Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 24 2017, @11:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the work-like-a-dog-/-fingers-to-the-bone-/-nose-to-the-grindstone dept.

Mary’s story looks different to different people. Within the ghoulishly cheerful Lyft public-relations machinery, Mary is an exemplar of hard work and dedication—the latter being, perhaps, hard to come by in a company that refuses to classify its drivers as employees. Mary’s entrepreneurial spirit—taking ride requests while she was in labor!—is an “exciting” example of how seamless and flexible app-based employment can be. Look at that hustle! You can make a quick buck with Lyft anytime, even when your cervix is dilating.

[...] It does require a fairly dystopian strain of doublethink for a company to celebrate how hard and how constantly its employees must work to make a living, given that these companies are themselves setting the terms. And yet this type of faux-inspirational tale has been appearing more lately, both in corporate advertising and in the news. Fiverr, an online freelance marketplace that promotes itself as being for “the lean entrepreneur”—as its name suggests, services advertised on Fiverr can be purchased for as low as five dollars—recently attracted ire for an ad campaign called “In Doers We Trust.” One ad, prominently displayed on some New York City subway cars, features a woman staring at the camera with a look of blank determination. “You eat a coffee for lunch,” the ad proclaims. “You follow through on your follow through. Sleep deprivation is your drug of choice. You might be a doer.”

[...] At the root of this is the American obsession with self-reliance, which makes it more acceptable to applaud an individual for working himself to death than to argue that an individual working himself to death is evidence of a flawed economic system. The contrast between the gig economy’s rhetoric (everyone is always connecting, having fun, and killing it!) and the conditions that allow it to exist (a lack of dependable employment that pays a living wage) makes this kink in our thinking especially clear. Human-interest stories about the beauty of some person standing up to the punishments of late capitalism are regular features in the news, too. I’ve come to detest the local-news set piece about the man who walks ten or eleven or twelve miles to work—a story that’s been filed from Oxford, Alabama; from Detroit, Michigan; from Plano, Texas. The story is always written as a tearjerker, with praise for the person’s uncomplaining attitude; a car is usually donated to the subject in the end. Never mentioned or even implied is the shamefulness of a job that doesn’t permit a worker to afford his own commute.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 24 2017, @03:34PM (65 children)

    There is always something that pays better. You just have to be able to do the job. If you lack the skills, that's on your dumb ass for failing to acquire any marketable skill during your entire life.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Friday March 24 2017, @03:42PM (48 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Friday March 24 2017, @03:42PM (#483693) Journal

    I see, so when a kid goes to school as required by law and come out of it without enough knowledge to pass a GED because the school is sub-standard, that's all his fault? Shoulda picked wealthier parents who live where the schools are good? Where there's a library close enough to get to?

    Shoulda picked parents with enough money for college perhaps? (not that that is much of a guarantee of decent employment these days).

    There are a lot of people working jobs below their skill level these days.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 24 2017, @04:05PM (1 child)

      Should have used his spare time to learn something useful instead of hanging on the street, playing vidya, or chasing tail. People do it every day. And they make a better living than you do.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday March 24 2017, @06:38PM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday March 24 2017, @06:38PM (#483787) Journal

        Let's see, he could have what, walked to the library that closed 10 years ago and hoped to learn something by absorbing the residue of the books that used to be there? Then get picked up by the truant officer because he had to skip school for that? I suppose if anyone had ever taught him the art of scholarly research, he could fire up the ol' 28.8 modem and read a few pages on the internet if the ISP bill got paid and the ads aren't too thick.

        Yes, I may have exaggerated a bit, but the point is there. Further, no matter how much you learn on the internet, you'll still need to cough up the bux for that piece of paper that says you know something. Those have gotten a lot more important to even entry level jobs than they used to be. That isd probably related to there being more qualified applicants than there are jobs to fill.

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Friday March 24 2017, @04:59PM (45 children)

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday March 24 2017, @04:59PM (#483745)

      No, it means that if you want to solve the problem you fix/nuke the government schools. Demanding that employers pay the marching morons coming out of them 15/hr so you who advocated for the government monopoly on education don't have to accept the guilt for your actions won't work.

      As for the poor unfortunate victims of those schools, life isn't fair. They got fucked by the system but they still have a far better chance at a good life than 80% of the people now alive on Planet Earth by virtue of having been born in the 1st World. It is going to be on them to suck it up and learn a skill that can allow them to access the opportunity available to them. Thankfully there are a -lot- of good paying jobs that do not require a college degree. They will often require hard labor and probably moving away from the urban hellhole with the bad school.

      It is a mental frame thing. Convince them they are victims and they will sit there their whole goddamn life waiting for somebody to fix it for them, teach them there is virtually unlimited opportunity out there waiting for them to figure out a way to grab it by the pussy and a remarkable number will do exactly that. The Vietnamese boat people came here with literally nothing, most spoke little English, but they didn't wait for a goddamned government check, they went to work and almost all of them succeeded. So if you are asserting that poorly educated hood rats can't succeed you are far more racist than most here seem to believe I am.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday March 24 2017, @06:15PM (44 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Friday March 24 2017, @06:15PM (#483774) Journal

        Funny how for them "life isn't fair" but if you might have to pay higher taxes to help them it's "HEY! That's not fair!"

        You know, the boat people came here in a very different time, right? Back when the Rs of the day sounded more D than today's Ds, right? Back when if you presented yourself reasonably well you could get an entry level position where the company fully expected they would provide the training you needed to acquire a valuable skill.

        As for the poorly educated, the racism is yours. What makes you think I wasn't also talking about poor white kids? They get sub-standard schools too. I didn't say they CAN'T succeed, but only an idiot would claim a poor education doesn't significantly tilt the odds against it.

        I well understand self education, I did a lot of that myself. But I am not so conceited that I fail to recognize that the availability of a good library and well stocked book stores (along with parents who could afford to buy me some books) were major contributors to my efforts. Also a few good teachers who were willing and able to answer questions outside of the class material and loan me their books. The really bad schools don't have those or good libraries.

        I'm not sure where you got the idea that I ever advocated a government monopoly on schools. I have not, and there is not.

