• The Free-Time Paradox in America: How Having Leisure Time Shifted from the Rich to the Poor
    75 replies, posted
[I]The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening. Why? [/I][QUOTE] But 60 years later, it seems more true to say that it is not leisure that defines the lives of so many rich Americans. It is work. [B]Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic.[/B] As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.” Here is the conundrum: Writers and economists from half a century ago and longer anticipated that the future would buy more leisure time for wealthy workers in America. [B]Instead, it just bought them more work. Meanwhile, overall leisure has increased, but it’s the less-skilled poor who are soaking up all the free time, even though they would have the most to gain from working. [/B]Why? ... Keynes got a lot wrong in 1930. He did not envision the rich working more, he did not foresee so many young men in poverty giving up on work, and he could not see the allure of cheap and personalized entertainment. But he accurately forecast the difficulty of a wealthy class transitioning to a more leisurely lifestyle. "The strenuous purposeful money-makers may carry all of us along with them into the lap of economic abundance,” Keynes wrote. “But it will be those peoples, who can keep alive, and cultivate into a fuller perfection, the art of life itself and do not sell themselves for the means of life, who will be able to enjoy the abundance when it comes.” [/QUOTE] [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-free-time-paradox-in-america/499826/]Source[/url]
What a surprise? People don't want to do a job when they are perfectly aware that a robot could do it tomorrow. Give a person a line of work they feel good about or otherwise truly believe in, and they will work hard. Keynes definitely got one part right: the rich are in a better position generally to get the most out of life, but he wrongly identified that as being due to extra leisure time. Instead I feel it has to do with the connection one has with what he sees as his calling in life. If a person is discouraged or otherwise not taught to think of such things, then, in the face of seeming pointlessness, of course they are going to opt for what seems like the closer hedonistic option.
[quote]“how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure,[/quote] "thank heavens we don't pay them enough to have freedom from pressing economic cares." as someone who's trying to find entry level work after graduating college, the way people find jobs today is utter garbage. its more often than not, who you know or your family knows than what you know that gets you into a job, and the gatekeepers at HR don't have a fucking clue what they're looking for anymore so they set the bar so fucking high that they exclude many of the best potential employees, instead trying to find unicorns to work jobs they would never even want to you can put out hundreds of applications, in fact thats what you're supposed to do, but you'll never hear back from 90% of them, and maybe 1% of them will actually take the time to call you or write to you. we have a skilled labor shortage in this country, but we're unwilling to hire anybody without every single qualification, who wasn't captain of at least 3 clubs in school, is published, and got a 4.0 in college.
A lot of rich people are business owners who have no choice but to put in the hours. It is said that many work 100 hours every week. Among other wealthier people who are not business owners, many of them are salaried and voluntarily work overtime for a number of reasons - no one else who can do that particular job (especially for highly-skilled employees), trying to impress bosses so that they can try to get a promotion, a sense of pride in the job etc. With less-wealthy people, many work in dead-end jobs where they are often paid a wage. Voluntary unpaid overtime isn't really a thing because there aren't many (or any) prospects of a promotion, or not as much pride in the job etc. And as for paid overtime, managers are careful to give it out because obviously those extra hours have to be paid for, unlike in salaried jobs. Then there are other things like part-time work being on the rise, utilisation of welfare on the rise etc. It's not really a surprise that less-wealthy people have more free time. I live alone and work a retail job which lets me pay all of my bills and then some (yet I'm still below the average pay in Australia), and I pretty much get all weekdays off. I mostly work only nights and weekends. Then outside of work, there's more time for leisure time because of dishwashers replacing manual washing, clothes washing and drying machines as opposed to using the laundry tub, microwave cooking and fast food as opposed to slaving away in the kitchen etc.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51082643]"thank heavens we don't pay them enough to have freedom from pressing economic cares." as someone who's trying to find entry level work after graduating college, the way people find jobs today is utter garbage. its more often than not, who you know or your family knows than what you know that gets you into a job, and the gatekeepers at HR don't have a fucking clue what they're looking for anymore so they set the bar so fucking high that they exclude many of the best potential employees, instead trying to find unicorns to work jobs they would never even want to you can put out hundreds of applications, in fact thats what you're supposed to do, but you'll never hear back from 90% of them, and maybe 1% of them will actually take the time to call you or write to you. we have a skilled labor shortage in this country, but we're unwilling to hire anybody without every single qualification, who wasn't captain of at least 3 clubs in school, is published, and got a 4.0 in college.[/QUOTE] I must be lucky or something because all I did was apply for Wal-Mart and I got hired pretty quickly
Lol, the rich whom own single businesses have to work because the megarich whom own the corporation they compete against have not only crafted laws against them, but also advertise everywhere incessantly. There is still a divide, it's simply far wider than the article even attempts to address. Also why the the fuck would I give my literal life on [I]someone else's behalf[/I] for shit health and ownership debt in a dead end job until I'm 70? Boohoohoo the proles don't buy the bullshit anymore boohoo the economy is doomed. :rolleyes: Since when did poor ever equate to ignorant or stupid.
