The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:25 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:16 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Diamondeye wrote:
100 hours a week, between work and school, is, in any case, not too much to expect from a young person in college. It's not expecting too much of people, it's you making pussified excuses for laziness.


100 hours a week between work and school is not just for the young. I spent 40-50 hours a week in the office. I then spend another 12 hours a week in 2 classes. And then close to 15 hours per week studying for each class.

That is for 2 classes. Someone taking more classes would easily surpass the 100 hour mark.

So I completely agree with DE here.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
I don't need to consult my limited experience. I can look at 17% real unemployment plus probably a greater number of "discouraged" workers not even looking for work. Or I can look at the government's own employment numbers that indicate less than 40% of the US population is employed.

"Hard" is a relative concept. So is laziness. If the majority of Americans were willing to work 80 hours a week, a 60-hour guy would be considered lazy even though he's above average now. With less than 40% of the country working, I don't need to see more than that to know exactly what the "average" work ethic is.

Maybe working full time and getting an education is not hard for you or most of the people on this board. But for the average American it very much is. That's why so relatively few manage to do it.

I worked 40 hours a week while in college, but the only reason I was able to do it was because college was easy for me, I had to study very little. If I had a more "average" IQ and actually had to study for the "recommended" amount of 2-3 hours of study for every hour of class time I probably would not have made it. My work ethic is not amazing, I admit it. Still, I think it's way the **** better than the thousands of people who take 12 credit hours on their parents' dime and do NOTHING else.

If everyone in the country had Rynar's work ethic the US would own two thirds of the world and have a massive surplus and all the economic problems would not exist. But that's a dream world. It doesn't exist. I am not claiming McDonalds pays unfairly, or even that it is impossible for someone to better themselves while working there. Plenty of people manage to do it. I am simply pointing out that from the perspective of the "average" American, with an "average" work ethic, they absolutely cannot. They will burn out.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:24 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Xequecal wrote:
I am simply pointing out that from the perspective of the "average" American, with an "average" work ethic, they absolutely cannot. They will burn out.


If they cannot be bothered to strive for more than they have.. they should be given nothing more than they earn. Work hard and strive for better, or settle for what you have and get nothing extra. Sounds fairly simple to me.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:25 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
I don't need to consult my limited experience. I can look at 17% real unemployment plus probably a greater number of "discouraged" workers not even looking for work. Or I can look at the government's own employment numbers that indicate less than 40% of the US population is employed.


Which somehow indicates what, exactly? That there aren't a lot of **** jobs? Or that people are a lot more lazy than they used to be? People are arguing it should be shameful to be on the dole; the fact that it isn't is the **** problem.

Quote:
"Hard" is a relative concept. So is laziness. If the majority of Americans were willing to work 80 hours a week, a 60-hour guy would be considered lazy even though he's above average now. With less than 40% of the country working, I don't need to see more than that to know exactly what the "average" work ethic is.


Less than 40% when you include those too young, too aged, or otherwise unable to work? What the hell kind of number is that? And who the hell cares about a fictitous world where the average work week is 80 hours?

Quote:
Maybe working full time and getting an education is not hard for you or most of the people on this board. But for the average American it very much is. That's why so relatively few manage to do it.


No, it isn't. You're just spewing out nonsense without a shred of fact to back you up.

Quote:
I worked 40 hours a week while in college, but the only reason I was able to do it was because college was easy for me, I had to study very little. If I had a more "average" IQ and actually had to study for the "recommended" amount of 2-3 hours of study for every hour of class time I probably would not have made it.


Or you would have grabbed your **** ball sack and made it, but then again, maybe not since you obviously think it's perfectly ok to puss out when it gets tough.

Quote:
If everyone in the country had Rynar's work ethic the US would own two thirds of the world and have a massive surplus and all the economic problems would not exist. But that's a dream world. It doesn't exist. I am not claiming McDonalds pays unfairly, or even that it is impossible for someone to better themselves while working there. Plenty of people manage to do it. I am simply pointing out that from the perspective of the "average" American, with an "average" work ethic, they absolutely cannot. They will burn out.


