A survey of our American friends and their politcal standing
- Thread starter zurich
- Start date
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
Joe DeFuria
Yes, I was afraid that some would think that just because I didn't feel that I should be mandated to help others, that some would think that I was selfish and heartless. It seems to me that some people feel that the general public needs to be mandated by the government to be giving/good to others. I would much prefer that the government stay as much out of my life as possible, and let me decide what I need and need not do.
Dr. Ffreeze
Yes, I was afraid that some would think that just because I didn't feel that I should be mandated to help others, that some would think that I was selfish and heartless. It seems to me that some people feel that the general public needs to be mandated by the government to be giving/good to others. I would much prefer that the government stay as much out of my life as possible, and let me decide what I need and need not do.
Dr. Ffreeze
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
Legion,
Hehe, I had to read that a few times, but it is quite true. Some of biggest changes in my life came when I most upset with my current situation. Push me to far, and I find the gumption and energy to change.
Dr. Ffreeze
Hehe, I had to read that a few times, but it is quite true. Some of biggest changes in my life came when I most upset with my current situation. Push me to far, and I find the gumption and energy to change.
Dr. Ffreeze
I'm actually quite surprised to see the poll figures so even between Republican and Democrat as the political discussion amongst Americans on this board seems predominantly right-wing - sometimes a bit to the right of Attilla the Hun! Perhaps it is more a case that those who are willing to spend the time and effort penning long arguments are more predominantly right-wing.
I'm also surprised that so many have such a dislike or even, in some cases it would seem, hatred of Socialism. After all, Tony Blair, America's staunchest ally, is the leader of the Labour party in the UK - a socialist political organisation - although 'New Labour' are very much like the Tories these days in many of their policies and are thus more right wing.
Reminds me of a joke I heard about 10 or so years ago describing the American political system as if explaining it to children:
"There are two main political parties in America; the Republicans, who are a bit like the Conservative party... and the Democrats, who are a bit like the Conservative party."
I'm also surprised that so many have such a dislike or even, in some cases it would seem, hatred of Socialism. After all, Tony Blair, America's staunchest ally, is the leader of the Labour party in the UK - a socialist political organisation - although 'New Labour' are very much like the Tories these days in many of their policies and are thus more right wing.
Reminds me of a joke I heard about 10 or so years ago describing the American political system as if explaining it to children:
"There are two main political parties in America; the Republicans, who are a bit like the Conservative party... and the Democrats, who are a bit like the Conservative party."
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
Mariner,
Could be, not really sure myself. I came to these boards because most everyone I work with and my family have the same, in general, views. We talk about this and that, but it is mostly preaching to the choir. I find that I learn much more when I talk to intelligent people with dissenting opinions. I truly look forward to hearing a well thought out dissenting point of view. I find I learn much more that way. =)
Dr. Ffreeze
Could be, not really sure myself. I came to these boards because most everyone I work with and my family have the same, in general, views. We talk about this and that, but it is mostly preaching to the choir. I find that I learn much more when I talk to intelligent people with dissenting opinions. I truly look forward to hearing a well thought out dissenting point of view. I find I learn much more that way. =)
Dr. Ffreeze
Mariner said:
Well I see the third way as socialisms last shot. If it fails that is a good thing. The idea behind it was that Keynesian economics ran such spending deficits and resulted in massive debts that voters ended up rejecting such a party platform in the 80's. So what the socialist did out of sheer desperation is abandon the tenets of socialism of big government and big spending and began to privatize government institutions but still try to eek in left wing social agenda's of egalitarianism. I believe though that these egalitarian social polices are a back door for the return of socialism to finally rectify the final inequality of incomes.
The idea that poverty in America is the only the result of laziness of some sort or other as seen by right wingers or purely only excess exploitation as seen by lefties are both fallacious arguments. Another example of the sick discourse in political threads... People cant seem to moderate their arguments at all.
Any social conscience is placated with rabid accusation of communism... its getting pretty lame...
Any social conscience is placated with rabid accusation of communism... its getting pretty lame...
Americans consider poverty to be a temporary step in the ladder of success. so long as there is social mobility we do not mind poverty because the idea is that you start out with what you have, and you work hard, and pull yourself out of poverty. Most people I talk to don't like a status quo economy: e.g. the goal isn't to get to middle class and then quit and stay there forever, the goal is to do better than your parents.
