260,000 graduates in minimum wage jobs

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by squittles

 

I'll go one step further: i blame the "its for the children" crowd for the "livable wage" crowd even existing. Its for the children has destroyed our schools. We create people who know what to think, but not how to think. They believe that if they just participate, they'll succeed. Everyone gets the same prize, and life is fair.

edit on 4/3/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Actually, in coarse terms, it kinda *is* fair - if you're born in a 1st world society, you're already ahead of the game. For most people, where they wind up is the sum total of their choices in life. While "luck" in all of its various forms have a part to play, so do you.

I won't offer myself as a role model - I made a huge number of mistakes in my life - but I remain gainfully employed for having knowledge and skills few others have, skills that people will pay me for.

My first job was at a gas station, which failed to even pay me minimum wage when the minimum wage rate went up. "Screw this", I said, I'm going to learn a trade that'll pay me some cash. I went to trade school and learned electronics, and got a job for a manufacturer. I soon realized the pay wasn't all it cracked up to be, and I had a completely limited future, that my skills were already becoming replaced by diagnostic equipment, and thought I'd model the engineer who designed the products we made. So, I went back to college, and started work on an engineering degree. It didn't take long before I realized I didn't really like it - but the computer programming course I took was cool, and the programmers I worked with in my part-time job who were writing software for the GPS system (this was in the late 70's) were well-paid, and enjoyed their work. So, I learned computer programming and became a programmer.

My career has evolved over time, as I always had my eye on the horizon to see what was coming - when Indian programmers started working for $2 / hour - I knew I couldn't compete with that, and changed my career direction. I've changed direction many times in my career, always in response to what I thought was coming. I knew no one was gonna pay me big money 'cause I was cute, or just because they always had. I wasn't entitled to my job, or my lifestyle. And I knew there were 1000's people in this world that would take my job if they could.

I made some bad choices, but I made them - the world keeps moving, and you have to be able to sell your skills on the open market. If you're in danger of obsolescence, or being commoditized, better learn a skill that isn't a cheap commodity. No one owes you anything but the air you breathe. (Oddly, I know there are some that will strenuously object to that statement. )

I feel badly for the kids of parents who allow their kids to be socialized in that "non-competitive, non-adversarial" way - because life in the world *is* a competition.

crazyewok

WarminIndy
The next time you see a peer-reviewed science journal, tell me about the grammar and spelling.

And yes of course it will be perfect in spelling and grammar. In fact I know a few who get interns to proof read it.

Butr look in there lab books and notes? Well you will be shocked and have a heart attack

WarminIndy
If a doctor doesn't care that he misspells a medication and a pharmacist has to call to verify the prescription...wait, didn't people die because of that very thing? Oh yes, people DIED because a doctor had the attitude

Yup and it causes us scientists and technicians a bigger work load too as we have to decipher there crap.


But fact is it happens. And it has always happened.

So what if they use scientific shorthand in their notes, it's still readable to them, but the END PRODUCT is what we are talking about, correct?

The end product should reflect the person's attitude. Do you remember Apollo 13 how Jim Lovell had to quickly figure out the mathematical formula to determine how much blast and what direction to put the ship back on track? Not only did he have to write the numbers down correctly and readable to himself, but those on the ground at NASA had to be just as accurate in theirs. The end product was getting the astronauts home safely. But the problem was caused by a MECHANICAL failure, from a MECHANIC who probably didn't know how to read the specs correctly.

There's no room for "it doesn't matter" when it comes to lives. That's the point.

Why are there so many recalls of automobiles from faulty parts? They have specs that the car is designed by, but someone sure drops the ball a lot on that one.

If they knew the parts were faulty, why were they allowed to be installed? Oh wait, the attitude of "it's just grammar and English, it doesn't matter" doesn't cut it. Yes, when lives are on the line it does matter.

squittles
I feel badly for the kids of parents who allow their kids to be socialized in that "non-competitive, non-adversarial" way - because life in the world *is* a competition.

I don't agree with you at all because life itself is not a competition and it shouldn't be. Competition is another way of saying, the one that controls the rules of the game wins. How do you feel about HFT? Do you realize the stock market is 100% rigged because of that? It's just a competition though so it's perfectly ok right? How about waste disposal companies that dump waste off the coast of Somalia because they don't have a government and military to say no? They're just the losers of the competition and should pay the price right?