Yes, it does exist, or rahter it can exist. The reason it doesn't is that we have bleeding hard jackasses telling people "it's too hard!" which doscourages them from doing what the **** they need to do.

The average American's perspective on this, if your description of it is accurate (which is questionable), is wrong.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:31 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Xeq, I think thats part of the problem atm. It's the type of thinking that it is OKAY to be average, it is OKAY for others to accept your failure and that it is OKAY to live on other people's money.

You are right that 'average' is a perception, however that perception have been steadily declining because people have been saying it's okay.

at some point, you will have to look at the state of your country say no, it's not okay.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
You're the one who brought up that level of work. You just indicated that you think it should not be exceptional for a young person to "work" for 100 hours a week. This is completely detached from reality.

The US workweek is 40 hours. If you're paid hourly, they have to pay you overtime if they expect more work. Not only that, but the 40 hour week is on the high end of the scale amongst high HDI countries, go look at France with a 34-hour week and six weeks of mandatory paid vacation. I don't know how you can claim that the "average" American's perspective is that working 60 or 80 hours is normal in the face of this.

Right now, in the US, someone willing to work 60 hours a week while getting paid for 40 in hopes of advancing himself (either through school or putting in extra time at the office in hopes of getting noticed) is above average. It's pretty rare. Someone willing to work 100 is extremely rare. That's why the people actually willing to do so generally achieve great success very quickly. They're a very small percentage of the whole.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Lydiaa wrote:
Xeq, I think thats part of the problem atm. It's the type of thinking that it is OKAY to be average, it is OKAY for others to accept your failure and that it is OKAY to live on other people's money.

You are right that 'average' is a perception, however that perception have been steadily declining because people have been saying it's okay.

at some point, you will have to look at the state of your country say no, it's not okay.


It is absolutely "okay" to be average, and being average does not make you a failure. Fifty percent of the country is below average. Are they all failures?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:42 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
It is absolutely "okay" to be average, and being average does not make you a failure. Fifty percent of the country is below average. Are they all failures?


No. It isn't. At least not when you have the ability to be more, because that means you are settling for something less than excellence, and you are cheating yourself.

There are only two options, success and failure, and you either choose one or the other. You can plan to succeed by doing the work necessary and working towards a goal, or you plan to fail by not planning to succeed.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Rynar wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
It is absolutely "okay" to be average, and being average does not make you a failure. Fifty percent of the country is below average. Are they all failures?


No. It isn't. At least not when you have the ability to be more, because that means you are settling for something less than excellence, and you are cheating yourself.

There are only two options, success and failure, and you either choose one or the other. You can plan to succeed by doing the work necessary and working towards a goal, or you plan to fail by not planning to succeed.


This is great from a motivational perspective, but it fails the basic reality test. Fifty percent will always be below average. If you define "success" or "excellence" as being above average, then only a percentage less than fifty percent of the whole can ever achieve success. Even if every single person suddenly developed an amazing work ethic success or failure would just be determined by other factors like genetics or the wealth of the parents.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:49 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
You're the one who brought up that level of work. You just indicated that you think it should not be exceptional for a young person to "work" for 100 hours a week. This is completely detached from reality.


Of course it is. Can you not **** read English? I said it should not be exceptional. Obviously it isn't the current reality or I wouldn't be saying it should be because it already would be reality.

Quote:
The US workweek is 40 hours. If you're paid hourly, they have to pay you overtime if they expect more work. Not only that, but the 40 hour week is on the high end of the scale amongst high HDI countries, go look at France with a 34-hour week and six weeks of mandatory paid vacation. I don't know how you can claim that the "average" American's perspective is that working 60 or 80 hours is normal in the face of this.


