Unions, Taxes, and Class Warfare

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Lokrian

Again, please don't let this get you angry. I fidget and fuss all the time all over the net. Maybe I am used to a tone or level of heat that wears you out. We can always agree to disagree. I am not in this to make anyone angry.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about it though. I do enjoy these sorts of discussion. I might even be addicted. [/B]

Thanks for taking the time to post. It's rare that I want to get on a soapbox, and it's always nice when someone provokes me to do so.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Dalaena
I disagree that unions are needed ANYWHERE as badly as when they were first formed, if at all. The working conditions are NO WHERE near the same.

I don't know how to quanitfy 'as bad'. I saw a news program with kids in India in the silk trade within the last year. I have brought up the situation with the rural Chinese. I think they are more than bad enough to require some sort of organization on the part of labor in those regions.

Originally posted by Dalaena
The abuse from large companies came first. It was solved by unions. Unions won't go away. Large companies CANNOT exist without its workers, and workers in THIS country aren't willing to go work in a factory that chops their arms off on a regular basis without compensating pay. As a country, we are way more educated than that now.

Why in the world would I want to let it even get worse, much less get as bad as it was, before I took steps to fix things? And people were never so uneducated that they willingles worked dangerous jobs for bad pay. Specifically, as we went from rural to urban, people realized they were living worse than they had been despite proseperity all around. Relative prosperity today is such that sure, it is easy to be complacent, but a brief look at the almost complete disenfranchisement of the middle class, the huge power of media to drive politics and the complete lack of an effective outlet for the middle class in all of that is the symptom I look at today. Also, just the rediculous treatment of immigrant labor to me was the last straw. I used to be an economic conservative. The I joined the Navy. Then I worked construction. They I changed my mind.

I don't know what to tell you.

Originally posted by Dalaena
I'm not sure why you say there are a lack of unions in the south. I grew up in the south. The factories that kept my hometown up ALL had unionized workers. Now, only 1 of those factories remain.

Interesting. Texas is a right to work state. Closed shops are not allowed basically. I assumed, apparently wrongly, that it was the same across most of the south. It seems unions appear to work much better in the north than the south, judging by what you are saying.

Originally posted by Dalaena
I have not refused to do anything. You ignored several of the points I made while in my arguments, and I thought it was pretty obvious that most of my post dealt with Western attitudes towards 3rd world countries. Maybe that's a bit off topic, but that was what actually got me interested in this topic at all. Ari has already posted this, but I will repeat it. The cost of BENEFITS (such as health insurace and paid leave) is now MORE than wages for the first time. Why is that a bad thing? Because, what if I want to work 60 hours and get it in cash and find my OWN health insurance for possibly cheaper than what my company is getting it for? What if my spouse has a job with excellent benefits and I would rather have the wages from my job rather than the benefits they have to force on me? Unions and the government totally prevent companies from being able to offer people higher wages for less benefits. Unions also pay money into specific political parties REGARDLESS of what their members wish. I would have to look it up, but there are certain unions well known for this. THEY decide what is done with those dues they've collected, NOT the members of the Union. A few decide for the many. And yet, if you work in unionized company, have you ever tried to NOT be a part of that union? Try it. You're fucked. So, are you saying it's better to be controlled by the union than to decide for yourself?

I answered the top half of this already. Benefits can be bought cheaper in bulk, theoretically. That is not labor's baby. That's a trade off to industry. Wages are lower than benefits because they are just plain, old fashioned too low. The other option is to get a wage that does not equal the combined worth of the benefits and wages.

There has been a longstanding conflict between unionized and un-unionized labor. If unions let non-union workers get the same benefits then all the union workers are basically making the sacrifices and the non-union gets the benefit for free. If industry wanted to be fair, they could. They don't want to. So there is this conflict, and I don't know what the solution is. It's definitely there though and it is definitely wrong.

