Top 5 Misconceptions About People Struggling Economically Today

reply to post by Nkinga


So you base your opinion of people down on their on a few louts that you have in your life?

Your world view is hilariously narrow

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Then aren't the colleges and universities committing fraud by selling all degrees as if they were equal?

If a degree in philosophy or art is worthless, then shouldn't it be sold at a much cheaper price or offered for free?

It seems to me that those degree paths are subsidizing the MBAs and athletics.

It seems that the MBA/accounting/other lucrative degrees should cost a lot more than what they do.This is yet another example of a certain class gaming the system to provide subsidies and welfare for themselves while decrying it for others.

My thoughts exactly.. I live right by the University of California. The UC system has been whining that they have no money for a few years now and of course, that falls right back onto the lowly employee, even asking some Postdocs to work for free (for the experience!), cutting employee jobs and reducing work hours. Fees are up, tuition has skyrocketed, yet the kids that are graduating are the same ones that live around me telling me that they are in debt up to their ears and have no jobs. I talked to a guy with a masters degree in Engineering who has worked at Smart & Final as a cart collector for 2 years. He said he had applied for every job he could find and was getting nothing.
A neighbor's daughter graduated a biochem major and now, more than a year later, the only work she has been able to find is working as a waitress at Island's.
I know a lot more people in the same boat around here, too many to list.
I am certainly not turning my nose up at people that work at McDonald's. It is a thankless job, and I am sure they are putting in an effort. But, when you just put your kid or yourself through years of college, and worked your ass off to graduate, telling people to "get a job at McDonald's" is about the highest insult ever. You kind of want to see that those tens of thousands you poured into the University is actually producing something. Instead, it is looking even more and more like a Ponzi scheme every day. Certainly, they are taking the money, and at least appear to be educating your child, but in the end, there is nothing waiting for these kids afterwards.
And what about our UCSD, who cried crocodile tears about major cuts in funding?
Well, the UC system hiked the fees 8% last year. Yet the UCSD campus certainly does not appear to be suffering. They keep building and building..new lots, new dorms, new buildings. It is an almost endless construction.
And this week, we have this:
Fallen Star

Funded by taxpayer dollars, of course. The furloughed and laid off employees and struggling postdocs must be so excited.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


There is no known way to interfere with the natural flow of business unless the buyer capitulates.

The buyer has always had the power in business, and they still do. They just seem to have forgotten that.

I call it living to ones means. People want their cake and eat it too. Can’t have everything in life because someone else has it. If you want something, than do what it takes to obtain it. Don’t expect anyone to give it to you for free. I so dislike the pity trips! Stand up and take control of your life! I went from an I.S. position that paid me 90k a year to a warehouse position unloading trailers for close to nothing. I don’t run around pouting like a baby! I had 130k in student loans. Paid them all off! There was a time in my life where I was down and out living on streets! I chose not to be there and made changes! In my opinion, some people are just too lazy! And then they cry about it when things don’t work out the way they want them too! I know everyone is not the same, but I also know everyone can do or be anything they want in life! My grandmother made a career change when she turned 62 years old. She hated her prior work and wanted to find happiness. She has no regrets...

reply to post by bastet11


i honestly think this type of "pay exorbitant sums but no job" thing is deliberate. they are trying to raise an entire generation of well educated pissed off socialists, that will be willing to kill to survive, so they can use them to liquidate the people they don't want in the country.

Originally posted by Infrasilent
While I do have a great deal of sympathy for those struggling financially, I make a small exception for those trying to get out from under student loans. This is why:

In high school, I got excellent grades, had a job working 20 hours a week, and still managed to complete nearly a years worth of college coursework (Advanced Placement) before I ever applied to a university.

My peers derided me endlessly for my decision to attend a Cal State institution, because I grew up in an affluent area and no one could understand the fact that I wasn't going to spend in the tens of thousands of dollars per year simply for tuition. (I was generally considered one of the smart kids in school and apparently my decision did not sit well with them.) The deal with my parents basically was: we can pay for you to go to a cal state and anything else is on you.

I CHOSE to go to a cheaper, less "prestigious" (whatever that means anyway...) university because I could get a free ride, and if anything were to happen to my parents or their ability to pay I could conceivably support myself and continue my education.

At the end of the day, STUDENT LOANS ARE A CHOICE. No one forced anyone to get them. "SOCIETY" has nothing to do with it. Anyone who took them sure as hell made it harder on the rest of us though, because their retarded acceptance of ever-more ridiculous amounts of debt increased the cost of education for EVERYONE.

That said, I don't think the government has a right to hound people until the end of their days about these loans. If the economy has changed in such a way that one can't ever expect to pay, there should eventually be some way out from under them (like bankruptcy and settlement).

