On 12/14/2012 01:36 PM, seekliberation wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: >> The problem with the conservatives is that the individual weakness they >> perceive is mostly imaginary. > No, it's not imaginary. I have quite a few friends and family who are in > very bad positions in life right now. They all have some or all of the > following things in common: disrespectful attitudes towards parents/teachers > during teenage years, high school dropouts, fired from multiple jobs, quit > perfectly good jobs, partied most of the time from 18-30 years of age, maxed > out credit cards, bought homes WAY out of their annual income range....and > the list goes on and on. When I say all my family and friends fall into at > least one of these categories, I don't mean most of them....I mean every > single one of them. I do love them, and wish them the best. But > unfortunately for them, I know what they were all doing for the last 20-30 > years, and it certainly wasn't anything in the category of responsibility.
I was thinking more the conservatives bitching about people on welfare or food stamps and not understanding the situation. Or people whose homes have been foreclosed on particularly folks who are seniors and had planned to sell the house and move into some retirement situation but can't sell now or if they do won't get even a modest amount in equity. I was thinking about young kids who just graduated from college maybe even with honors and can't get a job and have a way overpriced education college loan to pay off. Oh sure there are people who used their house as an ATM. I have relatives who did that. They always thought new year would be better. It ain't gonna happen. > > > Now, that being said, are there no victims of circumstance out there? Of > course there are some. Which is the majority? If I went off of my childhood > memories, family experiences, and observation of co-workers and friends, my > perception is pretty clear. But....I'll go ahead and give the benefit of the > doubt that perhaps, for whatever karmic reason, I was simply attracted to > people with weak DNA or bad karma themselves, despite the fact that none of > them are mentally retarded or physically handicapped in any way. I suspect you're old enough to remember the 1970s. I was in my late 20's by then. I recall that we weren't exactly walking on egg shells to survive. I didn't make a lot of money but I wasn't broke either. If you needed an extra job there was always something and something that matched your talents and interests. The 21st century stinks. > > > I guess some of them don't want the >> money they paid in for Social Security and Medicare. We are owed that. > I certainly wouldn't deny that. > >> It is not a welfare check. But it seems to take a baseball bat to knock >> any sense into conservatives. >> >> They also think the 99% are lazy. No, many of those people have looked >> for work, have had good jobs in the past and are highly skilled. > Businesses going overseas probably has a lot to do with it, which dfinitely > falls in your category of 'greed' being primarily responsible. Immigration > to the states also takes 'some' of our jobs. But aside from that, if jobs > are scarce, that means the private sector is simply diminishing. I still wonder how much of that stuff moved overseas is more automated than here. Tech execs would worry if they automated more here then unions would be on their backs. Tech companies aren't usually unionized because there is a solution to that: treat your employees nice. Happy employees = happy customers = happy stockholders. Unfortunately we have some shortsighted execs who only focus on the last group. > > > It's >> like they have been purposely shut out of the job market. You have a >> scenario for a violent revolution because highly educated people are not >> going to put up with this situation much longer. We know this from history. >> >>>> They would most likely agree with higher taxes on the rich. > Higher taxes is a start, but it also has to be accompanied by significant > cuts in spending, which is where a majority of the reduction in deficit is > going to have to come from. But taxing the rich a bit more, I don't have > much of a problem with that, only with the illusion that we're going to > balance our budget with that alone. They tried it in Britain a while back, > and all the rich people fled the country, or stashed their money where it > can't be taxed. The British socialism of the mid-20th century was a bit too draconian. I have some friends whose parents fled due to that. The lesson to be learned from the French and Russian revolutions is to not allow things to get too out of whack the other direction. Society never seems to learn from history. > >> Then as I have predicted for some time it will take the collapse of the >> US for change. Don't forget that people in Europe get free medical >> care, more vacation than US fools. We don't have enough jobs for >> everyone either. So that issue needs to be addressed. And yes some >> workers are spoiled. We heard recently that Apple was going assemble >> one of their products in the US but then not to be missed that Foxconn >> the next day announced a US facility. Now we here on FFL know the >> difference between oriental mindsets and Jamie down the street. Which >> do you think will assemble a Mac properly. Of course they may hire Frank >> who was an account exec to assemble those machines rather than Jamie. >> >> Maybe the solution is a 10 hour week, guaranteed annual income and a new >> leisure society. And demolish the empty McMansions. > We would never maintain any form of productivity with a 10 hour week. In > fact, at no time in history do I believe a mass group of individuals would > have ever been able to take care of their entire life only putting forth 10 > hours of effort per week. Now, you could work 10 hours a week for an > employer if you grew your own garden, had a well in your back yard, and some > form of solar/wind power for your home, and you didn't expect to do much (no > extravagant vacations, luxaries, etc..). I do know a few people who lived > somewhat like that, and yes...their lives are much more free than mine in > terms of daily schedule. They just have to live with other inconveniences. > > seekliberation India? That's where I learned that it was difficult for companies to find people who wanted to work anymore than 2 hours a day. It's the scale of the economy. It appears the same thing exists in the Middle East (another thing that pisses off the western establishment). What if working only 10 hours a week paid all your living expenses and more? Once again things were a lot more in balance in the 1970s and they are way out of whack today.
