USA Work and Quality of Life Issues

[ivwshane]

It's not "free" though. Taxes (and debt) pay for it. I do not want to pay for someone elses day care. They wanted kids, well, now they've got them. They can pay for their own decision.

That's some serious shortsightedness on your part. We live in a society where the actions of others can affect everyone else, especially when we are talking about children and their impact in the future.

 

[chucky2]

You have to live in a society with them though.

Their problem, not mine; at least, it's shouldn't be mine.

Healthier parents means healthier children. Imagine if our ghettos had mothers/fathers who were there to raise their children for the first year of their lives, got time off to spend time with them, could afford to leave them in a nice day care, got the health care they needed, and could send them to college. Do you think we would still have these terrible ghettos?

Yes, we'd still have these ghettos. Having bad parent/parents that get to spend the first year with the kid they never could afford and have no idea how to raise properly, and then leaving them at daycare for someone else to raise (likely, someone else in their neighborhood who also isn't a great fit for kids, plus, now with other kids who have been raised wrong and thus now getting the negative indoctrination) only to come home and continue to be not a good parent/parents...sorry for the run on sentence, but, it will lead to the exact same outcomes as we have now.

It's probably not so simple but telling people that they shouldn't have kids unless they can afford $15,000 a year in daycare is completely unrealistic.

Actually, it's completely realistic, and could actually be incentivized, but, we're too p*ssy/weak willed/indoctrinated as a society to think a woman pushing another being out of her vag is a positive thing. In a shocking amount of cases, it isn't. I don't view it as a bad thing at all that if a woman/couple cannot afford to pay for her/their own decision to reproduce, that they shouldn't be having their hand held for them by society to pay for their now mistake: And, it is a mistake...having a kid you cannot afford on your own is a - massive - mistake. And by having it and having society pay for it, you've now made your massive mistake societs problem.

Getting OT I think, you used this as an example and not a main point.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

That's some serious shortsightedness on your part. We live in a society where the actions of others can affect everyone else, especially when we are talking about children and their impact in the future.

See above.

 

[Zorba]

So how does an American get a job in the EU? How do I apply for a visa? Also how do I find true engineering jobs, as opposed to mechanic/plumber "engineering" jobs. It seems outside the US any tradesman is an Engineer.

 

[randomrogue]

Apply for a job. They'll sponsor you I think and you'll get a work visa of some sort. There's a huge expat community in all major European cities. Depending on which country you want to work in you'll want to just find a translation for your particular field. What I would recommend against is coming here and trying to find a job on the spot. Apply from the USA.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Their problem, not mine; at least, it's shouldn't be mine.

Or maybe it should be. Maybe the welfare of your society should be at least partially your responsibility. You are get all the advantages that society offers, you know like not being eaten by bears, you should be partially responsible for it.

it will lead to the exact same outcomes as we have now.

Maybe for some, but not for most. It has been shown many times that poverty makes the person not the other way around. If you give someone a way out of poverty they will take more interest in their children's welfare, be more interested in education, and generally do better.

Actually, it's completely realistic, and could actually be incentivized[sic]

I would love to hear how you reconcile your belief that poor people can't be incentivised to be good parents, but can be incentivised to not have children.
Most of the children born at or near the poverty line are unplanned, and religiousness is highly correlated with low income.

 

[chucky2]

Or maybe it should be. Maybe the welfare of your society should be at least partially your responsibility. You are get all the advantages that society offers, you know like not being eaten by bears, you should be partially responsible for it.

I get these advantages of society by paying taxes for services provided - services I myself use and consume. Paying to take care of Shaniqua's 3rd baby is not a service I use or consume. Paying to take care of Bubba Ray and Emmie Lou's 1st baby when they themselves are already on the public dole is not a service I use or consume. They went ahead and got knocked up, they can now figure out HowTF to deal with their mistake without involving me or society. But, they won't. Which means society, instead of coddling poor decisions, should be both incentivizing these fools not to, and, punishing them when they do. I do not agree, or accept, me being in any way responsible for their mistake.