        As for the "marching morons", it you need them, you need to pay what it actually costs for them to exist. Otherwise, you're like my story of the moronic manager who decides 60V is good enough for the fryer.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday March 24 2017, @07:32PM (34 children)

          by jmorris (4844) on Friday March 24 2017, @07:32PM (#483815)

          What makes you think I wasn't also talking about poor white kids?

          I have a policy to only include a couple of concepts in a post that tend to invoke "crimestop" in people, at least when I'm not shitposting with the explicit intent of triggering snowflakes instead of convincing anyone. Including the idea of the existence of disadvantaged white people would have been one too many. For if they exist, White Privilege does not exist and that would instantly trigger most people who might possibly be persuaded by the other ideas I was promoting. Instead of explaining, lets see if anyone is bright enough to realize what does exist by applying the three laws of SJW to their stated positions.

          I well understand self education,

          Then you should realize there is now no excuse for ignorance. We live in a world of information abundance. Anyone who get get to a public library or otherwise scrounge access to the net has access to more solid information than anyone can absorb in ten lifetimes. Stop watching cat videos and videos of people playing video games and learn something!

          As for the "marching morons", it you need them, you need to pay what it actually costs for them to exist.

          Wrong. I am only responsible for their upkeep if I am to become their feudal lord and they wish to be my serf. (And if the law were to allow such a thing.) If I hire someone it is because we agreed on a price for services rendered, period. These people exist, I didn't create them, they aren't my responsibility, I certainly have no intent of adopting them to raise their children. I am happy to peacefully trade with them but that is the extent of it. Hopefully, and barring government interference it is almost a certainty, we mutually benefit from the relationship, they increase their salable skills and they can earn more in the future, whether working for me or elsewhere. Because of the well known tax advantages, it makes sense to offer long term employees access to a group health plan, again because of government meddling, because the employee gets affordable care and I get a hook to retain them. I'd be a fool to ignore an advantage like that.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday March 24 2017, @08:24PM (32 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Friday March 24 2017, @08:24PM (#483849) Journal

            So you prefer to pawn off the rest of the money you should be paying them on the rest of society? You do know that without a social safety net, you would definitely have to pay for their upkeep unless smelly diseased workers dropping dead was somehow good for your bottom line. I'll bet a restaurant wouldn't get much business if it's waitstaff or cooks were all homeless and diseased.

            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 25 2017, @01:59AM (1 child)

              by jmorris (4844) on Saturday March 25 2017, @01:59AM (#483993)

              Whether they get hired or not, the productive are being taxed to pay for their upkeep. So you are confused already. If the government has decided that, ignoring the layers of bullshit, nobody is going to have less than X dollars why does it matter how much Walmart pays them? They like the money better than spending the time with their XBox and Walmart needs the labor to earn more money than they are paying the employee. How much Walmart pays their employees doesn't change their liability to pay for the welfare state either, other than expensing the increased payroll. If you force the minimum wage up and Walmart lets most of them go instead of paying, they still suckle the public teat.

              But you are right that if there were no welfare state it would change the equation. If someone were trying to live an independent existence or raise a family they could not accept a job (or jobs) that paid less than they had to spend to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. At least not as a long term prospect, brief distortions of the economy excepted. Not being taxed to pay for a welfare state would make paying those higher wages easier, just to put that on the table for consideration. Such a very different society would see a total reordering of pricing in ways we can't currently assess. Hopefully it would also inspire a resurgence in private charity as well. But there would still be SOME number of people, as I noted above, willing to work at some jobs for far less than the minimum "living wage" and hiring those people should be possible. Those would tend to be the absolutely least valuable jobs, but they should not be outlawed from existing.

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:38AM

                by sjames (2882) on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:38AM (#484007) Journal

                The UBI would be a much more humane answer. Then we could actually afford to just forget about the minimum wage and a bunch of other labor laws and let the market sort it out. But as for taxes now, Walmart comes out ahead paying crap wages and letting themselves and everyone else make up the difference. They're actually getting you to help them out with payroll.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:21AM (29 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:21AM (#484317) Journal

              So you prefer to pawn off the rest of the money you should be paying them on the rest of society?

              Of course not, jmorris pays the $0 per hour they deserve. And your public display of morality is deeply valuable to me. For with it and a roll of toilet paper, I may wipe my ass.

              Once again, we see the free lunch class educating us on what we're supposed to do without any consideration of how that would screw up our society. In a society with healthy business creation, workers can afford to self-fund most of that social safety net because there is a lot of demand for workers and wages are relatively high as a result. In a society with little to no business creation (say because workers are getting the "rest of the money" that they "should be paid"), no one (even the fabulously wealthy elite concentrated by these policies) can afford to fund that social safety net.

              Don't confuse what you want with what is needed.

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 26 2017, @01:07PM (28 children)

                by sjames (2882) on Sunday March 26 2017, @01:07PM (#484350) Journal

                Don't confuse what you want with what is needed.

                Take your own advice.

                And keep in mind that although suffering will increase a great deal and crime will go through the roof, without a social safety net wages will go up anyway because a businesses cannot stay open if it's employees are mostly disease ridden homeless people.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @09:52AM (27 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @09:52AM (#484565) Journal

                  Don't confuse what you want with what is needed.

                  Take your own advice.

                  Way ahead of you on that. So now let's fix you up.

                  And keep in mind that although suffering will increase a great deal and crime will go through the roof, without a social safety net wages will go up anyway because a businesses cannot stay open if it's employees are mostly disease ridden homeless people.

                  Unless, of course, that doesn't happen say because highly paid, in-demand workers aren't disease-ridden homeless people. My view, of course, is that you have this exactly opposite. For example, in the US Black Americans were better off before we tried to help them. The social safety net people haven't a clue how to get out of this particular hole.

                  Meanwhile a person with an income and work experience can better their life in more ways than the social safety net can provide, plus they can pay for that social safety net, should it ever be a good idea to do so. While the unemployed person who is not worth minimum wage can't.