These loans are nothing but enslavement of the intellectual.

Okay that's good for you brainy smurf but not everyone is "advanced" and if we want an education we have to subside to taking a student loan. My mom was a college professor, EMT, ER nurse, volunteer fireperson and a paramedic, and she STILL could not afford to send me to school because she was raising me and my sister on her own. So for an "educated/advanced" dimwit like yourself to call people who want to better themselves retarded is way out of line.

Who cares that your parents said they would pay for you. Not everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else. I believe that is what the OP was trying to get across before you put your 2 cents in. You can't force people to understand things and make them smart. Some people just get things better than others. It's no one's fault. It's life. Yeah loans are slavery but so are credit cards and working 40 hrs a week.

The cliche of work hard to get where you want to be doesn't apply to everyone... some of my friends work 80-90 hrs a week and have no life. How can we live if we are working to work every minute of our lives?

Walk a mile in the other man's shoes before you cast down your judgement... At least then you can speak from experience instead of out of your @$$...

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


if things keep trending the way they are, it will get worse before it gets better. i've been wracking my brains for ideas and every time i think i've found a good possibilty, i do some research and find out it's already been milked for everything its worth and the only people making money at it now, are people who are already well established.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

There is no known way to interfere with the natural flow of business unless the buyer capitulates.

The buyer has always had the power in business, and they still do. They just seem to have forgotten that.

I'm talking about how the govt interferes in business. Did you not understand the price ceilings and price floors as govt controls on industry?

Here, let me help you with that.

A price floor can be set above the free-market equilibrium price. In the first graph at right, the dashed green line represents a price floor set below the free-market price. In this case, the floor has no practical effect. The government has mandated a minimum price, but the market already bares a higher price.

A price floor set above the market equilibrium price has several side-effects. Consumers find they must now pay a higher price for the same product. As a result, they reduce their purchases or drop out of the market entirely. Meanwhile, suppliers find they are guaranteed a new, higher price than they were charging before. As a result, they increase production.
Taken together, these effects mean there is now an excess supply (known as a surplus) of the product in the market. To maintain the price floor over the long term, the government may need to take action to remove this surplus.

A historical (and current) example of a price floor are minimum wage laws, laws specifying the lowest wage a company can pay an employee (employees are suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer in this case). When the minimum wage is set higher than the equilibrium market price for unskilled labor, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available). A minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would induce employers to hire fewer workers as well as cause more people to enter the labor market, the result is a surplus in the amount of labor available.[citation needed] The equilibrium wage for a worker would be dependent upon the worker's skill sets along with market conditions.

en.wikipedia.org...


It seems to me that many students have not taken econ courses and understand these principles, or they were taught by their Marxist professors that Capitalism is evil and the govt must take charge.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

There is no known way to interfere with the natural flow of business unless the buyer capitulates.

The buyer has always had the power in business, and they still do. They just seem to have forgotten that.

I'm talking about how the govt interferes in business. Did you not understand the price ceilings and price floors as govt controls on industry?

i don't think most people know much about how some aspects of the government work to undermine business, promising socialists that it's a way to bring down capitalism, then using the power of the industry it built up and destroyed in this country, to further its political goals elsewhere, by deliberately making it more lucrative to be anywhere but here. in other words, they promised china a piece of the pie to go along with the plan, and then made us all poor while giving our jobs to china.

reply to post by undo


Exactly!

Thank you for understanding my viewpoint.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am responding by saying that it is irrelevant.

The buyer holds all the power. They are the balance. No matter what occurs on the other side of the equation.

Somehow, people have been convinced that the seller and the rule maker hold the power. They don't, they never have. The buyer(s) holds all the power, the buyer(s) make the rules.

Let me give you an example:
I will use oil as that is heavily regulated in Canada.

The government places controls to ensure that oil companies have exaggerated demand to generate large profits.

Who has the power? The government? The corporation? Neither, the buyer is the only one that has the power. If the buyers refused to buy oil from the companies (or in this case stopped buying all oil) the seller and the government would be forced to change their methods. Sadly, this scenario would only need and industry wide boycott of a couple of days to force movement (the higher the product turnover the faster change can be forced).

I can't emphasise this enough...the buyer has all of the power.

The biggest misconception you have is that you haven't sat and watched people buying lottery tickets and followed them back to their cars and seen they are the 'poor' people who are on welfare, you know, the ones where their kids are always hungry (and by the way are left in the car alone while the parents buy the tickets and alcohol and a packet of crisps for the kids for lunch).