Originally posted by Dalaena
No, people fought and died in America for FREEDOM and LIBERTY. I'm pretty sick and tired of all these made up rights that we supposedly fought and died for. No where in the Constitution is it written that you have a right to a job. You have the right to PERSUE a job. You have the freedom to pick the job you wish to work. You also have the liberty to not work at all if you wish. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for you to live well if you decide not to work.

I'm pretty sick of the Constitution being reduced to the Bill of Rights. (to paraphrase you) The constitution is also a document that defines how our government is formed and run. Unions have gone through the process, UNLIKE a lot of things lately, of actually going through the congress and the administrative branch and the courts. They are now a part of the law of the land. We have a right to work in decent conditions now. No, we didn't have to amend the constitution to get that right. We can do that through legislation as well.

Originally posted by Dalaena
That's a far cry from having no right to work, and that's a serious mis-interpretation of everything written here. You are simply not guaranteed a job by the Constitution. When people say you are not given a "right to work", it doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to work. It means that there's no guarantee that you'll work.

You have the right and the freedom in this country to work your ass off, build up your business, and try to make as much money as you can. You don't have that right or freedom in several countries. You act like all companies are nameless, monstrous entities. Behind a lot of companies are people who work their asses off in school, at their jobs, and at home.

I would see it differently. I have already made the admission that I have generalized the rich overmuch, but it seems to me that you and Ari, despite denying it, make claims that belittle the working classes. You also seem to be convinced that the vast majority of businessmen are more trustworthy than I believe. Not all businesses are run by monsters, no. But they are not all run by saints either.

Originally posted by Dalaena
China had their revolution in the 1920s. Mexico had theirs in 1910. Russia had theirs in 1917. The French had theirs in the 1790s. These people all tried to make a better life for themselves. What civil war are you wanting? I wouldn't wish civil war on ANY country. Those are the bloodiest wars. I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here.

Guh... No one wishes a war on anyone. Well, no decent person. The point is that the necessary reforms are not showing yet

China's 1920 revolution did not set them up as a Democracy. Russia even today is still struggling for democracy. The French are good as far as I am concerned on this particular point. Where are the reforms? Why is it that Americans, who have already sacrificed so much, owe it to the whole world now to sacrifice more when these countries have no yet even so much as established their own, relatively decent goverments? Why can they not just run under their own steam? If they were doing so well, they wouldn't even need our markets.

Originally posted by Dalaena
You'll have to recheck my numbers. I had to call over to some cousins to check the numbers and make changes. If you read my whole post, I explained pretty clearly that the cost of living in Thailand is MUCH, MUCH lower than in First World countries. I also gave an example of this.

Yeah, I was basically lamenting that the beginning stat of a dollar an hour turns out to be more or less worthless. I don't know of any statistics that take both into account. I just wish I did.

Originally posted by Dalaena
Wages are NOT going down here. They will never go down. They'll only keep going up. I don't even know where you get info that would make you think wages are going down. Wages are not going down here. Companies are simply going to places where they won't go out of business. Not ALL companies are going there either. Many companies that require educated workers never leave the First World nations, but those that mostly require minimum wage workers do. They simply cannot keep up with the demands of union and government. (Whether it's because they are not willing to for profit reasons or because they cannot do it without going out of business.)

First point: Meat Packing link
The last line. For the first time possibly in our history, certainly the first time in living memory, wages - actual dollar amount wages - are down in a U.S. industry.

Second point: That is just an example of actual cash wages going down recently. Obviously any job that has not been keeping up with inflation is going down in terms of buying power.

Thirdly, it is not education that limits export of jobs. With the internet and phones, anything that is document based can be exported. The only safe jobs are direct service industry jobs dealing with things physically planted here in the U.S. (like mine!)

Fact is, you might be smart to move Thresh to Thailand. Your expenses might be lower eh? Obviously I don't know this, I have no idea what things are like tech-wise in Thailand... Just tossing an idea around. But being educated is absolutely no guarantee at this point of having a job safe from the overseas job market. Nor should it be.

I welcome the educated to the brotherhood.