                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @01:15PM (26 children)

                    by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @01:15PM (#484591) Journal

                    So you believe that restaurants will start hiring highly skilled well paid people and that servers will be in strong demand?

                    It seems you are desperately trying to avoid seeing the truth here. Whistling past the grave of your ideolong.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @05:43PM (25 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @05:43PM (#484731) Journal

                      It seems you are desperately trying to avoid seeing the truth here. Whistling past the grave of your ideolong.

                      You had many decades to show this works. It's time to take care of the actual problems of the US.

                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @08:07PM (24 children)

                        by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @08:07PM (#484844) Journal

                        Actually, most of the problems have been due to monkey wrenching. For example, by conservatives that insisted that welfare should have a sharp cutoff that actually serves to keep people trapped on welfare, or who block any attempt to make the minimum wage keep up with inflation.

                        Before that, LBJ's war on poverty was actually working.

                        And yes, I did notice that you failed to answer the question.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @08:38PM (23 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @08:38PM (#484855) Journal

                          Actually, most of the problems have been due to monkey wrenching. For example, by conservatives that insisted that welfare should have a sharp cutoff that actually serves to keep people trapped on welfare, or who block any attempt to make the minimum wage keep up with inflation.

                          There's always an excuse for why it doesn't work. Counterrevolutionaries, Kulaks, or conservatives hold us back with their mental failwaves. If the non-conservatives wanted a system that didn't fail quite as badly, they could have always put in a tapered cut off. And conservatives didn't force on us the one-size-fits-all minimum wage.

                          And yes, I did notice that you failed to answer the question.

                          I still don't think your question is worth asking or answering, but since you asked nicely, I'll answer it:

                          So you believe that restaurants will start hiring highly skilled well paid people and that servers will be in strong demand?

                          I believe that they already do. But sure, with pro-business policies in place, I think restaurants will hire even more highly skilled and well paid people than they already do. And yes, in such a world, servers would in even stronger demand than they currently are.

                          This is an example of a loaded question which presents a false assertion as part of the question - here the idea that restaurants don't already hire highly skilled and well-paid people. The thing that is ignored is that restaurants are not a single thing. They're not all doing the same thing. Sure, McDonald's isn't paying top dollar for the best and brightest. But they're not the only restaurant out there. High end restaurants do this sort of thing.

                          For example, my employer employs a lot of servers (hundreds just in Yellowstone over the course of a summer) at a variety of sit down restaurants in various US and state-level parks. Those positions tend to be the best paid on location due to the tip income. In a variety of ways, my employer is far from perfect, but if prospective employees weren't so common, my employer would have to pay even more (and make additional concessions) to attract the necessary talent.

                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @09:04PM (22 children)

                            by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @09:04PM (#484872) Journal

                            OK, since you're studiously dodging the issue, I'll put it more on the mark for you. In the absence of a social safety net, McDonald's and other restaurants that currently pay minimum wage or close to it would be forced to pay more because nobody wants to eat at a place staffed with diseased and homeless workers.

                            Or are you going to now wax poetic about the special flavor burgers take on when the grill operator coughs TB or Hep C all over them?

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @09:08PM (13 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @09:08PM (#484874) Journal

                              In the absence of a social safety net, McDonald's and other restaurants that currently pay minimum wage or close to it would be forced to pay more because nobody wants to eat at a place staffed with diseased and homeless workers.

                              Only if the social safety net prevents that sort of thing. When it doesn't, then they'll have to pay for both the social safety net and the clean workers. And you're wasting my time by claiming that people can't clean themselves without requiring the tender hand of government.

                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @09:22PM (12 children)

                                by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @09:22PM (#484889) Journal

                                The safety net provides food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare to those who can't afford it. People getting paid minimum wage often can't afford it.

                                Even if you hate McD's and never set foot in one, part of your paycheck goes to supplementing their payroll by allowing them to pay less than the natural cost for clean healthy employees.

                                I'm surprised you seem to be fine with that.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @10:02PM (11 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @10:02PM (#484905) Journal

                                  The safety net provides food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare to those who can't afford it.

                                  It also takes away food, clothing, shelter, and health care from those who work. This is the typical analysis where one only looks strictly at the benefit or cost of a thing in a vacuum.

                                  People getting paid minimum wage often can't afford it.

                                  And the unemployed often can't afford "it" even with said safety net.

                                  Even if you hate McD's and never set foot in one, part of your paycheck goes to supplementing their payroll by allowing them to pay less than the natural cost for clean healthy employees.

                                  Asserting something doesn't make it true. But let's supposed for the sake of argument that you were right and we're subsidizing McD's payroll. Why again is that supposed to be a bad thing?

                                  I'm surprised you seem to be fine with that.

                                  I'm not surprised that you can't understand my viewpoint. Seems to be a consequence of the ideology.

                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @10:20PM (10 children)

                                    by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @10:20PM (#484912) Journal

                                    So a million dollars in welfare for corporations but not a penny for humane beings?

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @10:50PM (9 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @10:50PM (#484925) Journal

                                      So a million dollars in welfare for corporations but not a penny for humane beings?

                                      If you think throwing money at corporations is a good idea, then you are free to hold that opinion. But I don't.

                                      This is yet another reason I don't believe in the strong social safety net. It routinely degenerates into a handout to big businesses. It's not the Walmarts of the world that concern me either. It's the banks providing exclusive contracts for debit card-based welfare because welfare of our poorest citizens is important. It's the Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs who get exclusive government protection because housing is important. It's the defense contractors who get all sorts of sweet deals because defense is important. It's the many, many corporations over the generations who benefited from US Social Security because every cent of excess was dumped into the general funds and subsequently spent.

                                      And it's 80 years of US voters who went along with this even though it quickly became clear that the social safety net wasn't sustainable. They got bribed to look the other way while the government squandered a fair portion of the US's future.

                                      But you're presenting this corporate giveaway as if it were money being sent to "humane" people? We don't have to take you seriously, right?

                                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @11:05PM (8 children)

                                        by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @11:05PM (#484931) Journal

                                        Ah, so you've flip flopped on the welfare for McD's now. It sounds like you are now concerned about corporates plundering the social safety net programs. One way to stop that is to make them pay no less than they would have to in the absence of that safety net. That would be a minimum wage.