[QUOTE=27X;51082775] Since when did poor ever equate to ignorant or stupid.[/QUOTE] As long as modern, western civilization has been around, the poor, the ignorant and the dumb have all been lumped in to the same boat. Aristocrats believed their superior breeding, and access to actual education made them smarter and more hard working. That's partially true. Then Industrialists believed their superior work ethic and access to leisurely pursuits made them more worldly and the true meritocratic possessors of society. I guess you could claim that, given certain perspectives. The the middle class was sold on a story of hard word and education, in line with the former two cases, that if you graduated from some fine school and toiled over some hard job, you were smart, and wise, and good. Therefor you would reap the rewards of those qualities, and live a happy life. Now we're at a point where working hard [I]doesn't always pay off.[/I] Speaking directly to this article, I've got some serious questions for it. The first of all being, [B]Why is it when social scientists challenge the position of say, white men, social science is a spurious soft science, but when they assert that the poor are lazy and indigent and the rich are hard working, they become esteemed leaders in their fields?[/B] After all, while the rich may be "workaholics," I highly doubt their jobs are nearly as strenuous as say, someone who works in a tomato field or stocks shelves. In fact, "the rich," often have jobs that guarantee them certain holidays and [I]paid vacation.[/I] You know what I would have to do to get paid vacation at my job? Have something heavy fall on my leg, crush it, and take worker's comp. Weird, isn't it. I also doubt, say, graphic designers, software engineers, mortgage adjusters and the like have to lift fifty to sixty pounds on a regular basis, remain standing/walking for full eight hour shifts, or work two jobs to be able to afford their rent. Simply put, [B]longer hours[/B] is a bullshit metric for "hard work," given that those longer hours often translate in to paid luncheons, higher over-all pay, little physical demand, and a slew of other gratuities and benefits. Simply put, this article is bullshit.
The rich were 'meant' to have the most leisure time? Says fucking who? Who also said that being poor equated to 'ignorant or stupid'? Trump proves rich men can be as stupid and ignorant as they like. Fact of the matter is, the vast majority of poor people - talking about 95% here - are poor because of circumstance and factors not in their control. For quite a number of them, upward mobility is practically impossible. For every time we've heard the 'rags to riches' or the poor genius stories, how many other times have there been similarly bright and intelligent people who didn't succeed because they didn't come from the right background? I am under no illusion that I am extremely privileged to have the background and family I do. I have never had any want. Many others aren't so lucky and we're facing a housing crisis over here, compounded by inadequate services all around. I would say our workers are more protected than in other countries and we're still a great place to live, but we have to fight to protect that. I do plan to work hard in university and I want to succeed. But that might not be enough, and I might succeed due to background and luck rather than my own capabilities. That isn't right. We have to help people and reduce class inequality.