You haven't driven past poor neighbourhoods and seen the piles of alcohol bottles sitting outside (not for collection, just stacked around the door)

You don't own or have been part of a team who are responsible for staff who although regarded as the lower end of the economic spectrum and therefore need every $ they can get ..... still turn up late with a hangover and have to be sent home, or fail to turn up at all some days and therefore lose the job and have to go back on welfare.

Where the heck is your reality?

reply to post by peck420


not really, i mean oil is used in thousand of other products we use every day including various plastics. they'd still have oodles of buying power to manipulate economies with as long as we need the other products created with oil.

the other problem is, even if we all stopped buying a product made by an american company now stationed in a foreign land, we'd end up hurting ourselves. the big companies hold the financial stablity of the world in their hands at this very moment. so spiting them their prosperity will make matters worse. the only viable solution is to make sane choices on regulation and get back our technology and industry base.

reply to post by daggyz


well i think there's a slight problem with your comparisons. for example, i wasn't a druggy and neither was my hubby, and we weren't spending lavishly, in fact, we were quite frugal, but we still had to dig old cans out of garbage bins and recycle them for their weight in aluminum, which was worth 5cents a pound at the time. we'd go for days without food and he had a full time job (you'll never guess where). we were so poor we qualified for food stamps and the wic program, although we didn't apply for either one on the principal of the thing. just guess what his job was (no cheating by reading my other posts).

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by peck420

 

not really, i mean oil is used in thousand of other products we use every day including various plastics. they'd still have oodles of buying power to manipulate economies with as long as we need the other products created with oil.

the other problem is, even if we all stopped buying a product made by an american company now stationed in a foreign land, we'd end up hurting ourselves. the big companies hold the financial stablity of the world in their hands at this very moment. so spiting them their prosperity will make matters worse. the only viable solution is to make sane choices on regulation and get back our technology and industry base.

You have fallen for their advertising, I'm afraid.

If the US population (hell, if 1/4 of the US population) stopped buying, they would bend to your will within months.

The US is still the world's largest and most coveted economy. You have the power. You just have to use it.

As for bringing back your technology and industry base, well, once again it is the buyer that moved it in the first place. Every time a buyer price shops or demands a better price, the seller is forced to either make less profit or find a cheaper way to make the same product. They found a cheaper way. Did it hurt the buyer? Yes. Was it caused by the buyer? Yes. It is called not always wanting what you wish for.

The biggest scam ever pulled was the scam that made buyers think that they hold no power.

reply to post by peck420


no, they would not bend to our will, they'd manufacture a war and have half the population blown to smithereens with cluster bombs like the UN did in libya.

Originally posted by peck420








Who has the power? The government? The corporation? Neither, the buyer is the only one that has the power. If the buyers refused to buy oil from the companies (or in this case stopped buying all oil) the seller and the government would be forced to change their methods. Sadly, this scenario would only need and industry wide boycott of a couple of days to force movement (the higher the product turnover the faster change can be forced).

I can't emphasise this enough...the buyer has all of the power.

That would be true if classic "supply and demand" economics was the operating system but when you throw speculators into the mix; the old models break down.

Prices aren't set by supply and demand but by "perceived" value of goods and services. The econ they teach in school is pie in the sky mythos, outdated and obsolete.

No matter what the laws are.........insider trading is how business is done world wide and the deck is completely stacked against the consumer.

www.neweconomics.org...

Old school and it's adherents are fools. It's a brave new world and most aren't even capable of understanding it's complexities; not to mention the corruption.

reply to post by undo


Again...buyers.

Who would fight in the war? Buyers. So what would happen if the buyers didn't show up...no war. Unless of course, you think that they would show up and fight their own war against themselves.

They have no power except for the power you give them.

once again it is the buyer that moved it in the first place

i disagree. the gov upped the cost of industry and commerce on the pretext of destroying capitalism,
and in so doing, the companies had to up their prices. when we couldn't pay it cause it was already effecting the job market, we had to shop elsewhere, resulting in megacorps from other countries, receiving perks to build on our soil (yet another plan to manipulate the globe by selling out the american people and blaming capitalism for the whole thing. brilliant plan but its ingenuity is losing its glamor)

Originally posted by whaaa
That would be true if classic "supply and demand" economics was the operating system but when you throw speculators into the mix; the old models break down.

Prices aren't set by supply and demand but by "perceived" value of goods and services. The econ they teach in school is pie in the sky mythos, outdated and obsolete.

No matter what the laws are.........insider trading is how business is done world wide and the deck is completely stacked against the consumer.

www.neweconomics.org...

Old school and it's adherents are fools.

It is true under all economic circumstances.

What part of this do people not get. If a business has no buyers it is no longer a business.

The sellers and the government can play whatever games they want, if people buy they are condoning the game. If people stop buying they are out of business.