                                        It also sounds like you would support no more plundering of social security.

                                        Of course it also sounded a bit like you want us all sitting naked in a cave with no fire because that's the only way to make sure nobody mis-appropriates anything.

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @11:23PM (7 children)

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @11:23PM (#484936) Journal

                                          Ah, so you've flip flopped on the welfare for McD's now. It sounds like you are now concerned about corporates plundering the social safety net programs.

                                          You haven't even shown McD's pays less due to social safety nets. You just assert it does.

                                          And of course, we're missing the elephant in the room. Employing poor people is a thing we want McD's to do. And the point of subsidies is to encourage the relevant parties to do the things we want them to do. It is absurd to claim that McD's is anything like the case you claimed of "million dollars in welfare for corporations but not a penny for humane beings".

                                          It also sounds like you would support no more plundering of social security.

                                          There's no way legally to do it. Social Security revenue is just like any other revenue by the Constitution, subject to the whims of the current Congress just like any other revenue that they get their dirty paws on.

                                          My view is that it would be best here to just end the program outright. The proportionate loss of wealth would be adequate reward to the elderly for helping to create the state of affairs.

                                          Of course it also sounded a bit like you want us all sitting naked in a cave with no fire because that's the only way to make sure nobody mis-appropriates anything.

                                          You're the one in a tizzy because McD's "misappropriates" social safety net subsidies, supposedly.

                                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:10AM (6 children)

                                            by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:10AM (#484978) Journal

                                            You haven't even shown McD's pays less due to social safety nets. You just assert it does.

                                            Well, let's see. They get SNAP because they can't afford adequate food. Long term, inadequate food makes you sick or dead. Sick and/or dead people really kill the appetite. If not for SNAP, McDs would have to pay enough for their employees to eat enough to not get sick and/or dead or go out of business.

                                            Insert the name of any minimum wage employer above.

                                            I'm fairly sure we covered this just prior to your last self-initiated mind wipe.

                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @12:52PM (5 children)

                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @12:52PM (#485104) Journal

                                              I'm fairly sure we covered this just prior to your last self-initiated mind wipe.

                                              With the same results. You make a bunch of unfounded, irrational assertions and I (along with other posters) correct them.

                                              To summarize my viewpoint here, once again you ignore the importance of employers. We need them. We don't need more unemployed. You talk on and on about the needs of the employees - how they need this food and that health care, blah blah blah. Nobody aside from government and a few non profits hires people merely because people have needs. Every other employer hires people because they're worth more than they cost. The more costs you add to that, the less people they hire. Supply and demand. And since we need employers not unemployed, we should be paying attention to the things that cause businesses to employ less people and the things that prevent new employers from being created and existing employers from hiring more people.

                                              What is particularly mendacious about your argument here is that you repeatedly, like a moth to a flame, assert that employers who in particular employ poor people are being "subsidized" by the "social safety net" and hence, should be paying more (either more taxes or more wages, whatever). This ignores a variety of things: employers already pay wages and taxes - the latter which in turn go to things like the social safety net; social safety nets are often not a boon to employers (like taking potential employees off the market or redirecting public funds to uses that are far less valuable to the employer); that employing poor people is a social good you supposedly want (and it's not a stretch to subsidize social goods that you want, right?); supply and demand - raise cost of employing people and less employing happens; and social safety nets often don't work as advertised even for the people they're supposed to help (particularly in the US which apparently has a large "conservative" population to blame for the mess).

                                              I wish whatever author popularized this complaint in the first place could have found a real problem to worry about. It creates such massive suffering for poor people to have all these helpful people throw them out of a job just because they want to stick it to the low wage employers.

                                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:19PM (4 children)

                                                by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:19PM (#485123) Journal

                                                Apparently you really believe poor people can live on polluted air alone if they just try. You also apparently believe employers currently hire more people than the minimum they actually need.

                                                That is the only way your post could be credited with even a shred of intellectual honesty. If you do not believe both of those things, that shred of credit will need to be revoked.

                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:50PM (3 children)

                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:50PM (#485139) Journal

                                                  Apparently you really believe poor people can live on polluted air alone if they just try.

                                                  Pollution control is not a social safety net thing. And if your social safety net is too big for your government's budget, then things like pollution regulation tend to slide. The more sensible welfare states have that figured out. You need to fund essential functions of government first, then nonessential entitlements not the other way around.

                                                  You also apparently believe employers currently hire more people than the minimum they actually need.

                                                  Employers don't need to be employers. We have plenty of cases every day where businesses have expanded and contracted changing their employee needs of the moment more and less. And it really should go without saying that if an employer has to spend more per employee and has less money to spend, then they're going to employ less people in the long run no matter how many people they need for their operation.

                                                  That is the only way your post could be credited with even a shred of intellectual honesty. If you do not believe both of those things, that shred of credit will need to be revoked.

                                                  We don't need to speculate when you could just wake up those gray cells and actually read what I post rather than go on these meaningless meanders.

                                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @02:00PM (2 children)

                                                    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @02:00PM (#485147) Journal

                                                    Why am I not surprised you accuse me of your own sins. Such as your last post for example. Ronald Reagan was really good at changing the subject in press conferences by answering the question he wanted to answer rather than the one asked. You just aren't that good at it and you don't seem to realize it doesn't work that well in text form anyway.

                                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:12PM (1 child)

                                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:12PM (#485190) Journal

                                                      Ronald Reagan was really good at changing the subject in press conferences by answering the question he wanted to answer rather than the one asked.

                                                      Let me guess. He steered it to psychological projection?

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:16PM (7 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:16PM (#485120) Journal

                              OK, since you're studiously dodging the issue

                              I'll note here the goalposts got moved. Yet more confirmation that I shouldn't have bothered.

                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:22PM (6 children)

                                by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:22PM (#485128) Journal

                                No need to note it, just put them back where you found them and all will be fine.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @02:56PM (5 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @02:56PM (#485173) Journal
                                  It's SOP to take care when answering loaded questions. You have to first address the erroneous assumptions built into the question and then answer what is left over. "Studiously dodging" answering a loaded question is merely answering it as correctly as I can under the circumstances.