[QUOTE=27X;51082775]Lol, the rich whom own single businesses have to work because the megarich whom own the corporation they compete against have not only crafted laws against them, but also advertise everywhere incessantly. There is still a divide, it's simply far wider then the article even attempts to address. Also why the the fuck would I give my literal life on [I]someone else's behalf[/I] for shit health and ownership debt in a dead end job until I'm 70? Boohoohoo the proles don't buy the bullshit anymore boohoo the economy is doomed. :rolleyes: Since when did poor ever equate to ignorant or stupid.[/QUOTE] Since the rich managed to pit the poorer against themselves, when they convinced the people with some money that all the problems in the economy hilariously enough comes from those without enough money to even affect the economy.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853] After all, while the rich may be "workaholics," I highly doubt their jobs are nearly as strenuous as say, someone who works in a tomato field or stocks shelves. In fact, "the rich," often have jobs that guarantee them certain holidays and [I]paid vacation.[/I] You know what I would have to do to get paid vacation at my job? Have something heavy fall on my leg, crush it, and take worker's comp. Weird, isn't it.[/QUOTE] I do agree that higher level work is much less unpleasant than manual labor, but "paid vacation" and "holidays" really only exist for the middle class. The people who make a large amount of money have so many responsibilities that they work through their weekends, holidays, and vacations. I've seen it firsthand, people I know who go on a trip will always bring their work computer with them because being an executive is a 24/7/365 job, there is always stuff to deal with. [QUOTE=G-Strogg;51083005]Since the rich managed to pit the poorer against themselves, when they convinced the people with some money that all the problems in the economy hilariously enough comes from those without enough money to even affect the economy.[/QUOTE] I keep hearing about this evil conspiracy theory among the rich to demonize the poor. Also I've never seem the poor blamed for economic problems, only for their voting power (due to being the majority). The hostile mentality to the poor is more about shifting a mindset towards taking responsibility for one's actions instead of trying to divert blame to circumstance. Starting in a wealthy family gets you a head start, but without knowing what you're doing you'll lose the money right away. Just within people I've seen, who all had the same opportunities growing up, their success in life directly correlated with their locus of control.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51083097]I do agree that higher level work is much less unpleasant than manual labor, but "paid vacation" and "holidays" really only exist for the middle class. The people who make a large amount of money have so many responsibilities that they work through their weekends, holidays, and vacations. I've seen it firsthand, people I know who go on a trip will always bring their work computer with them because being an executive is a 24/7/365 job, there is always stuff to deal with. [/quote] So the high paid job guy might be anxiety from the demands of their job, but the low paid job guy might feel anxiety about no future prospects, day to day living, job security, option of buying a house or supporting kids. Both can have anxiety. Likewise you can get happy people in low paid jobs and happy people in high paid jobs. Its done with supply and demand you're not paid for your work your paid based on how replaceable you are and if you're paid peanuts because your boss knows he has control over you you'll feel a lot worse than being paid loads because you know you are utterly indispensable. [quote] I keep hearing about this evil conspiracy theory among the rich to demonize the poor. Also I've never seem the poor blamed for economic problems, only for their voting power (due to being the majority).[/quote] In the UK the poor on welfare are blamed for all sorts. "We should spend that money on NHS instead" etc. In reality a load of people in the UK are on benefits of some kind and the "job seekers allowance" makes up 1% of the welfare budget. Still they make convenient scapegoats and welfare has become a dirty word. Government can cut spending on welfare (but they mean child benefits and disability together more than 50% of budget) by blaming welfare scrounging (people on job seekers account for 1% of budget) Also people blame money being spent on refugees and immigrants for problems when its tiny compared to entire budget. The reason people in the UK are struggling is companies not paying taxes or using loopholes, not because some poor sod in newcastle has spent the last 2 years out of work because the factory automated his job or shipped manufacturing to china. [quote]The hostile mentality to the poor is more about shifting a mindset towards taking responsibility for one's actions instead of trying to divert blame to circumstance. Starting in a wealthy family gets you a head start, but without knowing what you're doing you'll lose the money right away.[/QUOTE] The whole "take responsibility" rhetoric is real nice in theory but wholly unrealistic. Social mobility in the UK and USA are some of the lowest in the world. To put it simply the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. It's not really THAT meritocratic in the high up jobs. Generally received privileges or advantages fail to acknowledge their head start and would rather attribute their success to their own efforts rather than the leg up they got. Whats worst are those rare cases who manage to climb up and hold a contempt for people who are in they position they used to be in but don't manage to catch the lucky break they did. It's damaging because something which might be out of your control ie bad luck, employer closing down from stock market, job being automated etc you are told to blame yourself, you are the failure, if you had tried harder you could have done it but you're a sad failure and worse than everybody else, you don't deserve success because you didn't try hard enough. That's incredibly damaging, no wonder depression is widespread. To put it bluntly not everyone can be successful and not all failure is fault of your own. [url]http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate[/url]
[QUOTE=27X;51082775]Lol, the rich whom own single businesses have to work because the megarich whom own the corporation they compete against have not only crafted laws against them, but also advertise everywhere incessantly. There is still a divide, it's simply far wider then the article even attempts to address. Also why the the fuck would I give my literal life on [I]someone else's behalf[/I] for shit health and ownership debt in a dead end job until I'm 70? Boohoohoo the proles don't buy the bullshit anymore boohoo the economy is doomed. :rolleyes: Since when did poor ever equate to ignorant or stupid.[/QUOTE] Working class people who were formerly lacking in education/uninformed now have unrestricted access to information from across the world and have realised they're getting the short end of the stick. That's probably why.