Because A) there's situations like the one you described where the work week includes commuting, studying, class, and other activities and B) because a lot of jobs are not hourly jobs and don't involve overtime. Obviously the average American's perspective isn't that working 60 or 80 hours is normal. That attitude is the **** problem we're discussing here. Are you seriously saying that it shouldn't be considered normal because it currently isn't? Especially for young people?

Quote:
Right now, in the US, someone willing to work 60 hours a week while getting paid for 40 in hopes of advancing himself (either through school or putting in extra time at the office in hopes of getting noticed) is above average. It's pretty rare. Someone willing to work 100 is extremely rare. That's why the people actually willing to do so generally achieve great success very quickly. They're a very small percentage of the whole.


No ****, sherlock. That's because we've had 70 years of telling people they should be taking it easy from the moment they graduate high school, and hence why being on the dole should be shameful again. People would rather suddenly discover it was a lot easier to bust their *** then.

As for working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40, I assume you're not aware of all the people out there working 2 jobs, or are they just too inconvenient to your arguments that are based on nothing but your own subjective impressions?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:53 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
I think the point here is xeq, by telling those who could be exceptional that it is okay to be average, at least a portion of those will not achieve their potential. This over time, drives down the 'average' and what is accepted of a person.

Only by telling everyone it's not okay to be average will everyone strive to achieve more, and thus get more out of everyone as a whole.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:53 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
It is absolutely "okay" to be average, and being average does not make you a failure. Fifty percent of the country is below average. Are they all failures?


No. It isn't. At least not when you have the ability to be more, because that means you are settling for something less than excellence, and you are cheating yourself.

There are only two options, success and failure, and you either choose one or the other. You can plan to succeed by doing the work necessary and working towards a goal, or you plan to fail by not planning to succeed.


This is great from a motivational perspective, but it fails the basic reality test. Fifty percent will always be below average. If you define "success" or "excellence" as being above average, then only a percentage less than fifty percent of the whole can ever achieve success. Even if every single person suddenly developed an amazing work ethic success or failure would just be determined by other factors like genetics or the wealth of the parents.


Not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about working to the limit of your own individual abilities.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:55 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
This discussion also has on it's tangent the idea of welfare. While peer pressure is a good tool to get motivation for most people, there will always be those that don't care enough because they are already provided for... or am I touching on too much of another subject?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:57 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Lydiaa wrote:
This discussion also has on it's tangent the idea of welfare. While peer pressure is a good tool to get motivation for most people, there will always be those that don't care enough because they are already provided for... or am I touching on too much of another subject?


For those people starvation would likely be a sufficient motivator.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Diamondeye wrote:
As for working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40, I assume you're not aware of all the people out there working 2 jobs, or are they just too inconvenient to your arguments that are based on nothing but your own subjective impressions?


Of course I'm aware of that. I've tried to make this clear. I'm talking about the average. Yes, there are people willing to work two, or even three jobs. There are also people perfectly happy to sit on the dole and do nothing. if you average them together, what do you get?

This is honestly pretty far afield from "being on the dole is shameful." It's graduated to, "anyone who is happy to put in their 40 hours a week and punch the clock on Friday should be ashamed of themselves."

Quote:
Because A) there's situations like the one you described where the work week includes commuting, studying, class, and other activities and B) because a lot of jobs are not hourly jobs and don't involve overtime. Obviously the average American's perspective isn't that working 60 or 80 hours is normal. That attitude is the **** problem we're discussing here. Are you seriously saying that it shouldn't be considered normal because it currently isn't? Especially for young people?


Well, what is "normal" is a completely arbitrary standard. If 60 or 80 hours was the norm instead of what is currently the case, yeah, the US and the average American would be a lot richer. But you could also make the argument that our current status as richest country in the world is already good enough, so a higher norm is not required.


Last edited by Xequecal on Tue May 04, 2010 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:02 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
As for working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40, I assume you're not aware of all the people out there working 2 jobs, or are they just too inconvenient to your arguments that are based on nothing but your own subjective impressions?