                                  Or are you going to now wax poetic about the special flavor burgers take on when the grill operator coughs TB or Hep C all over them?

                                  Since I reviewed this follow-on comment, I have additional comments to make. It's worth noting that a good portion of health care is spent on people who will never work another day in their lives. That's a huge money sink from the point of view of employers.

                                  All this supposed dealing with sick people in McD's is a small part of the actual spending on such things. In the developed world, a lot more is spent on people in the last six months of their lives than in immunizations against TB or Hepatitis C.

                                  This is related to another complaint I had elsewhere [soylentnews.org] in this discussion about people who want more government taxing and spending, but can't be bothered to care where the current spending goes. Here, we see the usual symptoms: only discussing some small fraction of the spending, only discussing the alleged benefits of social safety nets and not the costs, and coming up with the usual stilted and fallacy-ridden arguments for why we should screw employers yet again.

                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:31PM (4 children)

                                    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:31PM (#485205) Journal

                                    I believe the word you're looking for is damning, not loaded. As in you must either give an answer that makes you look like an idiot or answer truthfully and damn your argument for it's ilogic.

                                    As for the rest of your quacking on, you seem to have forgotten that the original proposition was that in the ABSENCE of a social safety net, McDs and other minimum wage employers would have to pay more to their employees anyway. (See what I mean about you needing to put the goalposts back?)

                                    What's your suggestion for those who probably won't work again (since you brought it up), bullet to the head and bill their family for the bullet? Throw them to the wolves? Sit them on the curb and let sanitation carry them off once they expire? Shut your eyes tight and chant "I see no sick people!"?

                                    I'm guessing the latter. You've established a pattern of ignoring reality.

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:27PM (3 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:27PM (#485268) Journal

                                      I believe the word you're looking for is damning, not loaded. As in you must either give an answer that makes you look like an idiot or answer truthfully and damn your argument for it's ilogic.

                                      No, loaded question was accurate. I take it from the surge in trash talk, that you've exhausted your arguments. So let's make this quick.

                                      As for the rest of your quacking on, you seem to have forgotten that the original proposition was that in the ABSENCE of a social safety net, McDs and other minimum wage employers would have to pay more to their employees anyway. (See what I mean about you needing to put the goalposts back?)

                                      Ok, even if we pretend that were true, you still have a ton of social safety net that doesn't do immunizations. That has cost. You still haven't established that McD's and other minimum wage employers are experiencing a net subsidy.

                                      What's your suggestion for those who probably won't work again (since you brought it up), bullet to the head and bill their family for the bullet? Throw them to the wolves? Sit them on the curb and let sanitation carry them off once they expire? Shut your eyes tight and chant "I see no sick people!"?

                                      So destroying our society in order that grandma live another three months is better? No matter the health care system, at some point it transitions to "Sucks to be you" with economics and the inevitability of your death being the dominant factors as to when that happens. Intent is quite irrelevant to outcome. It won't be any consolation that you didn't intend poor people dying on the curb when you advocate health care at any cost, destroying the very social safety net you tried to construct. Or prioritize living wages over employing poor people, harming the very people you tried to help.

                                      The grown ups have to consider consequences. Children hoard all the pixie dust.

                                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:47PM (2 children)

                                        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:47PM (#485293) Journal

                                        Sorry, the correct term is damning.

                                        Since immunization wasn't a topic anywhere in this whole story, I have no idea what you're on about there.

                                        Finally, so which of those methods do you advocate to do away with sick poor people? Or are you thinking Soylent Green?

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @05:46PM (#485337) Journal

                                          Sorry, the correct term is damning.

                                          Whatever. Let's step through the thread again. You wrote [soylentnews.org]:

                                          So you believe that restaurants will start hiring highly skilled well paid people and that servers will be in strong demand?

                                          Notice the assumptions such as start hiring. It's quite clear that you phrased the question in a way that your question assumes no restaurants already hire highly skilled, well paid people and servers aren't currently in strong demand. This of course is what a loaded question is. From Wikipedia:

                                          A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

                                          Notice in my reply [soylentnews.org], I start by correcting the erroneous assumptions of your loaded question:

                                          I believe that they already do. But sure, with pro-business policies in place, I think restaurants will hire even more highly skilled and well paid people than they already do. And yes, in such a world, servers would in even stronger demand than they currently are.

                                          Then I attempt to educate you. Sadly, it didn't take.

                                          This is an example of a loaded question which presents a false assertion as part of the question - here the idea that restaurants don't already hire highly skilled and well-paid people. The thing that is ignored is that restaurants are not a single thing. They're not all doing the same thing. Sure, McDonald's isn't paying top dollar for the best and brightest. But they're not the only restaurant out there. High end restaurants do this sort of thing.

                                          Moving on

                                          Since immunization wasn't a topic anywhere in this whole story, I have no idea what you're on about there.

                                          Alright. Let us note the following passage about TB/Hep C. You wrote [soylentnews.org]:

                                          Or are you going to now wax poetic about the special flavor burgers take on when the grill operator coughs TB or Hep C all over them?

                                          TB can be vaccinated against with Hep C vaccine being a new thing under development. So that is how immunizations found their way into the thread. You're welcome.

                                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:09PM

                                            by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @06:09PM (#485361) Journal

                                            Sorry no. You need to step back a little further where it is established that we are talking about people paid little enough that they qualify for various safety net programs like SNAP. You then pulled high end places that clearly pay more than that out of your ass and pretended the same would apply to some place like McD's.

                                            Then after moving the goal posts you accused me of moving the goal posts.

                                            That is your typical style. Introduce irrelevancies until you can't even remember what the conversations was about. If I say rattlesnake bites are bad for people you'll say it's a non issue because prairie dogs are immune.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:45PM (#483881)

            Finally you admit to being a shitposter! Now stop being a shitperson...

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:56AM (8 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:56AM (#483968) Journal

          Funny how for them "life isn't fair" but if you might have to pay higher taxes to help them it's "HEY! That's not fair!"