Originally posted by Dalaena
There is no doubt that many third world nations still need unions. We have never said otherwise. The unions we are discussing are the ones in the US, where Unions have an ungodly amount of power over the average worker who works for unionized companies. I'm not sure how you are even implying that I am saying any of these people working in factories in the third world are lazy. These people really do everything they can to pull themselves out of poverty and support their families in a legitimate (rather than illegal) lifestyle. Obviously, in any country, there are people who work hard and people who are lazy. People who are content to live off the government and never try to better their lives will always be considered lazy in my book. You can call me inhumane, and you can imply that I'm a horrible human being for thinking so. It won't bother me, because I will always point to the fact that there are tons of people out there who have been horribly poor, poor in ways people in the US can never imagine, and they have pulled themselves out of that. My parents lived that life. They were poorer than anyone I've ever met in the US aside from utterly homeless people. (Even those people have more cash that my family did.) They worked and labored to get out of that. When they were poor, they weren't looking for a hand out. They looked for a way to achieve and improve their family. People who are utterly content to live on whatever the government gives them and teach their children to do the same are wrong in my book. (If you've EVER lived in a rural farming community, you see TONS of these people.) For the most part, I think that the people who are in this situation are trapped and need to be educated to help them get out of this poverty, but doing that is a LOT harder than throwing some governement money at them every now and then, teaching them that the rich (anyone who pays taxes) are "evil", and using them to get you elected.

All this sounds a lot like what I believe.

Originally posted by Dalaena
I definitely don't need a lecture on what needs to happen in Thailand. I've lived there. I have family that live there. I regularly keep tabs on political and social events there. It's ridiculous to even say that there's a drop in the standard of living here. As a nation, we are able to afford things that no third world nation can even think of affording. People who live in projects have TV, hot water, and electricity for the most part. People who live in metal shacks in Thailand don't have running water, electricity (let alone any electronics like a TV), any kind of a modern stove, or even basic creature comforts. People in China consider a board with a hole in it over a hole in the ground an awesome toilet. People in India simply crap and piss on the streets or in the river, river water that other people downstream drink, by the way. You're not finding events or stories like that in America on a regular basis. It's ridiculous to even imply that the standard of living is going down here, especially when you compare with the rest of the world and even more so when you compare with third world nations.

If you think these things are to do with U.S. unions, I want to keep lecturing. I'm sorry but the U.S. cannot be held responsible for these conditions. Plumbing has been around since before Christ. These are social ills that are directly the responsibility of the governments in these regions, not the fault of Americans who have already done what is necessary to insure they have these sorts of minimal standards.

My grandparents tell me a different story about whether or not things are going backwards here. If you had been here perhaps you would know. Just because things are better here does not mean they were not better still before. The two income household is now a necessity. Things were not always thus....

Originally posted by Dalaena
Unions and the constant demand for more, more, more are making businesses build more factories outside the US or to try to recruit more of their workforce outside the US. In some cases, they are simply putting companies out of business. With the airlines, the government has to keep bailing them out. That's more tax dollars to feed the monster.

Meh, I answered this in the old thread and again here. Southwest has a union. Southwest is not bankrupt. Not all unions are created equal, but at the same time to not even look at the administration for clues as to why large airlines fail is not right thinking in my view.

Originally posted by Dalaena
Okay, rambling now. Gonna stop!

(I kind of hi-jacked this thread, I guess, to discuss more than unions. Sorry about that!)

I never have been one to stick to a strict subject, and am always glad to talk to anyone who I can manage NOT to make angry.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Dalaena
Where the heck are you getting this? I've not seen anything like this posted anywhere except for in your posts.

Jidoe is from Israel, in case you haven't noticed. They are definitely NOT considered a third world country. In fact, Israel is having the SAME problems as the US with people moving factories and companies a few miles just so that they can be inside the Jordan border. (I'm simply reposting what he said.) He was simply giving his view from another part of the world, and I actually appreciate his comments. It's always good to see how people think from different parts of the world or even different parts of this country.

You keep calling our workers lazy and now they're fat, too, but you are the only one doing that. Linking the term "worker" with "lazy" is kind of silly, and I'm not sure why you keep doing it.