Of course I'm aware of that. I've tried to make this clear. I'm talking about the average. Yes, there are people willing to work two, or even three jobs. There are also people perfectly happy to sit on the dole and do nothing. if you average them together, what do you get?

This is honestly pretty far afield from "being on the dole is shameful." It's graduated to, "anyone who is happy to put in their 40 hours a week and punch the clock on Friday should be ashamed of themselves."


No it hasn't.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:06 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Xeq,

to be honest.. anyone expecting to support more than just themselves on McDonalds income and think it is the Government's job to do something about it is a failure. But that is not the discussion at hand.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:23 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Of course I'm aware of that. I've tried to make this clear. I'm talking about the average. Yes, there are people willing to work two, or even three jobs. There are also people perfectly happy to sit on the dole and do nothing. if you average them together, what do you get?


How exactly do you know that they can be averaged together? Furthermore, part of the reason that people are happy to sit on the dole is that it's seen as socially acceptable. We're pointing out that if it weren't socially acceptable, a lot less people would be willing to sit on it.

The only thing you've made clear is that you're trying, for some bizarre reason, to argue against how things should be by pointing out how they are.

Quote:
This is honestly pretty far afield from "being on the dole is shameful." It's graduated to, "anyone who is happy to put in their 40 hours a week and punch the clock on Friday should be ashamed of themselves."


It's graduated to that because you said that in relation to people working at McDonalds. No one else has said that. What we've said is that people should be ashamed of being on the dole so that they will work a lot more than 40 hours a week to get ahead, and at a minimum, 40 hours at McDonalds just to not be on it.

Quote:
Quote:
Because A) there's situations like the one you described where the work week includes commuting, studying, class, and other activities and B) because a lot of jobs are not hourly jobs and don't involve overtime. Obviously the average American's perspective isn't that working 60 or 80 hours is normal. That attitude is the **** problem we're discussing here. Are you seriously saying that it shouldn't be considered normal because it currently isn't? Especially for young people?


Well, what is "normal" is a completely arbitrary standard. If 60 or 80 hours was the norm instead of what is currently the case, yeah, the US and the average American would be a lot richer. But you could also make the argument that our current status as richest country in the world is already good enough, so a higher norm is not required.


No one's talking about "America getting richer" although that would be nice. We're talking about getting people to do something other than leech the taxpayer.

As for being good enough, you could also make the argument that an asteroid will destroy the planet next week. You can make any argument you want; that doesn't make it a reasonable or well-supported one. That's the same dumbass argument Monty used to argue we should quit buying new fighter planes. The ones we've got are the best already, so we should just sit on that situation because obviously it will persist indefinitely!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:43 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Xequecal wrote:
Well, what is "normal" is a completely arbitrary standard. If 60 or 80 hours was the norm instead of what is currently the case, yeah, the US and the average American would be a lot richer.


1) This is incorrect. Weekly hours worked is an metric of diminishing returns in terms of productivity, which is one reason many organizations have moved away from pushing employees that hard.

2) If you think 40 hours is the norm for all jobs, you need to expose yourself to more fields/professions. 40 hours is not the norm for most "professional" careers of which I'm aware.



@ Rynar:

I'd argue that you clearly haven't met enough lawyers and physicians if you think intelligence is the primary determination for those career paths.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:53 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
DFK! wrote:
@ Rynar:

I'd argue that you clearly haven't met enough lawyers and physicians if you think intelligence is the primary determination for those career paths.


I don't think it is exclusively primary.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:55 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Rynar wrote:
It used to be, throughout the great depression and in succeeding generations, that being on the government dole in any capacity was shame inducing. If you were, you didn't talk about it, and you worked your *** off to get off of it, because it meant acknowledging personal deficiency.

I feel this has changed, and I find it to be problematic.

What are your opinions?


Longer and more vehement than I expected.