          The latter votes. And funny how you spin it as "pay higher taxes" when the obviously superior route is to spend existing taxes on things you actually want. But maybe we need a bigger military-industrial complex and more money for banks?

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:40AM (7 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:40AM (#484009) Journal

            Actually, I have advocated for reduced military spending and no more handouts for Wall street. Nevertheless, the point stands since the same people who say the former are still the first to say the latter.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 25 2017, @11:23AM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 25 2017, @11:23AM (#484076) Journal

              Actually, I have advocated for reduced military spending and no more handouts for Wall street. Nevertheless, the point stands since the same people who say the former are still the first to say the latter.

              Same here.

              But what's the point about complaining that people don't want higher taxes when there is so much grotesque spending out there? After all, the terrible spending is the reason lowering taxes has political legs in the first place. There will always be a group wanting to cut taxes no matter what. But they're getting huge support from the people who are concerned about spending priorities and government corruption/incompetence.

              As I see it, the problem here is that the US already collects an adequate amount of taxes. And if we look at the actual spending rather than merely assuming more revenue means better services, we see that huge amounts are spent on benefits - retirement and health care, then military and interest payments on bonds, and then a rather small amount, at most a third of the budget is spent on everything else (with most spent just as ineffectively as the big items). That is, one merely needs to look at the actual budget to see that our priorities are mostly where one wants them to be. Sure, military spending is rather high, but the US checks off the boxes that the people calling for more spending want: health care, public pensions, education, unemployment protection, welfare, etc. Much of this spending has merely made the problems they were intended to fix worse rather than better (higher education in particular being a shining example of making the problem worse) or created new problems (Social Security contributing to inter-generational conflict).

              What does it take to realize that the US is suffering right now because of this spending rather than despite it?

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 25 2017, @01:33PM (5 children)

                by sjames (2882) on Saturday March 25 2017, @01:33PM (#484089) Journal

                Because as soon as the topic of the social safety net comes up, those same people will complain bitterly that it's unfair they have to pay even if their taxes are only a thousandth of a percent. Somehow they don't complain if taxes for the DOD amount to 10%. Their guiding principle seems to be a million dollars to kill someone but not a penny to help.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2017, @09:56AM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 26 2017, @09:56AM (#484312) Journal
                  Again, so what? I didn't say those people would vanish. Instead, I pointed out that they have plenty of allies in a world where crappy quality of service is roundly ignored by the people wanting to raise taxes.

                  Somehow they don't complain if taxes for the DOD amount to 10%. Their guiding principle seems to be a million dollars to kill someone but not a penny to help.

                  And I don't hear you calling their bluff either. Personally, I think the only way the US will get a fiscally stable system is via universal cuts in spending - your social safety net as well as their defense spending. We can keep raising taxes all the time, but the current system will continue to spend more than is earned.

                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 26 2017, @01:02PM (3 children)

                    by sjames (2882) on Sunday March 26 2017, @01:02PM (#484349) Journal

                    The big problem here is that you're trying to stuff your agenda into an unrelated conversation. That and history tells us the system can be quite stable even with much higher taxes on the wealthy.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @09:29AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @09:29AM (#484560) Journal
                      Fiscal responsibility and similar themes shouldn't be unrelated. It is an indication of abysmal priorities that we have all this empty talk about the value of social safety nets without consideration either of how to fund them, or what the political price tag is. Nothing is pure cost or pure benefit.
                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 27 2017, @01:17PM (1 child)

                        by sjames (2882) on Monday March 27 2017, @01:17PM (#484592) Journal

                        So do you sing about that instead of "Happy Birthday" at parties too?

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @05:48PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 27 2017, @05:48PM (#484737) Journal
                          I'll note that I'm on topic, unlike your infantile pop psychology about jmorris being a psychopath (even though that isn't a real thing any more). If the developed world wants a better future, then it needs to sow the seeds for that better future. Business creation and growth is an instrumental part of that. So is fiscal responsibility in governments. A social safety net that neither doesn't what it advertises or actually addresses the problems that we face, is not such a solution.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @03:45PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @03:45PM (#483698)

    And this is why no one in their right mind would work for you. Only naive and desperate people... How long have you retained the same employee before? Your self serving "logic" is extremely naive.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 24 2017, @04:03PM (14 children)

      I'm in fact an extremely easy person to work for if you are of any value at all to society. If you are valuable to me, you're paid and treated like it. If I can replace you with an untrained teenager for the same day for the same pay, you're also paid and treated like it.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @04:39PM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @04:39PM (#483736)

        No, you're a delusional crazy person that has no clue what's going on.

        You can't just work harder to get a better job. In the past that largely worked because the wealth was more evenly distributed, but with 10% of the population having more than the total had by the lowest 90%, you're not reasonably work through that consistently.

        We have a system which resembles the one in the former USSR where the link between effective work and compensation has broken to the point where only great fools and the rich would claim otherwise. There's just not the money left over after the kleptocrats get their cut to pay for performance

        Some people manage to succeed, but there's a huge degree of luck involved and the hardest workers are invariably working for minimum wage.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday March 24 2017, @05:17PM (10 children)

          by jmorris (4844) on Friday March 24 2017, @05:17PM (#483751)

          No, you are trying to rationalize why you are a failure. Only 2.9% of American jobs pay minimum wage, including those that include tip income. If you goal is to merely be a worker bee then yes, you depend on the wealth of others and your labor is a mere commodity increasingly being forced to compete in a globalized market that is driving the price down as the supply rises.

          The winning move is to -create- wealth, the opportunity to do that is nearly limitless. When you create new wealth it starts with you and you distribute it into the economy in ways you hope will increase it even more. The cycle repeats, everybody wins. An example to illustrate the concept. Everyone uses IP[1] as an example so instead open a restaurant and work your ass off to make it popular. That popularity is called 'goodwill' and it gets listed on the balance sheet, you can go to the bank and borrow against it. It is a real thing, it is wealth that didn't exist until your Will moved upon the Economy and made it so.