Seen this way, poverty is simply a milestone along the economic ladder. We do not seek to equalize everyone, because this would be like stopping a race and rolling back the lead car everytime a new challenger entered the circuit.
Poverty only becomes worrisome when people get trapped for multiple generations: generational poverty. Structural poverty is worrisome, not cyclical.
Both poverty types are present in the US.
Asian immigrants demonstrate cyclical poverty very well. Many of them end up here from poor provinces in China (vastly poorer than the poorest American black), go to school, and in a few years are part of the middle class. I have a friend from Cambodia whose parents put him on a boat as a child, he got smuggled to the US not knowing a word of English, spent his time as a runaway teenager, but today is a software engineer in signals analysis at NASA.
Blacks demonstrate structural poverty. Despite a starting condition in terms of resources that is greater than many immigrants coming to this country, they, and their children, and their children's children often end up in the same neighborhood and class.
The question becomes: What causes it? Racism? Lack of resources? Culture?
Racism might explain a situation where a huge number of educated blacks exist, but can't find jobs in their industry. In Japan, women often obtain high levels of education, but end up as "office ladies" We don't see this, instead, we see blacks (and poor whites) giving up on education altogether.
I do not believe it is lack of educational resources. I have personally seen some sorry Chinese schools in China with rundown architecture, poor desks and chairs, and old textbooks. It is not how much teachers are being paid, because their teachers are paid poorly as well compared to the cost of living.
I believe it is cultural: that the structural poor in the US have simply lost hope and don't even BOTHER trying to climb out. They don't bother with school because they assume it won't do them any good. Besides, if they do well, they're just a SELL OUT.
They exist in a world of no hope, with violence, and for many, the only way out is selling drugs or taking them.
US states provide free education to all children. Most states have free worker training and job placement. California for example subsidizes College so heavily, that it is essentially free in many places ($20 for a semester course at a community college) Free shelter is provided to anyone who wants it. Section8 housing helps the poor buy homes, etc etc
But many poor people do not even bother to take advantage of government programs already in place, meaning either one of two things: either they don't know about them, or they don't care.
Seen this way, poverty is simply a milestone along the economic ladder. We do not seek to equalize everyone, because this would be like stopping a race and rolling back the lead car everytime a new challenger entered the circuit.
Poverty only becomes worrisome when people get trapped for multiple generations: generational poverty. Structural poverty is worrisome, not cyclical.
Both poverty types are present in the US.
Asian immigrants demonstrate cyclical poverty very well. Many of them end up here from poor provinces in China (vastly poorer than the poorest American black), go to school, and in a few years are part of the middle class. I have a friend from Cambodia whose parents put him on a boat as a child, he got smuggled to the US not knowing a word of English, spent his time as a runaway teenager, but today is a software engineer in signals analysis at NASA.
Blacks demonstrate structural poverty. Despite a starting condition in terms of resources that is greater than many immigrants coming to this country, they, and their children, and their children's children often end up in the same neighborhood and class.
The question becomes: What causes it? Racism? Lack of resources? Culture?
Racism might explain a situation where a huge number of educated blacks exist, but can't find jobs in their industry. In Japan, women often obtain high levels of education, but end up as "office ladies" We don't see this, instead, we see blacks (and poor whites) giving up on education altogether.
I do not believe it is lack of educational resources. I have personally seen some sorry Chinese schools in China with rundown architecture, poor desks and chairs, and old textbooks. It is not how much teachers are being paid, because their teachers are paid poorly as well compared to the cost of living.
I believe it is cultural: that the structural poor in the US have simply lost hope and don't even BOTHER trying to climb out. They don't bother with school because they assume it won't do them any good. Besides, if they do well, they're just a SELL OUT.
They exist in a world of no hope, with violence, and for many, the only way out is selling drugs or taking them.
US states provide free education to all children. Most states have free worker training and job placement. California for example subsidizes College so heavily, that it is essentially free in many places ($20 for a semester course at a community college) Free shelter is provided to anyone who wants it. Section8 housing helps the poor buy homes, etc etc
But many poor people do not even bother to take advantage of government programs already in place, meaning either one of two things: either they don't know about them, or they don't care.
Well I dont agree with that. Its not just cultural. You have endemic unemployment in the US. Its always been engineered that way. Its the only meaningful way for business to keep wages down. How do you think they destroyed unions in your country dropping them from 40% of the workforce to less than 16% now?