I think that some people should earn more than others, but I also think the measure of greatness in a society is in how it treats it's lowest members. If the lowest members are poverty stricken, eating junk food (if eating at all), with no ability to move upward in society in large numbers then I view that as a pathetic society. The reason I believe this is that SOMEONE is always going to be on the bottom of society, in any hierarchical system there will always be a lowest member. Ensuring that the lowest members still have fulfilling lives is important.

As for the programming aspect. I agree that there's not much of a future in it, it's just another commodity that has been shipped overseas. I've tried competing with foreign workers on sites like rentacoder and I just can't do it. I can work 80 hours/week and not make enough to cover rent, when already living in one of the lowest cost of living areas in the US, in one of the lowest rent apartments in the area. There's still programming jobs out there, most of the ones I see pay in the $120k range (game programmers) rather than the $75k you claim but it's shrinking fast.

When it comes to not learning a cheap commodity, everything is cheap. Aside from onsite manual labor (which comprise very few jobs) anything can be outsourced to another country, done at a lower wage, and then shipped back to the US. Knowledge is cheap, it's effectively worthless as it costs nothing but a small amount of time to pass on. Other countries are taking advantage of that and nothing short of economic protectionism which isn't going to happen in a global economy is going to bring those jobs back to the US.

This whole thing goes back to why I think the work week needs to be reduced. There simply aren't enough jobs available anymore to employ everyone. We can meet the needs of everyone with less than the total output of everyone. By reducing the work week, everyone wins. People have more free time and everyone has a job to do.

WarminIndy
Why are there so many recalls of automobiles from faulty parts? They have specs that the car is designed by, but someone sure drops the ball a lot on that one.

If they knew the parts were faulty, why were they allowed to be installed? Oh wait, the attitude of "it's just grammar and English, it doesn't matter" doesn't cut it. Yes, when lives are on the line it does matter.

Because their product isn't being designed to maximum safety standards. It's designed so that it doesn't cause a catastrophic malfunction 99.99% of the time. Designing to more and more fault tolerance gets exponentially more expensive. There's a cost benefit ratio where at some point the company will say it's cheaper to deal with the resulting lawsuits, PR damage, potential recall, and so on than to make a safer product. They put a dollar figure on your life and weigh it against a dollar figure in development costs. Once your life becomes more expensive they no longer build to protect you.

There's also the concept of planned obsolescence here. If they know it's going to take 15 years for the cases to build up and legally force them to take action, but the product is designed to only last 12 years they can sell their product and have it outdated and no longer their concern by the time the law suits become problematic.

Welcome to neo capitalist business. There's one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the lowest quality of goods possible, at the highest price possible, paying the lowest wages possible.

Aazadan

squittles
I feel badly for the kids of parents who allow their kids to be socialized in that "non-competitive, non-adversarial" way - because life in the world *is* a competition.

I don't agree with you at all because life itself is not a competition and it shouldn't be. Competition is another way of saying, the one that controls the rules of the game wins.

No, the one who PLAYS THE GAME the best is who wins.

I forgot, you all come from the special group, the one who doesn't even have to play the game. George Carlin has the perfect answer for you.



The sooner you figure out the game, the sooner you play it. But those poor, unfortunates you love to talk about, some of them are the best system players. They learned how to play the game. And you are the poor sucker who is paying for them.

reply to post by sarra1833


I suspect that the number of 260000 is EXCEEDINGLY low. The idea that you need a college degree to make a good living is one of the biggest LIES perpetrated upon our young people. How many families have been bankrupt by going into debt to the tune of a quarter million dollars just so their kid could go to that special school? Hell, even state schools can cost upwards of 50K per year, PLUS room and board and other fees. We need to be teaching our young people trades and life skills.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Ughhh.

Blabering about spelling. Did i spell blabering right?

Someone please tell me that the people of this world aren't really this bad?

WarminIndy
No, the one who PLAYS THE GAME the best is who wins.

That means you're losing and so am I. Sure in the grand scheme of things we can each point to people we're doing better than, every single person on earth other than the person in absolute dead last place can do that, but that doesn't mean you're actually doing well. Being ahead of a few people doesn't mean you're winning, in fact in most games that contain a random element (and life contains many) the best very often isn't in first place.

Those that are actually winning the game are ahead of you by orders of magnitude. Between the top 3% and the 1% is a factor of 100x, between the 1% and the .1% is another factor of 100x, between the .1% and the .01% is another 100x factor. 85 people own 50% of the worlds wealth, unless you are one of those 85 people you are behind by such an order of magnitude that most humans can't even comprehend it.