I'm bothered by the fact that you seem to think that the third world has all the advantages and the abilities of people who have grown up in a First World nation. Most of them don't have a chance at education. The average Thai hooker has a 4th grade education. I wonder why they're a hooker? Most of my posts are made to try to give people another view point from someone who has very close ties with TWO third world nations, one of which is also a communist nation. When you ask why they don't try these things, the answer is because they have no clue these things exist until one of the First World nations come and builds a factory and shows them how things could be. One of my aunt's business actually got started this way. She was already an excellent seamstress, and she was readily hired by some European clothing company. From what she learned in that factory, she was able to leave that kind of work and open her own factory. Now, she employs over 250 women and a few men. She also married a man who lived in the US for 6 months (with my family) who did nothing but tour factories when he was here. Together, they built a great business, and now they're one of the evil corporations that employs tons of people!! The fact is that they studied how things were done by Western companies and implemented them in Thailand. These things weren't taught to them in school, and even if they were, neither of them could afford to have that much schooling. One has a 4th grade education and taught himself to read. The other has a 10th grade education. They both left school early to work to support their immediate familes and put younger brothers and sisters in school.

Seriously, though, I really don't think that you have to keep going down the "fat, stupid" route. We're really just throwing out information and such, and I don't honestly think anyone is trying to say that there everyone who works is fat and stupid, or else I'd just be sitting around insulting myself.

Jidoe said this:

Originally posted by Jidoe
As I see it. Unions can be blamed for at least two of the main problems in Western Countries:

1) Foreign Workers - Domestic workers have become overly spoiled over the years and unwilling to do most of the hard work (mainly construction and farming) unless they are paid more than can be afforded - and it is always easy to find a foreign worker who will work for much less.

The accusation here is that the reason jobs have to leave is because people are "spoiled". I fill in different adjectives to illustrate what that sounds like to me and to a lot of people I think when they hear how spoiled westerners are because they won't work unless you pay them a wage that will allow them to live in a lifestyle more or less the same as they are accustomed.

All these things... all these horrible things... all these terrible awful things that exist in the third world that you list... I WOULD LIKE TO FIX. Sure! But the way forward is NOT by making things worse here. It is by making things better there. It starts with better government and leadership there. That is something I can't do much about from the U.S.

The last part of your post is hopeful. A completely self contained economy like that is what third world nations need to work towards. Then they wouldn't even have a motice to export anything except items specifically easier to make or more unique to a region off to the U.S.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Caer
It is -this- sort of statement that is, as Ari put it, "cliched American arrogance and paternalism". It implies that our methods are the best for every culture out there, and those that don't just suck up and imitate us are just doomed to fail. And yet, sometimes it is those very cultures who -do- try to imitate us that ultimately fail because the methods do not fit very well with their culture and cause new problems that did not exist before.

Yes, if you ignore that he said workers are 'spoiled' by wanting to be paid a competitive wage, then I sound like a dog, sure.

I am also surprised how there is this odd back and forth between listing how bad things are in the third world in order to build sympathy for the workers, which I agree with, and then turning around and demanding that the only 'help' wanted is help that involves wrecking our domestic economy in my opinion, which I object to.

If they don't need any help, fine. They don't need our markets. If they do, let's start talking as a team instead of this blame America first mentality regarding people not having a right to be concerned that their lifestyles are deteriorating.

[Lokrian]

More of my slop correction of myself.

I tend to think of Israel as a "western style democracy". As such, when I referred to the situation in Jidoe's post with verbeage about the west, that was what caused that.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Aristotle]

Lokrian, someone who is given a job by someone else who created the job is not being "bilked." For almost every job that exists in this country, some person had to work their ass off and risk their own money to build that business enough that it could support more employees.

Until you stop saying crazy stuff like employees are being "bilked out of a decent wage", you are not participating in a rational discussion.

If you don't like the wage you are earning, start your own business. Its so easy after all, right?