I love how it claims we are all choosing unemployment. Many of us, myself included, were unemployed because nobody would hire someone with zero formal experience. I bashed my head against that wall from 2006, when I became eligible for work, until april of last year. It didnt matter where I applied, as soon as they saw I had no experience they moved on. It took a walmart so understaffed the interviewer admitted it in plain english to finally get some. Fun fact: I had applied to that store numerous times over that period.
I was willing to believe that you can find a job without needing to know someone but that seems to be the case. If you dont have enough of a social circle, you are pretty much fucked for finding a job and chances are you'll be doing shitty "work placements" earning less than minimum wage and work courses just to find something that doesn't require so much of a pound of flesh say, years ago. I'm still tempted to try and get into Human Resources so i could sort this shit out.
[QUOTE=27X;51082775]Boohoohoo the proles don't buy the bullshit anymore boohoo the economy is doomed. :rolleyes: Since when did poor ever equate to ignorant or stupid.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853][B]they assert that the poor are lazy and indigent and the rich are hard working[/B] ... Simply put, this article is bullshit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51082986]The rich were 'meant' to have the most leisure time? Says fucking who? Who also said that being poor equated to 'ignorant or stupid'?[/QUOTE] Are you guys responding to the article at all or just using this opportunity to soapbox? Nowhere does it say that poor people are lazy and stupid, or that the rich are supposed to have more leisure time (beyond Keynes' prediction), or that the rich work way harder than the poor. Like, it's not even saying that leisure is a bad thing, more that it can be concerning when people damage their future prospects [I]because they can't get a decent job[/I]. [quote][B]It is a relief to know that one can be poor, young, and unemployed, and yet fairly content with life[/B]; indeed, one of the hallmarks of a decent society is that it can make even poverty bearable. But the [B]long-term prospects of these men may be even bleaker than their present[/B]. As Hurst and others have emphasized, these young men have disconnected from both the labor market and the dating pool. They are on track to grow up without spouses, families, or a work history. They may grow up to be rudderless middle-aged men, hovering around the poverty line, trapped in the narcotic undertow of cheap entertainment [B]while the labor market fails to present them with adequate working opportunities[/B]. But when I tweeted Hurst’s speech this week, many people had a surprising and different take: [B]That it was sad to think that a life of leisure should be so scary in the first place.[/B] After all, this was the future today’s workers were promised—a paradise of downtime for rich and poor, alike.[/quote] The writer's theories for why the situation is happening are even bulleted for you in the article, and they have nothing to do with 'poor people are dumb and rich people are smart'. Be honest, you didn't even click on it, did you? [quote]1. The availability of attractive work for poor men (especially black men) is falling, as the availability of cheap entertainment is rising.[/quote] [quote]2. Social forces cultivate a conspicuous industriousness (even workaholism) among affluent college graduates.[/quote] [quote]3. Leisure is getting “leaky.”[/quote] The article is saying that low-income jobs are much less satisfying than they used to be, decent work is harder to get, and people don't want to work shitty dead-end jobs when there's much more satisfying leisure available. It also says that rich people work longer hours not because they're smarter or harder workers, but because they've been cultured that way, actually enjoy their work, or are uselessly trying to emulate longer-working peers. And here you clowns are ranting about how the article thinks you must be dumb and lazy if you don't want to work long hours on a terrible job when that's [I]literally the opposite[/I] of what it's saying.