If this were a game (something I know quite a bit about), for every point you earn (assuming you're at the median US income), they earn 4.66 billion points. The scales are so drastically different that the two of you can't even be said to be using the same resource system or playing the same game. In actual reality they aren't playing the same game as you because while you work for money they have the power to create it from nothing and give themselves as much as they want.

The sooner you figure out the game, the sooner you play it. But those poor, unfortunates you love to talk about, some of them are the best system players. They learned how to play the game. And you are the poor sucker who is paying for them.

What does welfare have to do with any of this? Jobs don't exist for graduates. At a 40 hour work week less than 100% of the population is required to meet the needs and wants of 100% of the population. As a result, a large portion of the population is going to be unemployed or seriously underemployed. This is a problem that is only going to get worse. The economic model must change to account for this.

reply to post by Aazadan


Star for you, greed is the problem, and lack of sense of community.

CT_Flyboy
reply to post by sarra1833

 

I suspect that the number of 260000 is EXCEEDINGLY low. The idea that you need a college degree to make a good living is one of the biggest LIES perpetrated upon our young people. How many families have been bankrupt by going into debt to the tune of a quarter million dollars just so their kid could go to that special school? Hell, even state schools can cost upwards of 50K per year, PLUS room and board and other fees. We need to be teaching our young people trades and life skills.

The numbers are for people actually being paid minimum wage. It does not include people making more than that, but still in the 'poor as f%^&' range.

This society has been steered onto a path that increasingly worships the intellect and shuns consequences and physical labor. College tuition rates are only going to increase (at least in the states) as it is in the government's interest to keep people worried about paying bills to maintain the easy lifestyle we have today because it keeps the people in line.

Furthermore the forced societal living is eliminating the feasibility of living off the land like 'back in the day.'

It sucks, I know from personal experience. Several friends have tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and are looking at a future where they wont likely reach that magic $50k salary they were promised out of school. They settle for retail positions and solicitors like yelp.

Fight Club was spot on when they identified the 'disposable society.'

It sure ain't pretty.

-FBB

EDIT
Let me note that I am currently pursuing an engineering degree.
The whole concept that people need to get their STEM degrees is completely out of focus. People completely underestimate how difficult the programs can be. Only 3 people passed my calc 1 course, 4 people made it through calc 2, and 5 people made it through calc 3. These courses begin with 30+ students every time. The course load is greater than most other programs with far more homework.

I work ~25 (+/-5) hours a week while 'only' taking 13 units. That is 16 hours in a classroom each week and an additional 8-20 (whenever there is an exam) hours doing homework and studying. That is like working a 50+ hour work week as MOST students are NOT the stereotypical egghead genius.

/rant off

People need to question why there is such a focus on science and technology creating a utopia. Every day I find myself questioning if these folks are mentally damaged from the experience and then shudder when I realize the media portrays them everyday as the superhero leaders of tomorrow.

FriedBabelBroccoli
People need to question why there is such a focus on science and technology creating a utopia. Every day I find myself questioning if these folks are mentally damaged from the experience and then shudder when I realize the media portrays them everyday as the superhero leaders of tomorrow.

edit on 4-4-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

It's because those major's have readily apparent value to those that lack critical thinking skills. I can certainly grant the point that we may have too many majoring in things like women's studies, english lit, art history, philosophy and so on but those types of degrees do serve a societal purpose in appropriate number.

The arts are what provoke thought look at what Francis Bacon (Shakespeare) did for the development of English language and legal proceedings. For hundreds of years his plays were required reading in order to teach prospective lawyers legal frameworks. Leonardo Da'Vinci figured out fluid dynamics 600 years before high speed cameras could prove it due to artistic training. Look at the societal impact of many TV shows, that's a collaboration of writing and actor portrayal, lets go with Gene Roddenbury here, how many technologies have been invented due to the inspiration of his stories?

History is what I find to be the most neglected subject. Yet it could save us so much trouble as a society if we had a few politicians that understood history (yes, there's Newt) so that we could avoid repeating it.

Art impacts society and provokes critical thought to have none of that harms society. By focusing only on STEM we end up with too many engineers and few out of the box thinkers that can inspire us to build new things.

STEM focus is largely just the next step from the worthless standardized test focus we have given to every student.