If you save $166 a month ($38 per week) for 41 years, you can retire a millionaire (age 18 to 59 for example). That's it. If you don't smoke, don't drink, and don't have more kids than you can afford, that's a really easy goal to achieve. Heck, you probably only have to do 1 or 2 out of those 3.

The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the US is $4. If you smoke a pack and a half per day, all you have to do is quit smoking and you can be a millionaire in 41 years.

Originally posted by Lokrian
There is a huge disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest.

That is because there is a huge disparity in how hard people want to work, how much of a priority some people put on their education, the degree to which some people are willing to not give into their vices (smoking, drinking, wantonly impregnating or getting pregnant, etc), how smart people are, how gifted and talented people are, how creative people are, and how productive people are.

Yes, there are people in the US who make a lot more than other people. But guess what: most of these people are also a lot more productive. Sure, some people inherit their wealth or just get lucky, but that is the minority (and since estate taxes are one of the few taxes I think are good, I'm covered there).

Until you are willing to accept that *FACT* of the universe, reality will continue to pass you by.

The very fact that you keep reacting so negatively to my reporting that the bottom 50% is carried by the top 50% is evidence of some SERIOUS denial.

I already said that the people being carried do not have to feel ashamed about this nor does it make them less worthwhile human beings. But to deny they are being carried is just to put one's head in the sand.

They are paying a lower % of taxes than their % of income.

They are collecting the overwhelming majority of government hand outs and welfare.

They benefit enormously from the productivity of others, despite the fact that they are not adding much to the economy or the country.

Thus, they are indeed being carried.

Some people are just incredibly more hard working, talented, and driven than others. A society can choose to either blunt and discourage this, or reward and encourage it. Throughout most of our country's history, we have rewarded it, and the result has been the creation of one of the most amazingly successful countries of all recorded history.

You can NEVER create some nice bell curve where the majority of the populace is clustered in the middle with gradual slopes in the direction of rich and poor. People just are not that similar to each other. The disparity in ability is just too enormous to achieve such a bell curve unless you punitively destroy the cream of the crop. The negative ramifications of doing that are both enormous and obvious.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I don't even know why you feel the thing has been made personal.

Because you specifically asked *ME* if *I* know any poor people (implying I did not, and thus did not know anything about the issue) and specifically accused *ME* of thinking poor people are "horrible people." You made it explicitly personal.

Originally posted by Lokrian
As for your work history, obviously it is something to be proud of. Hell, I wish it had been easier for you. I am arguing for a way forward that would have made it easier for you.

You don't get it. I didn't want an easier way. I was not entitled to an easier way. It would not be efficient to have artificially given me an easier way.

The problem is, most attempts to "give an easier way" that come from the government do the opposite. Also, the wasteful cost of creating this "easier way" makes the reward at the end of all the work less.

Here's an analogy. If it takes 1,000 hours of effort to hook up with Salma Hayek, you can decide whether or not you are willing to put in the work for that reward. Having the government come along and change that to 100 hours, and swap Salma Hayek for Janet Reno is not the kind of help anyone wants or needs.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Lokrian, someone who is given a job by someone else who created the job is not being "bilked." For almost every job that exists in this country, some person had to work their ass off and risk their own money to build that business enough that it could support more employees.

Until you stop saying crazy stuff like employees are being "bilked out of a decent wage", you are not participating in a rational discussion.

If most people thought like you, I would agree I was being irrational. Given that the idea that unions are in need of being done away with and wages don't need protection at all is not really any sort of mainstream idea, I don't know where this accusation comes from.

Originally posted by Aristotle
If you don't like the wage you are earning, start your own business. Its so easy after all, right?

As I've noted, I am an independant contractor. Not everyone who goes into business for themselves does it in a way that is all that risky. Often enough you can work for a while in an industry, get a feel for it, and then branch out on your own. Some industries are more amenable to that than others. It's really beside the point to the need for unions I think. If a small business owner is in a business where unions operate, then they need to take that into account in their business plan. I am not any less sympathetic for business owners than workers, it's just that I am not any more sympathetic for them either.