I question your original premise Rynar. 'The Dole' covers a lot of territory. The most common meaning has long been that you are receiving unemployment insurance. Yes, some people still think being on the dole is shameful, but in this economic climate most folks are accepting that Jim is collecting UI because he lost his job along with half the other guys in town when the factory shut down. It is kind of hard to call it shameful when you are thanking God for you still having a job when so many around you do not. Welfare was originally meant to cover families for a short period of time, and yes, getting off it was the impetus.

What I consider the major part of the problem is we are trained and retrained and told we can't do a job without the proper training. For the most part in the modern world there is a certain amount of truth to it. You wouldn't want to hire a guy just laid off as a Steelworker as a Sous Chef unless he could show some credibility and experience as a Sous Chef now, would you? The real problem is people take that concept to the jobs where training is creating muscle memory. If you need more than five minutes training to learn how to use a shovel, grab a wheelbarrow and wheel it where they tell you. If it takes more than ten minutes to tell you how to load a truck, maybe you should ask for a job at the next warehouse down the road.

Back in the Depression, the United States was still up around 90% agricultural production, and to be a farmer or a rancher meant that you were a jack of a lot of trades, and willing to try just about anything to get the job done. You could dig a well, build a fence, milk a cow, sow the field, slop the pigs, whatever it took. If you were willing to work, even during the worst of the depression, you could find some work for miserable pay and keep you and your family out of potter's field. Yes, there were a lot of jobs people didn't want to do. Pride, it kills a lot of people. There might be times when you had to go talk to the local Reverend and ask for some help, but you tried to keep that to a minimum. Those who were worse off than you might need it. Yes, that attitude was real back then, my mother's family lived through it. They were Okies, they came to California and picked fruit, Grandma took in laundry and did okay because she was willing to wash other people's clothes. My mother says she didn't know they were poor until the charity folk came around giving them stuff for Christmas - heck, most everyone she knew was about as bad off.

That can do/will do whatever it takes spirit has been lost now that we are about 90% Urban. People don't know how to feed themselves off the land anymore. Knitting and crocheting are expensive hobbies instead of survival skills to keep your clothes and blankets repaired. Hunting is another expensive hobby for a lot of people, though it is regaining popularity as people start looking at being able to make it through next winter. In order to invent the technology, run the factories, create all that wonderful stuff we're looking at as luxuries we can't afford anymore, people came in to the cities, the pay was better, there were jobs, and there was all of a sudden training to do one thing. They forgot how to work for themselves and forgot to train their kids how to do it. When times got bad they forgot shame.

Farms are now commonly run by huge corporations and the little farmers are slowly dying out. The places that used to train people how to do the hundred and sixty three odd jobs they needed to do every week to keep a small farm or ranch running are dying out. Now you have colleges that specialize in training people to fix a computer, period. The next one down the road will teach you how to fix a copier, or maybe be a medical assistant, but not much else. The country is killing itself by being too modern, by not encouraging diversity of job skills and reward appropriately those who can survive.

Those of you who are survivalists already understand a lot of this, but do you understand that one of the worst things lacking in the raising of people today is the lack of coping skills? Here, go down to the mall and ask people if there is anything else you can sell them today, until your job is gone and nobody has prepared you for no minimum wage crap being available for you. What the hell do you do then? What do the car-makers do when they can't fasten three bolts on the passenger side drawer at their spot on the assembly line anymore? They can't retrain to throw the wheels on the hub because, oops, the plant shut down.

It isn't a matter of shame, it is a matter of the deliberate dumbing down and pacification of the American people.

The corporations want to bring the jobs back to America, they just want to break the unions and make it okay to ignore safety standards and pay people a bowl of cornflakes and a dollar a day. Dumb down the workforce until they can't cope with life, come in and save them with jobs they can barely stay alive on.

There is a major problem with this plan. Henry Ford figured it out, and its why he made a fortune. He paid his employees enough where they could afford to buy the cars they were making, which translated into everyone else wanting them too.