Structural poverty is not just the result of people giving up hope. Its also the result of chronic unemployment.
Structural poverty is not just the result of people giving up hope. Its also the result of chronic unemployment.
Full employment != 0% unemployment.
If your theory is true, how come France and Germany, which have persistently maintained much higher levels of unemployment haven't had their unions destroyed? (hint: government protections ensured that non-competitive unions exist, has nothing to do with unemployment level)
Unions died out because they outlived their usefulness. Unions only work in large, centralized, non-dynamic industries (slow rate of change). First of all, the manufacturing sector got exported.
Secondly, during the large expansions of the 60s and 80s and 90s, companies were fighting over employees. In a market with a low supply of labor, companies offer employment packages that are often way more general than union won contracts. My company gives me free healthcare, it doesn't have a union.
Third, most Americans don't believe in the "seniority" principle of unions. We believe pay levels are based on merit, not how long you have worked. We get PISSED OFF if we see an incompetent employee with a much higher salary just because he has been at the company for a long time.
Fourth, Americans change jobs much more frequently. Not because they get layed off, but because they are seeking better compensation and benefits. My sister changed jobs purely to work at a company that provided day care.
What level of unemployment would you characterize as NOT endemic? Your theory doesn't hold water, since labor markets have been tight in recent history. If anything, you may as well claim that businesses used immigrants and oversees manufacturing to hold down wages. That would atleast be a more sound argument than saying that a ~6% unemployment rate is depressing wages.
If your theory is true, how come France and Germany, which have persistently maintained much higher levels of unemployment haven't had their unions destroyed? (hint: government protections ensured that non-competitive unions exist, has nothing to do with unemployment level)
Unions died out because they outlived their usefulness. Unions only work in large, centralized, non-dynamic industries (slow rate of change). First of all, the manufacturing sector got exported.
Secondly, during the large expansions of the 60s and 80s and 90s, companies were fighting over employees. In a market with a low supply of labor, companies offer employment packages that are often way more general than union won contracts. My company gives me free healthcare, it doesn't have a union.
Third, most Americans don't believe in the "seniority" principle of unions. We believe pay levels are based on merit, not how long you have worked. We get PISSED OFF if we see an incompetent employee with a much higher salary just because he has been at the company for a long time.
Fourth, Americans change jobs much more frequently. Not because they get layed off, but because they are seeking better compensation and benefits. My sister changed jobs purely to work at a company that provided day care.
What level of unemployment would you characterize as NOT endemic? Your theory doesn't hold water, since labor markets have been tight in recent history. If anything, you may as well claim that businesses used immigrants and oversees manufacturing to hold down wages. That would atleast be a more sound argument than saying that a ~6% unemployment rate is depressing wages.
Unions in Europe do exist because of gov protestions that dont exist in the US. It doesnt take away from the fact when you have 100 000 people lining up in front a new factory to apply for 2000 jobs that it has no effect on unionization. It plainly does.
Ask ANY large union negociator what he faces during contract talks. Its usually a variant of 'Take it or we move to Mexico'.
The merit base system is very much alive in canada too.I see at my unionized place if work all the time. Except the 25 year old part timer who sees the benefits the 50 year old employee gets from seniority and bitches about it and how slow she is as a worker compared to her ect... Except she has no idea how well she'll perform when she gets that age.
Merit has its place but its been way overplayed.
Just look at the number of people who enter the workforce during economic upturns. The stats hide a lot of unemployment. Also look at what it takes for one to be taken into the unemployment stats. You must work less than 10 hrs a week and present yourself to your UI agent regularly.
If labor markets were that tight wages would be significantly going up. They arent. heck we still republicans fight any minimum wage increases. Why should that matter if labor market is tight as you say? Dont we all believe in the law of the market anymore. Supply and demand?
Ask ANY large union negociator what he faces during contract talks. Its usually a variant of 'Take it or we move to Mexico'.
The merit base system is very much alive in canada too.I see at my unionized place if work all the time. Except the 25 year old part timer who sees the benefits the 50 year old employee gets from seniority and bitches about it and how slow she is as a worker compared to her ect... Except she has no idea how well she'll perform when she gets that age.
Merit has its place but its been way overplayed.