As far as creating a utopia goes, remember in the 1950's when the prediction was that by now we would all have robots that could do all our jobs for us? Well that technology is more or less here right now. What the futurists forgot to figure out though was the economic system required that would allow for all of us to survive with less income. The reason they didn't figure that out, is that they lived in a time where their minimum wage job in terms of purchasing power was equivalent to a 50k wage today.

Aazadan

WarminIndy
No, the one who PLAYS THE GAME the best is who wins.

That means you're losing and so am I. Sure in the grand scheme of things we can each point to people we're doing better than, every single person on earth other than the person in absolute dead last place can do that, but that doesn't mean you're actually doing well. Being ahead of a few people doesn't mean you're winning, in fact in most games that contain a random element (and life contains many) the best very often isn't in first place.

Those that are actually winning the game are ahead of you by orders of magnitude. Between the top 3% and the 1% is a factor of 100x, between the 1% and the .1% is another factor of 100x, between the .1% and the .01% is another 100x factor. 85 people own 50% of the worlds wealth, unless you are one of those 85 people you are behind by such an order of magnitude that most humans can't even comprehend it.

If this were a game (something I know quite a bit about), for every point you earn (assuming you're at the median US income), they earn 4.66 billion points. The scales are so drastically different that the two of you can't even be said to be using the same resource system or playing the same game. In actual reality they aren't playing the same game as you because while you work for money they have the power to create it from nothing and give themselves as much as they want.

The sooner you figure out the game, the sooner you play it. But those poor, unfortunates you love to talk about, some of them are the best system players. They learned how to play the game. And you are the poor sucker who is paying for them.

What does welfare have to do with any of this? Jobs don't exist for graduates. At a 40 hour work week less than 100% of the population is required to meet the needs and wants of 100% of the population. As a result, a large portion of the population is going to be unemployed or seriously underemployed. This is a problem that is only going to get worse. The economic model must change to account for this.

edit on 3-4-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

Well then you need to play the game better.

And yes, they are playing the game better than you, perhaps you should meet some of them. Because they are sitting around with their free phones, free health care, free day care, free internet...while you, the sucker, pays for it. And President Obama said it's your Individual Shared Responsibility. You wanted the Socialist state, you got it. Now live with it. And eventually you will get the job, it might not be the one you wanted, but you'll get it and you better not complain about it. They have ways of making you not complain.

WarminIndy
Well then you need to play the game better.

And yes, they are playing the game better than you, perhaps you should meet some of them. Because they are sitting around with their free phones, free health care, free day care, free internet...while you, the sucker, pays for it. And President Obama said it's your Individual Shared Responsibility. You wanted the Socialist state, you got it. Now live with it. And eventually you will get the job, it might not be the one you wanted, but you'll get it and you better not complain about it. They have ways of making you not complain.

Again, what does welfare have to do with any of this, and why should I be jealous of those on it? If that's how they choose to live their life then good for them. I would rather do something productive with my time regardless of what I get paid for doing it, but a living wage sure would be nice.

A free phone is worth what, $50/month? Phones are essential in modern day living. Besides that if you ever happened to actually look into the lifeline program (which is what Obamaphones are, lifeline has a long history) you would see that cell phones have a limited number of minutes. That the program can be abused and a small minority of those getting assistance can stockpile 100 phones means nothing. The waste in that program is under 1%, that's a small price to pay in order for everyone to have telephone access (and yes... cell phones are better because they have long distance, I had a land line on lifeline in the past and there was no long distance that significantly limited job prospects).

I'm not touching health care here, but according to the constitution people have the right to life. That says it all to me. Should the sick just die in the streets because they lack the resources to pay for care? Especially when a large portion lack those resources specifically because there aren't enough jobs to go around?

Free day care so someone can actually afford to leave the house to contribute? What's better? Someone sitting at home raising a child 24 hours a day or someone raising a child 16 hours a day and working to support themselves the other 8 hours? Maybe that day care even frees the parent up to go to school and get a better job so the child can have a better life. Is this a bad thing?

Free internet. Now you're against public libraries? Maybe we should just teach everyone how I have free internet? I hack nearby wifi signals to get it. As far as I'm concerned the internet is just a more efficient printing press. If there's public libraries for books there should be public internet for websites.

Besides that you have yet to explain what any of this has to do with winning the game. Is it suddenly winning the game to earn $12,000/year but have a lifestyle more like $20,000/year? I'm sure that's what everyone is aspiring to... to have a lifestyle like the bottom 20-25% of income earners in the country.