Originally posted by Aristotle
If you save $166 a month ($38 per week) for 41 years, you can retire a millionaire (age 18 to 59 for example). That's it. If you don't smoke, don't drink, and don't have more kids than you can afford, that's a really easy goal to achieve. Heck, you probably only have to do 1 or 2 out of those 3.

The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the US is $4. If you smoke a pack and a half per day, all you have to do is quit smoking and you can be a millionaire in 41 years.

Statistics like this are easy to toss out. They ignore the variability in life. What about education costs? What about sudden illness? Life is not always amenable to this sort of thinking. Furthermore, the less you make, obviously, the less convenient it gets to part with $166 a month. At a certain point it gets impossible.

Originally posted by Aristotle
That is because there is a huge disparity in how hard people want to work, how much of a priority some people put on their education, the degree to which some people are willing to not give into their vices (smoking, drinking, wantonly impregnating or getting pregnant, etc), how smart people are, how gifted and talented people are, how creative people are, and how productive people are.

Yes, there are people in the US who make a lot more than other people. But guess what: most of these people are also a lot more productive. Sure, some people inherit their wealth or just get lucky, but that is the minority (and since estate taxes are one of the few taxes I think are good, I'm covered there).

Until you are willing to accept that *FACT* of the universe, reality will continue to pass you by.

I think where reality is passing you by is that though there are indeed wide disparities between the best of the best and the worst of the worst, there is not that large of a disparity between average and the best of the best. I have yet to meet anyone so good that I honestly thought they were doing a job even so much as 10 times more valuable than an average, resposible worker, much less the dozens and dozens of times over that the top wage earners get. There is a point of diminishing returns on how much it actually helps to shuffle cash off to the top 1%, or even 5%, or possibly even 10%. The exact line? Heck I don't know.

Another thing you neglect to take into acount is that realistically, large numbers always outgun small ones, no matter how clever they may be, so the mass of humanity that the top percentage attempts to leave behind will simply not let them get away with demanding too many resources. Ultimately, everything comes from the land and work, and the land belongs to the strong and work is done by the masses. You just can't dismiss that reality the way it seems to me that you do.

Historically, the best leaders get way out in front of that rather than trying to ride the ragged edge of mass dissent. It's not asking that much not to lord it over the working man too egregiously.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The very fact that you keep reacting so negatively to my reporting that the bottom 50% is carried by the top 50% is evidence of some SERIOUS denial.

No, it's just that I know you can't get taxes out of people who don't have it to give. They have no money because their wages are too low. We've been over this. Simply stating I am wrong is not terribly informative, and no fun at all. Heck, I already KNOW I could be wrong or misunderstanding you in some way, or I wouldn't be bothering to carry on this conversation. I'd roll my eyes at you and go back to Threshing.

Originally posted by Aristotle
I already said that the people being carried do not have to feel ashamed about this nor does it make them less worthwhile human beings. But to deny they are being carried is just to put one's head in the sand.

The reason I do not believe they are being carried is because I do not believe they need to be making so little. Therefore, I see the smaller percentage of tax they pay as only partial compensation for what they are owed, assuming they are not a part of the non-working poor, which to me is a slightly different topic that would, in my view, include such things as forced labor and forced training. Here I think I am well to the right of you. You have said several times you think people should be allowed to be lazy. If they are taking an ounce of government money, then no, they have no right to be lazy. If they want to be lazy, they need to be lazy on their own dime.

Maybe I misunderstood you somewhere on that as well.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You can NEVER create some nice bell curve where the majority of the populace is clustered in the middle with gradual slopes in the direction of rich and poor. People just are not that similar to each other. The disparity in ability is just too enormous to achieve such a bell curve unless you punitively destroy the cream of the crop. The negative ramifications of doing that are both enormous and obvious.

Well, if you try to stretch too far from that curve, see my above comments on the results.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Because you specifically asked *ME* if *I* know any poor people (implying I did not, and thus did not know anything about the issue) and specifically accused *ME* of thinking poor people are "horrible people." You made it explicitly personal.

