom. So the numbers might still be skewed.
|
the last thing the people in power want is a moneyless, stateless, classless social system, which is essentially what communism is..
|
It is still goin strong? Well that is incredible.
|
On April 01 2012 08:32 Heouf wrote:
It is still goin strong? Well that is incredible.
not quite, but when the whether it improves it should pick up again.
|
|
|
On March 31 2012 09:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry. But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science. And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks.
It doesn't really matter what we can or cannot support, because we can safely assume that there will always be a demand for arts. Getting rid of art schools is a pretty poor idea, then.
We might consider reducing the number and increasing the entry point a little bit, so that we don't finance sub par artists.
|
$5,000 to a 36k salary is a 14% increase. Or 12% decrease from the 41k salary. It's a hell of a lot, especially at that level.
I'm pretty sure I said that at level of income 5,000 makes a big difference... oh wait, I did!
The point is that you can try to act like working in a factory or construction is comparable to flipping burgers, but sorry it isn't.
To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. EDIT: On top of that, I was treated like total expendable shit and had to suffer due to unhealthy surroundings, racist bosses, and what are commonly considered to be "low-life" or "dangerous" co-workers (ex-cons). I had a chemical 4x stronger than bleach in my eye due to the incompetence of one of my co-workers and I had to sign a waiver saying that I would not go to a doctor, lawyer, or any specialist if I wanted to keep my job (which was the only one I could secure in the area, and even then I was a "temp" laborer, in other words my job security was 0 and I could just not be requested back the next week). But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price.
Don't work for a shitty subcontractor?
You talk like you were a slave. No one forced you to go work at literally the very bottom rung of what sounds like a bottom-feeder company in the construction industry. I've never known anyone, out of knowing dozens of people who've worked construction, who had such shitty terms of employment. Regional differences I suppose.
Shitty jobs with shitty employers exist, maybe you should realize that you've already proven you can do better and get a better job instead of whining about how shitty your particular employer was.
Even disregarding the fact that the whole problem is basically globally relevant, it is still extremely relevant to the US specifically - seeing that US citizens are the ones losing those exact same jobs that end up going overseas.
Sadly, no. Working a menial hard-labor job in the US - unless you're unlucky enough to have some kind of seasonal farm job that is specifically exempt from *most* labor laws - is nothing like working one most of Asia or Africa. "Globally relevant" only if you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes.
Don't condemn one system by pointing out shit that doesn't happen in that system but does in other systems. And if the jobs are so demeaning to human dignity and all that jazz, how is it a bad thing - for Americans - if they go overseas? Is America supposed to be responsible for other countries now? Don't people like you want to America to keep her big money-sniffing nose out of those other countries? You want it one way on Monday, the opposite on Tuesday.
|
On April 03 2012 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:
And if the jobs are so demeaning to human dignity and all that jazz, how is it a bad thing - for Americans - if they go overseas? Is America supposed to be responsible for other countries now? Don't people like you want to America to keep her big money-sniffing nose out of those other countries? You want it one way on Monday, the opposite on Tuesday.
I would assume you care about any human beings living demeaning and slave lives don't you?