You are looking at it from the wrong angle Rynar. People are being taught by the Government and the Corporations that being a slacker unable to feed yourself or your family is a valid lifestyle choice. The shame is being purposefully removed from the equation because the government and the corporations do not want self sufficient citizens who have the strength of character to understand why they should be ashamed of not making their own way.

It is about control. It is about forgetting the lessons of the past. It is about destroying the world as we know it.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
DFK! wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Well, what is "normal" is a completely arbitrary standard. If 60 or 80 hours was the norm instead of what is currently the case, yeah, the US and the average American would be a lot richer.


1) This is incorrect. Weekly hours worked is an metric of diminishing returns in terms of productivity, which is one reason many organizations have moved away from pushing employees that hard.

2) If you think 40 hours is the norm for all jobs, you need to expose yourself to more fields/professions. 40 hours is not the norm for most "professional" careers of which I'm aware.



@ Rynar:

I'd argue that you clearly haven't met enough lawyers and physicians if you think intelligence is the primary determination for those career paths.


Oh, absolutely not. I posted a few posts up about how hard doctors and lawyers work. And there are a lot of professions that put in way more hours. My whole line or argument has been coming from the "average" expectation. We have 17% real unemployment and lets say 17% more that can work but are too "discouraged" to work. So you're averaging a whole lot of zeroes in with all the people who work harder. Me saying that the "average" American works 40 hours is just a pure guess but I don't think it's that far off.

My issue comes from that a lot of people are trying to combine our current welfare system with some kind of vastly diifferent societal expectation, and say one should be willing to work 40 hours a week for literally less than nothing, as in you're technically paying money to work there because it pays less than welfare, purely out of shame. Doing this is not something that should be encouraged. It's pure stupidity. Now, contrary to what you might think, I also think welfare should be massively cut down. But saying people are somehow "wrong" to accept what is offered is just strange. Why work at McD and go to school when you can just go to school and have more money in your pocket?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:02 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Michael, I feel compelled to say that your argument actually strengthens mine.

Given what you argue here, I find myself even more justified in demanding shame from those on the take.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Xequecal wrote:
My issue comes from that a lot of people are trying to combine our current welfare system with some kind of vastly diifferent societal expectation, and say one should be willing to work 40 hours a week for literally less than nothing, as in you're technically paying money to work there because it pays less than welfare, purely out of shame. Doing this is not something that should be encouraged. It's pure stupidity. Now, contrary to what you might think, I also think welfare should be massively cut down. But saying people are somehow "wrong" to accept what is offered is just strange. Why work at McD and go to school when you can just go to school and have more money in your pocket?


I actually disagree, Xeq. I think a person should be ashamed to take other people's charity when there are reasonable steps he/she could to take to reduce or eliminate the need. As you point out, however, what's considered "reasonable" will be a function of what the average workload in society is, so I do agree that demanding a person work themselves to the point of exhaustion before accepting public charity is overly extreme. Still, one should be willing to bust *** pretty hard before putting their hand out for help.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:12 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
RangerDave wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
My issue comes from that a lot of people are trying to combine our current welfare system with some kind of vastly diifferent societal expectation, and say one should be willing to work 40 hours a week for literally less than nothing, as in you're technically paying money to work there because it pays less than welfare, purely out of shame. Doing this is not something that should be encouraged. It's pure stupidity. Now, contrary to what you might think, I also think welfare should be massively cut down. But saying people are somehow "wrong" to accept what is offered is just strange. Why work at McD and go to school when you can just go to school and have more money in your pocket?


I actually disagree, Xeq. I think a person should be ashamed to take other people's charity when there are reasonable steps he/she could to take to reduce or eliminate the need. As you point out, however, what's considered "reasonable" will be a function of what the average workload in society is, so I do agree that demanding a person work themselves to the point of exhaustion before accepting public charity is overly extreme. Still, one should be willing to bust *** pretty hard before putting their hand out for help.


Reasonable is too arbitrary for my tastes. What I describe as reasonable likely differs from what Dez Bryant's mom thinks is reasonable.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 193 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group