If I accepted the premise of life being a game in the first place, to me winning wouldn't be getting a few things for free and being among the poorest in society. It would be one of those that has 4.66 billion times as much as the average person. Even then however if I were one of those 87 people I bet that 87th person sure doesn't feel like he's winning he's dead last on the list of people earning somewhat similar incomes.

Aazadan

WarminIndy
Well then you need to play the game better.

And yes, they are playing the game better than you, perhaps you should meet some of them. Because they are sitting around with their free phones, free health care, free day care, free internet...while you, the sucker, pays for it. And President Obama said it's your Individual Shared Responsibility. You wanted the Socialist state, you got it. Now live with it. And eventually you will get the job, it might not be the one you wanted, but you'll get it and you better not complain about it. They have ways of making you not complain.

Again, what does welfare have to do with any of this, and why should I be jealous of those on it? If that's how they choose to live their life then good for them. I would rather do something productive with my time regardless of what I get paid for doing it, but a living wage sure would be nice.

A free phone is worth what, $50/month? Phones are essential in modern day living. Besides that if you ever happened to actually look into the lifeline program (which is what Obamaphones are, lifeline has a long history) you would see that cell phones have a limited number of minutes. That the program can be abused and a small minority of those getting assistance can stockpile 100 phones means nothing. The waste in that program is under 1%, that's a small price to pay in order for everyone to have telephone access (and yes... cell phones are better because they have long distance, I had a land line on lifeline in the past and there was no long distance that significantly limited job prospects).

I'm not touching health care here, but according to the constitution people have the right to life. That says it all to me. Should the sick just die in the streets because they lack the resources to pay for care? Especially when a large portion lack those resources specifically because there aren't enough jobs to go around?

Free day care so someone can actually afford to leave the house to contribute? What's better? Someone sitting at home raising a child 24 hours a day or someone raising a child 16 hours a day and working to support themselves the other 8 hours? Maybe that day care even frees the parent up to go to school and get a better job so the child can have a better life. Is this a bad thing?

Free internet. Now you're against public libraries? Maybe we should just teach everyone how I have free internet? I hack nearby wifi signals to get it. As far as I'm concerned the internet is just a more efficient printing press. If there's public libraries for books there should be public internet for websites.

Besides that you have yet to explain what any of this has to do with winning the game. Is it suddenly winning the game to earn $12,000/year but have a lifestyle more like $20,000/year? I'm sure that's what everyone is aspiring to... to have a lifestyle like the bottom 20-25% of income earners in the country.

If I accepted the premise of life being a game in the first place, to me winning wouldn't be getting a few things for free and being among the poorest in society. It would be one of those that has 4.66 billion times as much as the average person. Even then however if I were one of those 87 people I bet that 87th person sure doesn't feel like he's winning he's dead last on the list of people earning somewhat similar incomes.

edit on 4-4-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

I see now that you have no idea just exactly who I am talking about.

First of all, I was talking about those who stood in line to get the free phone for over two hours while the store sign of the parking lot they were in, had a visible sign Help Wanted. And yet they say they can't find jobs but yet these young people didn't even apply. This is Marion, Indiana. Yes, I saw it myself.

Who said anything about libraries?

Yes, people have the right to life. But we aren't talking about just life here, we are talking about people who take your dime to go to the doctor to get pain meds just to turn around to sell them. That's the working man's dime and the people doing this, aren't even sick to begin with.

You mistakenly believe the entire lowest economic class is comprised of honest people, only if that were true. There is a very dishonest group that is getting bigger every day, and those working are paying for them. You hit the upper economic class all the time, while many of those have been very honest and hard working and have seen just exactly who I am talking about.

Don't blame it on the economy, don't blame it on the wealthy. Blame it on the dishonest. That's not what I am seeing from you, because you hit the wealthy all the time. Maybe I should get my video camera and record for you those people playing the system just so you will open your eyes. And maybe you will see the dishonest in the lowest economic rung who right now, are getting more money WITHOUT EARNING it

And then people wonder why my brother drinks so much. He works for the State of Indiana Department of Jobs and Family Services as the representative for the state in hearings for people to determine their eligibility for Medicaid. He deals with these system players all the time who refuse to report other income, claim non-existent children, are arrested for peddling pain meds, and without providing any medical documentation to support their health issues.