I am just going to have to appologize for that then. I have pointed out what things have been said that make me feel as if those are your feelings. It appears to be a dead end issue. I surely did not mean to insult you. I just was, and to an extent still am, amazed at what appears to me to be a sort of dismissive attitude towards a really large portion of the population.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You don't get it. I didn't want an easier way. I was not entitled to an easier way. It would not be efficient to have artificially given me an easier way.

The problem is, most attempts to "give an easier way" that come from the government do the opposite. Also, the wasteful cost of creating this "easier way" makes the reward at the end of all the work less.

Here's an analogy. If it takes 1,000 hours of effort to hook up with Salma Hayek, you can decide whether or not you are willing to put in the work for that reward. Having the government come along and change that to 100 hours, and swap Salma Hayek for Janet Reno is not the kind of help anyone wants or needs.

I do get it. I used to believe that too, as I have noted above to someone or other. When you have some ideas on how to balance the advantages of incorporation with the needs of labor that doesn't involve any unions, I would like to hear that. As I have noted before though, the artificial advantages for the most part belong to the wealthy, not to the poor.

[Gromgor]

Posted by Lokrian
Statistics like this are easy to toss out. They ignore the variability in life. What about education costs? What about sudden illness? Life is not always amenable to this sort of thinking. Furthermore, the less you make, obviously, the less convenient it gets to part with $166 a month. At a certain point it gets impossible.

$166 a month is not that hard to part with if you make plans to do so from the beginning. Let me put it this way. There are people who play this game who are not wealthy who contribute $166+ a month on average. People choose to spend their money on things. Short term enjoyment instead of long term wealth.

That is really the key difference between Upper Class, Middle Class and Lower Class. Planning, commitment, effort.

If I wanted to make more money I could easily go find a second job. I see it every fucking day. Some idiot sits on a bar stool bitching about how bad he has it in life. He works 40 Hrs. a week and then someone comes and takes it away. They're dumbasses. People spend more on beer each week than they do in taxes. Think 40 hrs. a week is "Doing a mans duty". People CHOOSE not to better their lives. The poorer you are the easier it is to lift yourself up. I am reminded of a quote that Bill Gates asked his company when it was founded, "Are you willing to do what you have to do to get what you want?".

Well, are they?

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Lokrian
The accusation here is that the reason jobs have to leave is because people are "spoiled". I fill in different adjectives to illustrate what that sounds like to me and to a lot of people I think when they hear how spoiled westerners are because they won't work unless you pay them a wage that will allow them to live in a lifestyle more or less the same as they are accustomed.

Jidoe said this:
1) Foreign Workers - Domestic workers have become overly spoiled over the years and unwilling to do most of the hard work (mainly construction and farming) unless they are paid more than can be afforded - and it is always easy to find a foreign worker who will work for much less.

I think it is pretty sad you don't read what I wrote. Notice that I wrote they are spoiled because they are unwilling to work at jobs that are considered hard physical jobs (like construction and farming) and I did not say they are spoiled because they will not work for low wages.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Jidoe


I think it is pretty sad you don't read what I wrote. Notice that I wrote they are spoiled because they are unwilling to work at jobs that are considered hard physical jobs (like construction and farming) and I did not say they are spoiled because they will not work for low wages.

You specifically said "unless they are paid more than can be afforded", and not, "will not do physical labor at all." If you had said the latter, I would have called you on it too because I happen to have been to Israel as well. It's not so terribly different from the U.S. that there are no people willing to do manual labor. It is actually just as you described. People will not do manual labor for less than what it takes to live a decent life.

Sooner or later, there are not going to be any more places where people are downtrodden and poverty stricken, and we are all going to have to deal with the fact that no one is going to want to do any work for less than is necessary to maintain a respectable standard of living. Respectable standards are subjective things, and are going to tend to be defined as, "pretty close to how everyone else I know lives." As such, I don't see why we don't just start dealing with that as a reality and stop trying to imply there is some sort of absolute, concrete right not to have to pay people much if they are doing some sort of work we feel ought to be cheep.