my opinion........... the main reason for global melt down

simply lack of effency i myself think the people oursleves just are not doing as much physical labor now a days dont get me wrong i know theres many many back bending laborers but not like there used to be people used to have pride in there work and made things that lasted and could be repaired easily and at little cost...... lack of effency now when something breaks we throw it away and buy a new one, and video games waste a lot of peoples time too, i am guilty of this too i would like to hear other peoples opinions of the main reason for global melt down. i think if everyone would do there part or help someone else untill they find there part in this world to do but who am i kiddint that will never happen.

I think the reason for global meltdown is greed. The greed for money, which is results in the desire to save money, resulting in outsourcing; the greed for money, which also leads to the oil industry, which leads to the alleged reason we invaded the Middle East; greed for money which has lead to corporations lording it over the middle class and lower class workers; greed for money, which leads to promiscuity so as to have more kids and benefit from welfare.

Greed for leisure, which results in massive amounts of money being lost in the relaxation business: casinos, cruise ships, spas and other treatments. More kids being born from leisurely procreation, lives ruined and money laundered from greedy drug lords and those who support their industry...

Hell, I can't even name all the examples. Let's just suffice to say that greed is the reason. Laziness is a symptom, not the source.

Unfortunately, as I have stated time and again, greed is part of human nature, which simply cannot be overcome with the ease people desire. Evolution is our salvation, the only permanent and effective answer.

The problem with that is...evolution is not man-made, and we keep looking to man for the answers, when MAN MADE THE PROBLEM!

reply to post by stealthmonkey


You have it backwards. Massive gains in efficiency (note sp.) and productivity mean we need far less labor than we use to need. That is the real problem. The leaders get all the benefits and the common man has reduced chances of finding meaningful employment.

I have yet another opinion.

We're in the middle of another economic revolution in the chain of many (industrial, manufacturing, information, etc.).

Each revolution obsoletes what was built by the prior revolution. Including skills learned to support the previous revolution. This means skilled people.

Say you managed a US plant with people skilled at basket weaving and earned $100 an hour to make products from materials gathered by people who also made $100. A competitor is paying $1 an hour to make products from materials gathered by people who also make $1. You know you'll go out of business if you don't do the same.

Replace above basket weaving with construction, or software development, or finance, or management, or law.

Like the competitors above, if your neighborhood become educated in a field with high pay, and are able to do the job for a better deal, your neighborhood is taking the jobs from people who can't do the same job for the same deal.

Unfortunately the name of the revolution won't be known until after it's obvious.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by stealthmonkey

 

You have it backwards. Massive gains in efficiency (note sp.) and productivity mean we need far less labor than we use to need. That is the real problem. The leaders get all the benefits and the common man has reduced chances of finding meaningful employment.

Those at the top reap the benefits from the common man's time and labor.

We of the 99% allowed ourselves to be convinced that our time and energy was of lesser value, therefore allowing the 1% to essentially prosper and thrive for a miniscule fraction of their time and energy.

Isn't It About TIME?

reply to post by Dbriefed

Replace above basket weaving with construction, or software development, or finance, or management, or law.

But now the jobs are being replaced buy computers or computer controlled machines. All the people cannot be shifted to other positions.

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
simply lack of effency i myself think the people oursleves just are not doing as much physical labor now a days dont get me wrong i know theres many many back bending laborers but not like there used to be people used to have pride in there work and made things that lasted and could be repaired easily and at little cost...... lack of effency now when something breaks we throw it away and buy a new one, and video games waste a lot of peoples time too, i am guilty of this too i would like to hear other peoples opinions of the main reason for global melt down. i think if everyone would do there part or help someone else untill they find there part in this world to do but who am i kiddint that will never happen.

edit on 29-1-2012 by stealthmonkey because: (no reason given)

it's lack of compassion and caring for your fellow man, that is the root of most global problems.
it leads to greed, corruption, and a long list of other less desirable traits. if you could see the living conditions of the workers who produce these "cheap" products, you would conclude the same thing.

I don't understand how someone could end up with BILLIONS of dollars.
At some point, I, would be like, DOGGONE, I've got enough money to do me til I die living GOOD.

The way I am, long before that, I'd start looking at my family, neighbors, friends, and thinking, What's 40k when I've got 20 million, I think I'll pay that house off, buy that person a car.

I mean - I WOULD spend that money. I wouldn't just keep letting it pile up in the bank doing nothing, especially when I know I've got enough to do me until I die two times over.

How much money do some of these people think they need?
At what point do they just feel stupid?

Just read an article about Michelle Obama and the Queen of Qatar spending 50k on undies. For their ol' ugly husbands? Puh-leez. It's great that that designer made some money and got a bump with his name, but that's ridiculous. 50k would have paid off someone's home, and Victoria's Secret and Frederick's looks mighty good on a pretty woman for less than 75.00- and if the guy is man enough, they don't need the props anyway.