Yet my brother is a very liberal Democrat who sees this on a daily basis. Your dime is paying for the system players to be dishonest. But he's the guy who has to be fair and see those who do need the help as opposed to those playing the system, of which cost tax payers millions. And then people like you complain about no jobs out there but the very places asking for help, is just beneath some people.

You want manufacturing back in this country? Stop buy goods made elsewhere. And stop falling for Obama's lines about the coal industry, coal keeps the lights on. Coal also is used to make steel for manufacturing. But let's remove the coal industry, put people out of work because President Obama says to.

Coal = steel = factories. Coal = steel = manufacturing = retail. Coal = steel = manufacturing = retail = jobs.

Coal does more than keep the lights on. You want more jobs? Stop bankrupting the very industries that supplied the jobs in the first place and go work there. Would you be a coal miner if the job were offered?

Aazadan

squittles
I feel badly for the kids of parents who allow their kids to be socialized in that "non-competitive, non-adversarial" way - because life in the world *is* a competition.

I don't agree with you at all because life itself is not a competition and it shouldn't be. Competition is another way of saying, the one that controls the rules of the game wins. How do you feel about HFT? Do you realize the stock market is 100% rigged because of that? It's just a competition though so it's perfectly ok right? How about waste disposal companies that dump waste off the coast of Somalia because they don't have a government and military to say no? They're just the losers of the competition and should pay the price right?

I can't imagine you don't believe competition isn't the very basis of life and the civilization we've reached thus far - we'd never even have evolved without it.

I mean, why isn't the NBA comprised of 5'4" fat guys waddling down the court? Why isn't MIT full of average kids who can't do math? Why don't we *all* go to MIT? Why don't we *all* live in mansions and fly first-class? Conversely, saying no one can be "rich" is the same is saying "we must all be poor."

Your ideation is fine and pretty, but you're deceiving yourself - I doubt any of which you've achieved in your life, the things that surround you is anything but the result of competition. This is a world of finite resources, and if you just sit on the wet ground and wait for some of those resources to be given to you, like manna from heaven, well, good luck with that.

Competition has it's ugly sides, and must be tempered with / constrained by an ethical code, to be sure. But it's ingrained in our DNA.

squittles

Aazadan

squittles
I feel badly for the kids of parents who allow their kids to be socialized in that "non-competitive, non-adversarial" way - because life in the world *is* a competition.

I don't agree with you at all because life itself is not a competition and it shouldn't be. Competition is another way of saying, the one that controls the rules of the game wins. How do you feel about HFT? Do you realize the stock market is 100% rigged because of that? It's just a competition though so it's perfectly ok right? How about waste disposal companies that dump waste off the coast of Somalia because they don't have a government and military to say no? They're just the losers of the competition and should pay the price right?

I can't imagine you don't believe competition isn't the very basis of life and the civilization we've reached thus far - we'd never even have evolved without it.

I mean, why isn't the NBA comprised of 5'4" fat guys waddling down the court? Why isn't MIT full of average kids who can't do math? Why don't we *all* go to MIT? Why don't we *all* live in mansions and fly first-class? Conversely, saying no one can be "rich" is the same is saying "we must all be poor."

Your ideation is fine and pretty, but you're deceiving yourself - I doubt any of which you've achieved in your life, the things that surround you is anything but the result of competition. This is a world of finite resources, and if you just sit on the wet ground and wait for some of those resources to be given to you, like manna from heaven, well, good luck with that.

Competition has it's ugly sides, and must be tempered with / constrained by an ethical code, to be sure. But it's ingrained in our DNA.

Which reminds me, Harvard University is offering education to students who come from lower income families. When I told some young people here where I live that Harvard is offering this, they told me that Harvard was full of rich people and they weren't Harvard material. Funny, those same young people all have Obama phones, interesting.

Harvard University didn't get the money from the government to offer this, it is coming from the very wealthy alumni. Billions of dollars were donated to Harvard from the various alumni associations, but darn, let's get on here and run down the wealthy when they offered a way out of this mess. That's biting the hand that feeds you.

Free Tuition At Harvard

Come on, who wouldn't want free education? But let's beat up the very wealthy people who donated the money.

reply to post by Aazadan


Go on thinking that way. The folks who see life as a competition will just eat you alive. Then you will be sitting and whining about how it isn't fair, and how you still deserve a "livable wage". Despite doing nothing to deserve it other than living.

Your constitution guarantees you the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It doesn't guarantee you will have it. You will only have that which you are willing to get.