          [1] Yes, I will do penance to St. IGNUcius later.

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday March 24 2017, @06:40PM (9 children)

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Friday March 24 2017, @06:40PM (#483788)

            More self-serving delusion. It is like you pay zero attention to the real world. There is no infinite well of wealth for people to pull money from. To use your restaurant example: sure you can make a successful restaurant, but in any given area only so many restaurants will be supported and many go under through no fault of their own. They make good food, they have a reasonable location, they put out advertising, but in the end they just don't quite get enough customers. The same goes for every other business, there is no way I can break into the telecom industry no matter how hard I work. Unless I get lucky and some billionaire wants to give me a massive loan then there is no way it'll happen. And please don't whine about government regulation being the problem, the initial capital is still a barrier to anyone who isn't independently wealthy.

            The only way to make your version of reality true is to abolish large corporations and change the tax rates so that after some decently large amount of money the rest of your increases in earnings only net you 5-10% and the rest go to taxes. But taxes are theft right? I presume you have a problem with the top couple % of rich people paying exorbitant amounts of tax... This solution would give small businesses the market share to compete and thrive, and it would prevent wealth hoarding which inevitably results in "money making money" which would put us right back to where we are now.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:19AM (8 children)

              by jmorris (4844) on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:19AM (#484001)

              Yes, most entrepreneurs fail multiple times. Then when they succeed spiteful weasels covet their profits and call them awful names instead of being inspired to emulate them. This is unfair but they are driving a Ferrari and have a trophy wife in the passenger seat so it is all good. This doesn't change the fact that wealth is in fact created all the time. Go look at the NASDAQ; how many of those businesses were invented from nothing but an idea. Tech companies tend to be built by a few fresh faced guys right outta school who convince a VC they have the next Big Idea. All of that wealth, all of those productive employees beavering away making things that didn't even exist as a dream fifty years ago... hell ten years ago in a lot of cases. In America you can get rich curing diseases, how f*cking cool is that? Feel good about curing a horrible disease AND stack cash. All that wealth pulled right out of thin air. Don't you wish you were capable of that? Guess what, the odds are against you pulling a billion dollar company outta yer butt. Yup, that is true. America only promises you the Right to pursue happiness; you have to catch it on your own. Maybe your idea only make a business big enough for just you, isn't that still Winning?

              • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday March 25 2017, @06:50PM (7 children)

                by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday March 25 2017, @06:50PM (#484158)

                Blech, your posts are like literary garbage, they just make me feel nauseous. You don't care about the problems, you only care about using narrow anecdotes that don't cover the breadth of a problem to somehow "prove" your point. I wonder why no one has ever just tried to stop being poor??? /s

                --
                ~Tilting at windmills~
                • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 25 2017, @10:26PM (6 children)

                  by jmorris (4844) on Saturday March 25 2017, @10:26PM (#484209)

                  You miss the direction of the arrow of causality. Poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Being a poor person is why they don't have money. Because they won't save, won't plan for the future, generally have poor impulse control, are prone to addictive habits and other self destructive behavior, etc. All these things lead to a lifestyle where accumulation of wealth isn't likely.. Even if they win the lottery most end up right back in poverty a decade later.

                  You want to solve poverty, at least realize what the actual problem is and work on that. It has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth, that is an effect, not a cause. That means it is literally impossible for any effort in that direction to have the slightest chance of success. You might, and almost certainly will, cause a lot of new problems but you can't actually achieve the stated goal. While daunting, the actual problem is a real problem in need of solving so please give it your best shot.

                  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday March 25 2017, @11:18PM (5 children)

                    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Saturday March 25 2017, @11:18PM (#484217)

                    Thank you for promoting stereotypes that make bigoted people think their prejudice is justified. History shows you to be wrong, factual data from multiple successful and (according to your types) socialist societies shows you are wrong. You promote the worst policies.

                    Now, personal responsibility is important. People should learn to look out for themselves and we shouldn't coddle them. However, that is not the point of all this. Worker's rights is the issue, not welfare for someone who refuses to work. Stop conflating the issues and working to make our society WORSE!

                    It has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth, that is an effect, not a cause

                    You are just so very wrong. All the radio talk show bullshit, all the propaganda promoting class warfare, it is ALL WRONG! But you're too thick headed and filled with prejudiced emotionally reactive bullshit to realize. You mix rational thinking with emotional belief and somehow think you're just being rational. You're blind, and as I've said before the only reason to reply to your bullshit is to make sure some random reader knows there is more to the story.

                    --
                    ~Tilting at windmills~
                    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday March 26 2017, @12:25AM (1 child)

                      by jmorris (4844) on Sunday March 26 2017, @12:25AM (#484228)

                      actual data from multiple successful and (according to your types) socialist societies

                      As usual, I attack the premise. Show us one of these "successful" socialist societies you claim to have multiple examples of. Then we can talk about what example it might offer. All I see in Europe are dead and dying countries who have lost the will to live and are inviting in their replacements.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:57AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:57AM (#485042)

                        All I see in Europe are dead and dying countries

                        This sounds strangely like Kanye West, when he said: "I see white people, and they don't even know their white!" jmorris, you are such a Nazi! I suggest you look into Mishima Yukio. He reported that traditional Chinese doctors used to be able to distinguish male from female by the pulse alone, but in modern times, men's pulse has become just like that of a woman. Oh, the huge manatee! Maybe the only solution it to do it the Mishima way: Take over a national guard headquarters, call for them to join you in your wet-dream right-wing nut-job rebolution, and when they laugh you into submission (Baka!!!), go cut your guts out. It is the only way to be sure. But get a better tomodachi than Mishima did.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:34AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:34AM (#484319) Journal

                      You are just so very wrong. All the radio talk show bullshit, all the propaganda promoting class warfare, it is ALL WRONG! But you're too thick headed and filled with prejudiced emotionally reactive bullshit to realize. You mix rational thinking with emotional belief and somehow think you're just being rational. You're blind, and as I've said before the only reason to reply to your bullshit is to make sure some random reader knows there is more to the story.