|
On April 03 2012 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +$5,000 to a 36k salary is a 14% increase. Or 12% decrease from the 41k salary. It's a hell of a lot, especially at that level. I'm pretty sure I said that at level of income 5,000 makes a big difference... oh wait, I did! The point is that you can try to act like working in a factory or construction is comparable to flipping burgers, but sorry it isn't. Show nested quote +To be honest, this is 100% false. I am not a supporter of the movement or anything, but opponents of it should be informed. It was just a few years ago that I was making 6.25/hour for construction/factory labor, working 55 hours a week, lifting 70% of my body weight over my head and walking up steps, 2 times a minute, 11 hours a day. In contrast, I made 700 dollars for a 14 hour chauffeuring job a year ago, and I make $38 dollars an hour as a private SAT tutor. Out of the three jobs, the first was definitely the most taxing, deteriorating, and overall difficult job of the three. EDIT: On top of that, I was treated like total expendable shit and had to suffer due to unhealthy surroundings, racist bosses, and what are commonly considered to be "low-life" or "dangerous" co-workers (ex-cons). I had a chemical 4x stronger than bleach in my eye due to the incompetence of one of my co-workers and I had to sign a waiver saying that I would not go to a doctor, lawyer, or any specialist if I wanted to keep my job (which was the only one I could secure in the area, and even then I was a "temp" laborer, in other words my job security was 0 and I could just not be requested back the next week). But, it pays the least, and is also far more necessary to the overall stability of the country (producing food > driving rich people >= teaching rich people's children shouldn't be that arguable). Of course my experience isn't universal, but the fact remains. The problem with blue collar labor is that there are more people capable of lifting 100 pounds than there are car+suit owners who are well versed in driving etiquette or people with 2300+ on SATs. Capitalism dictates that higher demand = higher price. Don't work for a shitty subcontractor? You talk like you were a slave. No one forced you to go work at literally the very bottom rung of what sounds like a bottom-feeder company in the construction industry. I've never known anyone, out of knowing dozens of people who've worked construction, who had such shitty terms of employment. Regional differences I suppose. Shitty jobs with shitty employers exist, maybe you should realize that you've already proven you can do better and get a better job instead of whining about how shitty your particular employer was. Show nested quote +Even disregarding the fact that the whole problem is basically globally relevant, it is still extremely relevant to the US specifically - seeing that US citizens are the ones losing those exact same jobs that end up going overseas. Sadly, no. Working a menial hard-labor job in the US - unless you're unlucky enough to have some kind of seasonal farm job that is specifically exempt from *most* labor laws - is nothing like working one most of Asia or Africa. "Globally relevant" only if you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes. Don't condemn one system by pointing out shit that doesn't happen in that system but does in other systems. And if the jobs are so demeaning to human dignity and all that jazz, how is it a bad thing - for Americans - if they go overseas? Is America supposed to be responsible for other countries now? Don't people like you want to America to keep her big money-sniffing nose out of those other countries? You want it one way on Monday, the opposite on Tuesday.
Regional differences is correct. Trust me, I looked for better jobs for months in the area; there weren't any that would hire me. "Whining about a shitty employer," is kind of harsh in this light because many people ARE forced into the employer they currently have due to a lack of options. You can't move because you don't have enough savings because you don't have a great enough income:mandatory expenditure ratio and you can't quit because there are no other or better jobs available to you for months, even years. Hypothetically I could have gotten positions in other places that paid more hourly, but provided significantly fewer hours; at that point in life, maximizing income is priority #1.
|
On April 03 2012 06:56 Zythius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 09:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry. But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science. And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks. It doesn't really matter what we can or cannot support, because we can safely assume that there will always be a demand for arts. Getting rid of art schools is a pretty poor idea, then. We might consider reducing the number and increasing the entry point a little bit, so that we don't finance sub par artists.
Reducing number might work. A big problem with US, why it's so far in the negative, is that people can't pay off debt. Biggest two debts are credit card debt and student loans. So we don't completely wipe art school off of the map, but we reduce the number and offer incentives to technical schools or colleges that land students in careers in high demand, that way students have larger chance of paying off their debt.
|
On April 03 2012 07:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 06:56 Zythius wrote:On March 31 2012 09:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:
[quote]
Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry. But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science. And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks. It doesn't really matter what we can or cannot support, because we can safely assume that there will always be a demand for arts. Getting rid of art schools is a pretty poor idea, then. We might consider reducing the number and increasing the entry point a little bit, so that we don't finance sub par artists. Reducing number might work. A big problem with US, why it's so far in the negative, is that people can't pay off debt. Biggest two debts are credit card debt and student loans.
I would've guessed mortgages would be the biggest...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