[quote][B]Instead, it just bought them more work. Meanwhile, overall leisure has increased, but it’s the less-skilled poor who are soaking up all the free time, even though they would have the most to gain from working. [/B]Why?[/quote] I seriously don't understand why it seems to be such a common sentiment that one's life goal should be to work. The only formal job I've had is contract work to do data entry, and while it pays well, [B]it is boring as all get out[/B], I can't imagine doing it 9-5, 5 days a week, year round. I see employment more as a means to get money for the stuff you actually care about.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51083135]So the high paid job guy might be anxiety from the demands of their job, but the low paid job guy might feel anxiety about no future prospects, day to day living, job security, option of buying a house or supporting kids. Both can have anxiety. Likewise you can get happy people in low paid jobs and happy people in high paid jobs. Its done with supply and demand you're not paid for your work your paid based on how replaceable you are and if you're paid peanuts because your boss knows he has control over you you'll feel a lot worse than being paid loads because you know you are utterly indispensable.[/quote] I agree that there is a lot more shit to worry about, I'm just bothered by the arguments that they don't work hard or take lots of vacation time. [quote] In the UK the poor on welfare are blamed for all sorts. "We should spend that money on NHS instead" etc. In reality a load of people in the UK are on benefits of some kind and the "job seekers allowance" makes up 1% of the welfare budget. Still they make convenient scapegoats and welfare has become a dirty word. Government can cut spending on welfare (but they mean child benefits and disability together more than 50% of budget) by blaming welfare scrounging (people on job seekers account for 1% of budget) Also people blame money being spent on refugees and immigrants for problems when its tiny compared to entire budget. The reason people in the UK are struggling is companies not paying taxes or using loopholes, not because some poor sod in newcastle has spent the last 2 years out of work because the factory automated his job or shipped manufacturing to china.[/quote] That's not really the poor to blame as much as the government programs, but I see where they sort of blend together. I don't know much about the UK's situation, but the US spends a significant portion of its budget on social safety nets, IIRC they make up half or more of spending. Those are where you see the taxes coming in that start to hurt everyone. The reason businesses like to tax evade is because the rates are maddeningly high on the rich, nobody in their right mind is going to give up that big of a portion of their income without making some sort of effort to combat it. Nobody wants to have their money forcibly taken from them to fund programs that they may or may not think is an efficient use of money. [quote] you are told to blame yourself, you are the failure, if you had tried harder you could have done it but you're a sad failure and worse than everybody else, you don't deserve success because you didn't try hard enough. That's incredibly damaging, no wonder depression is widespread.[/QUOTE] This isn't really the correct interpretation of that philosophy. Everyone runs into problems like this, what separates successful people from everyone else is how they get themselves out of it. Not looking at it as "Here are all the reasons why I'm a failure", but "What did I do wrong, and what can I do to ensure this never happens again?". Even if it was mostly the fault of someone else, there is always at least a little bit you can do about it, however small. Almost all of the people who started corporate empires only did so after failing over and over. If you grow up in a craptacular household with minimal education and barely qualify for a minimum wage job, the only person who can truly get you out of that trap is yourself. Diverting responsibility to other people doesn't do anything to solve the problem, and living off of handouts really isn't going to give you much of a leg up either. If you look at anyone who suddenly comes in contact with a large amount of money, no effort required (such as lotteries) after being perpetually poor, that fortune rarely lasts long. I know people who fall into that pattern of thinking who even have reasonably high paying jobs, and somehow they're still living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, I even know of people who had lower middle class incomes and made themselves a small fortune by putting a lot of work into managing their money. If you spend your whole life waiting for someone to save you, you're never going to move up past the absolute bottom.
oh no no spouses families or wageslavery what are we gonna DO??