It isn't a "Participants" world. "Participants" flip burgers and whine about "livable wage". It is a competitive world. You better get to stretching and warming up....the race has already started.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Go on thinking that way. The folks who see life as a competition will just eat you alive. Then you will be sitting and whining about how it isn't fair, and how you still deserve a "livable wage". Despite doing nothing to deserve it other than living.

Your constitution guarantees you the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It doesn't guarantee you will have it. You will only have that which you are willing to get.

It isn't a "Participants" world. "Participants" flip burgers and whine about "livable wage". It is a competitive world. You better get to stretching and warming up....the race has already started.

I think this a post I agree with you about.

It's all about playing the game better than someone else. That grandfather in WWII, his father was a poor Irish immigrant who worked in the coal mines of West Virginia. My grandmother's father was also a coal miner. I do have a soft spot for coal miners, even though they died before I was born.

There was a time when immigrants were told that America had Streets Paved With Gold, and this is how the story went...

When I got here, I found out three things:
first, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved
at all; and third, I was expected to pave them."

The harsh reality is, the streets aren't paved with gold and you gotta' work.

WarminIndy
I see now that you have no idea just exactly who I am talking about.

Guess what? There's dishonest poor people and there's dishonest rich people. The dishonest rich people conduct white collar crimes like insider trading or run HFT systems. The dishonest poor people sell prescription pills and work under the table for cash while collecting benefits.

I also didn't mention much about the poor because they collectively don't have or drain enough money to significantly impact our economy. Corporate welfare, foreign aid, insane defense spending... all things that aren't needed and cost far more than it costs to keep poor people comfortable enough to not commit more serious crimes.

I don't hate the rich but they're not saints, very often they get their money through exploiting stupid people. Look at the people that designed Candy Crush, it's the digital equivalent of being a drug dealer by creating a good enough addictive monetized loop.

When it comes to coal I live in SE Ohio, it's coal country here. During the 2012 election practically every sign was about how Obama has a war on coal. I'm against coal for power, it's the most dangerous method we have for electricity generation. And before you bring it up, I'm not for solar or wind either those are worthless technologies. Most of what coal provides is electricity which runs manufacturing, there's other ways to provide that electricity that don't have the same lethality per kwh.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Go on thinking that way. The folks who see life as a competition will just eat you alive. Then you will be sitting and whining about how it isn't fair, and how you still deserve a "livable wage". Despite doing nothing to deserve it other than living.

Your constitution guarantees you the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It doesn't guarantee you will have it. You will only have that which you are willing to get.

It isn't a "Participants" world. "Participants" flip burgers and whine about "livable wage". It is a competitive world. You better get to stretching and warming up....the race has already started.

Competition to me implies that if one person is winning another person is losing, economics however aren't 0 sum and it's possible to make an exchange in which both parties come out ahead. Before writing this I just got turned down for a job, does that somehow mean I lost or that I'm a less valuable person? Or does it mean that someone with a subjective set of standards which I have no control over went in another direction?

That happens day in and day out to everyone, competition means winning yet people mostly lose. The premise is flawed.

Aazadan


Competition to me implies that if one person is winning another person is losing, economics however aren't 0 sum and it's possible to make an exchange in which both parties come out ahead. Before writing this I just got turned down for a job, does that somehow mean I lost or that I'm a less valuable person? Or does it mean that someone with a subjective set of standards which I have no control over went in another direction?

That happens day in and day out to everyone, competition means winning yet people mostly lose. The premise is flawed.

I think you have a semantic issue here. You can "lose", but not be a "loser". All day, every day.

"Winning"...that is a good concept to discuss. Perhaps I am not "winning" against anyone. Perhaps I am "winning" against my own goals? In many ways, that is what I do. Perhaps I am "winning" against another bidder? Or entrant?

There are 8bil people in this world. They all want their piece of the pie. Then most of them will want your piece of the pie, too. "Winning" means that you don't let someone else steal your piece of the pie.

If you don't understand this, you will be the guy standing there holding a fork and a bib, but hungry with an empty plate. You will lose your piece of the pie to some other a-hole who wants more pie than they should get. And there are a lot of them out there, to be honest.

So...do you want to fight for your piece of the pie? Or do you want to pretend that no one is after it? Will you share your piece of pie with someone else? Even if they weren't willing to fight for their own pie, and lost it (or gave it away)?

You could say, "Well...i don't care about pie". But then we wouldn't be having that conversation now, would we? That is what this is really all about: 8bil slices of pie out there.