                      Then present these facts. Don't merely state they exist. I suspect we'll find that your socialist countries are doing so well because they're actually capitalist countries which can afford at least for a time the socialism that they have.

                      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:17PM (1 child)

                        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:17PM (#486110)

                        Real success is a mix of both, socialize the services that are necessary for basic success in a society. We already do that in the US, except the paperwork and hoops people have to jump through is detrimental and actually leads to people being stuck in those systems. It is INSANE to me that a single mother basically has to stay on welfare since getting a job to fit around her schedule is financially a worse decision. That is a fundamental disconnect.

                        As usual you go black/white with the topic and try to twist it to your own worldview. It is a very irritating tactic, and it is obviously garbage as you know full well the countries I'm talking about. You just seize every opportunity to cast doubt on things you don't like.

                        I suspect we'll find that your socialist countries are doing so well because they're actually capitalist countries which can afford at least for a time the socialism that they have.

                        Got any facts to back up your claim? No? Hahahahahah hypocrite. Oh wait, you said "I suspect" which of course means you need no proof! Alt-facts at work, you're learning quickly Darth Stupidous. I would usually refrain from adding insults, but I'm fucking tired of dealing with your bullshit arguments just because you don't like reality contradicting you.

                        The facts are in, supporting your population's basic needs means they can safely and securely pursue careers and become contributing members of society. The myth that everyone would sit on their ass watching TV all day is just that, a myth! Most people want to be useful, do something that matters or engage in society. I'm all for catching fraudsters, and eliminating the health insurance industry would free up a large number of people skilled in catching fraud so we can nail such assholes.

                        Long story short, we are focusing a huge amount of human activity on wasteful / inefficient / counter productive activities which make a small segment of the population rich. The share of the pie needs to swing back towards the majority of the population.

                        Not that we can't have rich people, but we can't have the same scale of rich people we do now. Capitalism + Socialism is the successful recipe and what we have now. The US just does it so poorly and inefficiently because of so many angry conservatives that don't understand much beyond "they took money out of MY paycheck!!" The irony there being that so much of their money goes to military activities which they 100% support. War and death? No problem. Improving society? No thanks.

                        * In case you're wondering I did look into reporting those people for fraud, but the required proof is something I don't have.

                        --
                        ~Tilting at windmills~
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:44AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:44AM (#486272) Journal

                          Real success is a mix of both, socialize the services that are necessary for basic success in a society. We already do that in the US, except the paperwork and hoops people have to jump through is detrimental and actually leads to people being stuck in those systems. It is INSANE to me that a single mother basically has to stay on welfare since getting a job to fit around her schedule is financially a worse decision. That is a fundamental disconnect.

                          This is typical tragedy of the commons stuff. There has to be a cost or obstruction somewhere to keep people from loading up on free stuff. The federal government comes up with some public good, the "socialized service". People abuse the hell out of it. They then generate rules to prevent those abuses. People find new ways to abuse the hell out of the service. The bureaucrats come up with even more rules - lather, rinse, repeat. The insanity you see is a natural work in progress.

                          As usual you go black/white with the topic and try to twist it to your own worldview. It is a very irritating tactic, and it is obviously garbage as you know full well the countries I'm talking about. You just seize every opportunity to cast doubt on things you don't like.

                          Do I need to quote again your comment where you tell jmorris he is completely wrong? That's quite black and white.

                          And I see once again that you fail to provide evidence for your assertion. Sure, I probably have guessed right the stereotypes you would present as evidence, should you ever do so, just as I know my rebuttals once you give these examples. But I won't put work into this, when you won't.

                          Long story short, we are focusing a huge amount of human activity on wasteful / inefficient / counter productive activities which make a small segment of the population rich. The share of the pie needs to swing back towards the majority of the population.

                          And needless to say, I have ideas for fixes, should you ever become interested.

                          Not that we can't have rich people, but we can't have the same scale of rich people we do now. Capitalism + Socialism is the successful recipe and what we have now. The US just does it so poorly and inefficiently because of so many angry conservatives that don't understand much beyond "they took money out of MY paycheck!!" The irony there being that so much of their money goes to military activities which they 100% support. War and death? No problem. Improving society? No thanks.

                          Once again, without a scrap of evidence to support your assertion. Glancing at the current list [forbes.com] of richest people in the world, I see Bill Gates tops the list. What again is the adequate compensation level for creating tens of millions of man-years of high paying work, a company worth half a trillion dollars, and some of the most widely used software on the planet for the past three decades? $86 billion seems reasonable cumulative compensation for around three decades of doing that.

                          My view on this is that wealth inequality is a complete scam. I don't see even the slightest reason to care that the vast majority of humanity who neither has tried to build a business nor accumulate significant wealth is not as wealthy as someone who has created a half trillion dollar company from scratch.

                          Real world poverty, the metric that we should actually care about, has been improving world-wide since about 1950 when the world was still recovering from the Second World War and the end of the Chinese Civil War. We've since seen a huge move towards capitalism globally (and the related phenomenon of globalism, international trade and such) particularly with the end of Communism as the ideology for a bloc of over a billion people.

                          An industry has sprung up over the past century to address poverty and similar social ills. But those ills have steadily improved since. Like a fire fighter turned arsonist, when they ran out of natural problems to address, they made new problems to replace those.

                          I'll note here that Zimbabwe has, once you get outside of the corrupt center circle draining wealth from the country, done a marvelous job of reducing wealth inequality. Everyone (again aside from said center circle) happens to be much poorer as a result, but that's what you want, right?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:21PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 28 2017, @01:21PM (#485125) Journal

          You can't just work harder to get a better job. In the past that largely worked because the wealth was more evenly distributed, but with 10% of the population having more than the total had by the lowest 90%, you're not reasonably work through that consistently.

          That is a non sequitur. Wealth inequality doesn't mean anything in this context. We might be able to work harder to get a better job or we might not. You can't tell from the irrelevant information you gave. It's also worth noting here that in most societies there will always be wealth inequality. So you can always make this argument - just insert different numbers into the argument.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:24PM (#484132)

        So you're a psychopath and you expect us to be ok with it.
        Do you have a tumblr yet?