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51082752]I must be lucky or something because all I did was apply for Wal-Mart and I got hired pretty quickly[/QUOTE] walmart (and other big box retail and base-line fast food) aren't skilled labor you go to college for and seek out unless you're a manager, and they're always hiring because they're always firing (when employees aren't quitting to move up somewhere else). Why raise somebody's wages as they become more valuable and start making demands, when they have a constant influx of people begging to be paid the bare minimum in their place walmart as an employer serves a purpose and does a good job at bolstering small economies with hundreds of jobs (to be fair, while destroying similar small businesses in the process) but it should never be considered 'lucky' that they and similar mass hire businesses respond to an application compared to jobs you've sunk time and effort and money into training for
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853]I also doubt, say, graphic designers, software engineers, mortgage adjusters and the like have to lift fifty to sixty pounds on a regular basis, remain standing/walking for full eight hour shifts, or work two jobs to be able to afford their rent.[/QUOTE] This is a pretty old fashioned way of looking at what hard work is. It's different kind of work and both can be difficult and stressful.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51083447]I agree that there is a lot more shit to worry about, I'm just bothered by the arguments that they don't work hard or take lots of vacation time. That's not really the poor to blame as much as the government programs, but I see where they sort of blend together. I don't know much about the UK's situation, but the US spends a significant portion of its budget on social safety nets, IIRC they make up half or more of spending.[/quote] Stop the train! [url]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart[/url] 7% on welfare 22% on healthcare 19% on pensions Thats less than 50% How does your government spend more on healthcare (percentage wise) than the UK while alos being far far far more expensive for the consumer also? (private healthcare I guess competition made everything better amirite) Sounds like inefficiency... which I guess leads into your next point [quote]Those are where you see the taxes coming in that start to hurt everyone. The reason businesses like to tax evade is because the rates are maddeningly high on the rich, nobody in their right mind is going to give up that big of a portion of their income without making some sort of effort to combat it. Nobody wants to have their money forcibly taken from them to fund programs that they may or may not think is an efficient use of money.[/quote] So the rich/corperations avoiding to pay tax isn't because they're greedy, its because they disagree with how their country is run? One might argue that your government (or system) is inefficient looking at the stats above, specifically healthcare. But its the rich and the corporations who helped create that situation and inefficiency (again healthcare being the example with insurance and treatment costs being sky high and being 1 of the least efficient healthcare systems in the world, the cost of which is handed on to the government). Sorry buts its a bs arguement. They're benefitting from the welfare nets provided by the state, they're benefitting from the states existence. They should pay up or fuck off. Thats like me going to a hotel using a room and not paying. If they have a problem with the state they should lobby (and they do, far more effectively than you or I) they don't have the right to withold their taxes or find sneaky ways to shirk paying it or carrying their burden. If they're going to sell their goods and services in the country they ought to be taxed for it, because they are DIRECTLY benefiting from the country. In my eyes a company avoiding paying taxes is nothing less than a parasite or thief, enjoying benefits, services and perks which they are not paying for. [quote] This isn't really the correct interpretation of that philosophy. Everyone runs into problems like this, what separates successful people from everyone else is how they get themselves out of it. Not looking at it as "Here are all the reasons why I'm a failure", but "What did I do wrong, and what can I do to ensure this never happens again?". Even if it was mostly the fault of someone else, there is always at least a little bit you can do about it, however small. Almost all of the people who started corporate empires only did so after failing over and over.[/quote] No you're buying the bullshit. Some people won't make it. They're forced to get a job to care for themselves and their family and that gives them no flexibility, time or option to self improve to get a better situation. Some people do manage to climb up in such a way, good on them. They're lucky they had a good break, they met the right person or were in the right place and had the right opportunity, if they claim it was all pure hard work without any measure of luck at some point they are lying. [quote] If you grow up in a craptacular household with minimal education and barely qualify for a minimum wage job, the only person who can truly get you out of that trap is yourself. Diverting responsibility to other people doesn't do anything to solve the problem, and living off of handouts really isn't going to give you much of a leg up either. If you look at anyone who suddenly comes in contact with a large amount of money, no effort required (such as lotteries) after being perpetually poor, that fortune rarely lasts long. I know people who fall into that pattern of thinking who even have reasonably high paying jobs, and somehow they're still living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, I even know of people who had lower middle class incomes and made themselves a small fortune by putting a lot of work into managing their money. If you spend your whole life waiting for someone to save you, you're never going to move up past the absolute bottom.[/QUOTE] I agree you can learn to handle your money but for that you have to be fairly lucky in the first place. If you are at the bottom you probably aren't paid enough to have money to handle. People have to work 2 jobs, they're trying hard. Look at social mobility figures, look at inherited poverty the figures speak for themselves. By you saying "its your fault you're poor, you should have tried harder" without fully understanding their situation you are part of the issue, you're one of the " you are told to blame yourself, you are the failure, if you had tried harder you could have done it but you're a sad failure and worse than everybody else, you don't deserve success because you didn't try hard enough." people We need safety nets and welfare because not everybody can be rich and successful. Sadly society as it is wouldn't work if everyone was.