Just look at the number of people who enter the workforce during economic upturns. The stats hide a lot of unemployment. Also look at what it takes for one to be taken into the unemployment stats. You must work less than 10 hrs a week and present yourself to your UI agent regularly.
If labor markets were that tight wages would be significantly going up. They arent. heck we still republicans fight any minimum wage increases. Why should that matter if labor market is tight as you say? Dont we all believe in the law of the market anymore. Supply and demand?
Unions in Europe do exist because of gov protections that dont exist in the US. It doesnt take away from the fact when you have 100 000 people lining up in front a new factory to apply for 2000 jobs that it has no effect on unionization. It plainly does.
Ask ANY large union negociator what he faces during contract talks. Its usually a variant of 'Take it or we move to Mexico'.
The merit base system is very much alive in canada too. I see it at my unionized place of work all the time. Except the 25 year old part timer who sees the benefits the 50 year old employee gets from seniority and bitches about it and how slow she is as a worker compared to her ect... Except she has no idea how well she'll perform when she gets that age.
Merit has its place but its been way overplayed.
Just look at the number of people who enter the workforce during economic upturns. The stats hide a lot of unemployment. Also look at what it takes for one to be taken into the unemployment stats. You must work less than 10 hrs a week and present yourself to your UI agent regularly.
If labor markets were that tight wages would be significantly going up. They arent. Heck we still see republicans fight any minimum wage increases. Why should that matter if labor market is tight as you say? Dont we all believe in the law of the market anymore. Supply and demand?
Ask ANY large union negociator what he faces during contract talks. Its usually a variant of 'Take it or we move to Mexico'.
The merit base system is very much alive in canada too. I see it at my unionized place of work all the time. Except the 25 year old part timer who sees the benefits the 50 year old employee gets from seniority and bitches about it and how slow she is as a worker compared to her ect... Except she has no idea how well she'll perform when she gets that age.
Merit has its place but its been way overplayed.
Just look at the number of people who enter the workforce during economic upturns. The stats hide a lot of unemployment. Also look at what it takes for one to be taken into the unemployment stats. You must work less than 10 hrs a week and present yourself to your UI agent regularly.
If labor markets were that tight wages would be significantly going up. They arent. Heck we still see republicans fight any minimum wage increases. Why should that matter if labor market is tight as you say? Dont we all believe in the law of the market anymore. Supply and demand?
pax said:
I disagree with this entirely.
How do you create workforce competition for desirable employes? You raise their salaries to attract them to your business.
No class of immigrants within US is in position african americans are in today. As Democoder said this is clearly not do to the lack of educational resources. Colleges have many scholarships for african americans to aid them in qualifying for higher placement jobs. However as you can see African Americans aren't working towards achieving higher wage goals with any great speed. Why is this? They aren't being prevented from accelling by any other groups. infact they have been more incouraged in the last 30 or so years then whites or other minority students. This brings me to the conclusion that something within african american culture is contributing to this behavior.
The US is in no way discouraging job placement for desirable jobs. Companies need high skilled workers. This is a fact.
I don't think they destroyed Unions. Unions detroyed themselves by their own unwillingness to evolve and their over all obselescence. Unions in the US have really done more historically to do damage business then aid workers. Simply paying unskilled workers higher amounts of money aids no one. It merely serves to make a business less competitive ultimately bankrupting the company through a long process of starvation of funds. Not to mention doing so hurts consumers.
Are you suggesting that companies are systematically firing union workers? At the most i would say they aren't highering as many union workers do to the fact they are less suitable for the job and pose damages to the company as a whole.
Its not just a blue collar thing anymore legion look at the number of highly educated white collar jobs being outsourced to the third world.
Racism is a big factor there for blacks as well as well as endemic unemployment and the discouraging effects it has. There are things that take generations to heal. Blacks have come a long way but have a way to go yet.
Racism is a big factor there for blacks as well as well as endemic unemployment and the discouraging effects it has. There are things that take generations to heal. Blacks have come a long way but have a way to go yet.
pax said:
The Jews, Chinese, Irish, Germans, etc all faced bigotry but have been able to move on. Why is this? Because of their willingness to work for what they need to achieve.Lets face it. It is not as if we have a surplus of highly educated african americans out there without jobs. There is only one valid explination for this: They simply aren't educating themselves.