[QUOTE=27X;51082775]Lol, the rich whom own single businesses have to work because the megarich whom own the corporation they compete against have not only crafted laws against them, but also advertise everywhere incessantly.[/QUOTE] Mostly it's just copyright law forcing people to pay licensing fees, adding to their startup costs for virtually no reason. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51083734] So the rich/corperations avoiding to pay tax isn't because they're greedy, its because they disagree with how their country is run? One might argue that your government (or system) is inefficient looking at the stats above, specifically healthcare. But its the rich and the corporations who helped create that situation and inefficiency (again healthcare being the example with insurance and treatment costs being sky high and being 1 of the least efficient healthcare systems in the world, the cost of which is handed on to the government). Sorry buts its a bs arguement. They're benefitting from the welfare nets provided by the state, they're benefitting from the states existence. They should pay up or fuck off. Thats like me going to a hotel using a room and not paying. If they have a problem with the state they should lobby (and they do, far more effectively than you or I) they don't have the right to withold their taxes or find sneaky ways to shirk paying it or carrying their burden. If they're going to sell their goods and services in the country they ought to be taxed for it, because they are DIRECTLY benefiting from the country. In my eyes a company avoiding paying taxes is nothing less than a parasite or thief, enjoying benefits, services and perks which they are not paying for. [/QUOTE] Where the hell do you come up with this shit? The US healthcare ranking according to the WHO is #37. For comparison, Germany is #25, and Canada is #30. This only goes to show that nationalizing the healthcare isn't really going to do much to improve it. Sure, the country's systems of government are extremely inefficient, but it's because of corruption and misappropriation of funds. Education is the worst offender, where most of the funding goes to the staff rather than the school. Now, why aren't we focusing on this? The problems with the system are not a question of whether or not it is completely in the hands of the government, as it has clearly shown to be a problem even when that is the case. The question here is how to make it operate most efficient, with or without direct government involvement. If we had the best school/healthcare system in the world despite being privatized, would it really matter? There need strong regulatory bodies that actually do their jobs rather than just embezzling the funds, and an over-inflated budget certainly won't help us achieve those aims. Now, as for the state benefits bullshit, how? Is it that they get these massive bailouts to stay in business? If so, why should we even be giving them bailouts in the first place? Bankruptcy exists for a reason, so they have their ways of not becoming completely broke after their companies fall through. I really don't see the need for everyone to pay for things that they don't agree with, it's dumb. If we declared war on Canada for absolutely no reason and I didn't want to support that, I'd ditch the US and skip out on the bill(That's just how protests generally work). I don't understand how benefitting from the citizens of a nation somehow exists because of the government. The only thing they have to do with the company and the people are it's obligation to defend them from foreign/environmental threats. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853] [B]Why is it when social scientists challenge the position of say, white men, social science is a spurious soft science, but when they assert that the poor are lazy and indigent and the rich are hard working, they become esteemed leaders in their fields?[/B][/QUOTE] because that's racist as fuck?
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853]I also doubt, say, [B]graphic designers[/B], software engineers, mortgage adjusters and the like have to lift fifty to sixty pounds on a regular basis, remain standing/walking for full eight hour shifts, [B]or work two jobs to be able to afford their rent[/B].[/QUOTE] of all the examples to assume has money
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51083447]I agree that there is a lot more shit to worry about, I'm just bothered by the arguments that they don't work hard or take lots of vacation time. That's not really the poor to blame as much as the government programs, but I see where they sort of blend together. I don't know much about the UK's situation, but the US spends a significant portion of its budget on social safety nets, IIRC they make up half or more of spending. Those are where you see the taxes coming in that start to hurt everyone. The reason businesses like to tax evade is because the rates are maddeningly high on the rich, nobody in their right mind is going to give up that big of a portion of their income without making some sort of effort to combat it. Nobody wants to have their money forcibly taken from them to fund programs that they may or may not think is an efficient use of money. This isn't really the correct interpretation of that philosophy. Everyone runs into problems like this, what separates successful people from everyone else is how they get themselves out of it. Not looking at it as "Here are all the reasons why I'm a failure", but "What did I do wrong, and what can I do to ensure this never happens again?". Even if it was mostly the fault of someone else, there is always at least a little bit you can do about it, however small. Almost all of the people who started corporate empires only did so after failing over and over. If you grow up in a craptacular household with minimal education and barely qualify for a minimum wage job, the only person who can truly get you out of that trap is yourself. Diverting responsibility to other people doesn't do anything to solve the problem, and living off of handouts really isn't going to give you much of a leg up either. If you look at anyone who suddenly comes in contact with a large amount of money, no effort required (such as lotteries) after being perpetually poor, that fortune rarely lasts long. I know people who fall into that pattern of thinking who even have reasonably high paying jobs, and somehow they're still living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, I even know of people who had lower middle class incomes and made themselves a small fortune by putting a lot of work into managing their money. If you spend your whole life waiting for someone to save you, you're never going to move up past the absolute bottom.[/QUOTE] You realize people don't have some kind of magical decision making ability to just decide "hey im going to learn how to manage my economy super well and trade stocks and shit out of nowhere!" right? Everyone is a product of their environment (and their genes and a few other things) If they don't know how to manage money well, it's because their environment never taught them. If they don't go out and take some classes on it or learn it some other way, it's because their environment never taught them to do it, how to do it, or gave them the opportunity to do it.
[QUOTE=27X;51082775]Lol, [B]the rich whom own single businesses have to work because the megarich whom own the corporation they compete against have not only crafted laws against them, but also advertise everywhere incessantly.[/B] There is still a divide, it's simply far wider then the article even attempts to address. Also why the the fuck would I give my literal life on [I]someone else's behalf[/I] for shit health and ownership debt in a dead end job until I'm 70? Boohoohoo the proles don't buy the bullshit anymore boohoo the economy is doomed. :rolleyes: Since when did poor ever equate to ignorant or stupid.[/QUOTE] Myth. Read the article. Why are you doing everything you can to try and make it seem like effort is pointless?
[QUOTE=dai;51083802]of all the examples to assume has money[/QUOTE] Let's not also forget the NASA engineers that has to work under the pressure of people's lives being at stake. It's just not that simple
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51084050]Myth. Read the article. Why are you doing everything you can to try and make it seem like effort is pointless?[/QUOTE] Not 100% true for all industries. Some have ridiculously invasive patents and whatnot that require smaller businesses to license things.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51083734]Stop the train! [url]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart[/url] 7% on welfare 22% on healthcare 19% on pensions Thats less than 50% How does your government spend more on healthcare than the UK while alos being far far far more expensive for the consumer also? (private healthcare I guess competition made everything better amirite) [/quote] Because we have over ten times the population? The percentage can be significantly lower and still the raw spend is higher when you have such a large population disparity.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51084084]Because we have over ten times the population? The percentage can be significantly lower and still the raw spend is higher when you have such a large population disparity.[/QUOTE] No the percentage is higher. Your government spends 22% on healthcare, ours spends 20%. You also pay a load yourself seperately. How can it be so inefficient?
[QUOTE=Samiam22;51083402]I seriously don't understand why it seems to be such a common sentiment that one's life goal should be to work. The only formal job I've had is contract work to do data entry, and while it pays well, [B]it is boring as all get out[/B], I can't imagine doing it 9-5, 5 days a week, year round. I see employment more as a means to get money for the stuff you actually care about.[/QUOTE] While iys not my life's goal, I feel like I'm spinning my wheels if I'm not doing something. Not only that, but I grew up with every request for anything being answered with 'we cant afford that'. My high school truck, bought some ten years ago for half a grand, [i]is still kept in roadworthy condition in case we need it[/i]. Christmas 2014 was, in my household, most known as the time we almost got forclosed on and beat the bank back in the 9th hour on the fourteenth. The nicest vehicle we own is my Crown Vic that has just north of 230 thousand on the odo, because we can afford nothing better. I'm fucking tired of livng in near poverty. I have never known the luxury of financial security, its been paycheck to paycheck since my memory starts. And unless I break the bank at Vegas or land a powerball, work is my ticket out. I have no choice, I have to pull 40 hour weeks. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;5c1084104]No the percentage is higher. Your government spends 22% on healthcare, ours pays 20%. You also pay a load yourself seperately. How can it be so inefficient?[/QUOTE] I said 'can' not 'is' as I was making a point rather than stating facts, also, Congress is a daycare not a legislative body.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.