The ingrained perceptions of whites of blacks and blacks about themselves and the society they are living in is not the product of short term bigotry but centuries of slavery and racism. I dont think its a good comparison to show what the irish went thru vs what the blacks and also native indians had to endure.
I think I'd agree they're not getting educated.Legion said:
Whether its of their own fault, or somebody elses fault, or a general systemic thing is a different matter all together.
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
DemoCoder,
Excellent post!
pax,
Most people that don't have a job, really don't want a job. You can go down and get a job at McDonald's easier than falling off a bicycle! Oh, you are too good to work at McDonald's, well then you choose to be unemployed and are non of my concern. In all seriousness what else could it be? DemoCoder lays some blame on culture, and I would have to admit that he makes a strong case, but you said you don't buy that.
ACK, he said "Unions"! =) They had their time and place, and even now the still might have a place in some industries (I don't know). I personally never, ever, ever want to work at a job that has a union. Why do I not want to be in a Union? I have ZERO need for a union. I am the one working hard and they just suck money out of my weekly paycheck. If my employer does not treat me right, then I find a new job that cares about me. If your company cares about it's employees, then there is no need for a union, hence their decline. WOOT! =)
My boss (and bosses past) and I work as a partnership a team if you will. I kick much ass and do everything and anything he wants me to do a bit better than he asks for. He kicks much ass and gets me very nice raises. Why would I want a union? No, the above example is NOT just in one job, but in every job I had after the age of 20 (now 31).
I worked for a company that really cared for it's people. I met the president of the company on a few occasions and I was the lowest of the low on the manager ladder (60,000 employees). He was known to quote, "Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect" and he meant it. The company was unionized in Michigan, and was opening nonunion stores in Indiana.
I was not the best manager when I started, but I learned. I actually became a very good manager. I received max raises from my boss. I was rated 98% in a very serious company wide anonymous survey by my employees (tidbit, I valued what they thought more than what my bosses thought). My claim to fame, taking care of my people. Fighting for my people. You know what? They took care of me, our customers, and as a result our company. THAT is the way business is supposed to work. A union would have just added bloat. I would think that the good business have learned that they need to take care of their resources, their employees. That is why I think that there are less unions.
For the record, I am not in management in my new job and I see no need for one.
Dr. Ffreeze
PS. Disclaimer: I am not saying that unions didn't have their time and place. I am saying that I see no use for them today in any job I have had.
Excellent post!
pax,
Most people that don't have a job, really don't want a job. You can go down and get a job at McDonald's easier than falling off a bicycle! Oh, you are too good to work at McDonald's, well then you choose to be unemployed and are non of my concern. In all seriousness what else could it be? DemoCoder lays some blame on culture, and I would have to admit that he makes a strong case, but you said you don't buy that.
ACK, he said "Unions"! =) They had their time and place, and even now the still might have a place in some industries (I don't know). I personally never, ever, ever want to work at a job that has a union. Why do I not want to be in a Union? I have ZERO need for a union. I am the one working hard and they just suck money out of my weekly paycheck. If my employer does not treat me right, then I find a new job that cares about me. If your company cares about it's employees, then there is no need for a union, hence their decline. WOOT! =)
My boss (and bosses past) and I work as a partnership a team if you will. I kick much ass and do everything and anything he wants me to do a bit better than he asks for. He kicks much ass and gets me very nice raises. Why would I want a union? No, the above example is NOT just in one job, but in every job I had after the age of 20 (now 31).
I worked for a company that really cared for it's people. I met the president of the company on a few occasions and I was the lowest of the low on the manager ladder (60,000 employees). He was known to quote, "Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect" and he meant it. The company was unionized in Michigan, and was opening nonunion stores in Indiana.
I was not the best manager when I started, but I learned. I actually became a very good manager. I received max raises from my boss. I was rated 98% in a very serious company wide anonymous survey by my employees (tidbit, I valued what they thought more than what my bosses thought). My claim to fame, taking care of my people. Fighting for my people. You know what? They took care of me, our customers, and as a result our company. THAT is the way business is supposed to work. A union would have just added bloat. I would think that the good business have learned that they need to take care of their resources, their employees. That is why I think that there are less unions.
For the record, I am not in management in my new job and I see no need for one.
Dr. Ffreeze
PS. Disclaimer: I am not saying that unions didn't have their time and place. I am saying that I see no use for them today in any job I have had.