Maybe for some, but not for most.

I literally laughed out loud at this.

It has been shown many times that poverty makes the person not the other way around. If you give someone a way out of poverty they will take more interest in their children's welfare, be more interested in education, and generally do better.

Right, poverty makes the person. And by the time they're pumping out babies, they're that person. Usually too late to change them then. The time to give them a way out of poverty is to simply either a.) not have them be born in the first place, or, b.) make sure after the little mistake is born, that it learns sufficiently to get itself out of the poverty situation. Their parents are write-off by that point. Please understand: Parents on TV talking, no matter how sincere they sound, about how they'll do better for their kid, how they just need help to make it better, yada yada yada, is just that, talk. These same communities already have, and have had, the resources available to them to make correct decisions, they themselves have simply not chosen to (for a variety of reasons).

I would love to hear how you reconcile your belief that poor people can't be incentivised to be good parents, but can be incentivised to not have children.
Most of the children born at or near the poverty line are unplanned, and religiousness is highly correlated with low income.

Simple, make it financially palpatable to not have kids: Pay for them not to, both directly, and indirectly through birth control. I'd rather pay for Jeanie Sue to not have kids and potentially get herself out of her trailerpark (which, likely, will never happen, but still...), than pay for Jeanie Sue to remain in the trailerpark, and pop out another kid that we'll, disgustingly, gladly pay her to do. We've been doing it the wrong way for decades now...can't we try something different to just prevent the problem? I know it'll cost one side votes from their base, but...think of the children!

Chuck

 

[randomrogue]

Public transportation:

Amsterdam: 88 Euro/Mo ($113)
Berlin: 74 Euro/Mo ($95)
Paris: 99 Euro/Mo ($127)
London: 116 Quid/Mo ($175)
Stockholm: 690 Crowns/Mo ($106)
Moscow: 1710 Rubles/Mo ($54)
Vienna: 45 Euro/Mo ($58)

Another thing worth thinking about when you look at your monthly expenditures, the amount of time you sit in traffic, and needing a designated driver. Many don't even pay this since they bike everywhere.

 

[chucky2]

If you live in a city, like Chicago, absolutely public transpo (sans the health hit) is the way to go. For anyone in the burbs, you already need a vehicle. Sometimes (even always for many people) taking the train can be done (still have the health hit though), but you seriously lose transpo freedom doing so. Best bet is to just stop working in the shitty...

Chuck

 

[randomrogue]

If you live in a city, like Chicago, absolutely public transpo (sans the health hit) is the way to go. For anyone in the burbs, you already need a vehicle. Sometimes (even always for many people) taking the train can be done (still have the health hit though), but you seriously lose transpo freedom doing so. Best bet is to just stop working in the shitty...

Chuck

Chicago, while decent, is nothing compared to the mass transit of a city like London or Paris. It's just not comparable. Just about every European city has mass transit that is extremely efficient. If I compare to places I've lived (including Chicago) then it's not in the same league. Places like San Diego are so terrible that despite there being millions of people there, it being a major tourist destintion, and a beach city, the trolley does not take you to the beach.

I realize our cities are built differently but the point is that there is a nice standard of living bonus living in Europe since the mass transit is efficient, cheap, and you can get everywhere easily. They are even integrated rather seamlessly into other systems like trains, boats, and planes.

 

[chucky2]

All at a cost though, and a loss of go anywhere at anytime freedom. And of course, when I'm in my private vehicle, the temperature is what I want, the music or quiet is what I want, and I don't have people spraying their germs on me right and left.

I realize there are pluses and minuses to everything, just saying, while public transpo like EU has is convenient and for their setup the most efficient, it's not for everyone and does have its drawbacks.

Chuck

 

[ivwshane]

All at a cost though, and a loss of go anywhere at anytime freedom. And of course, when I'm in my private vehicle, the temperature is what I want, the music or quiet is what I want, and I don't have people spraying their germs on me right and left.

I realize there are pluses and minuses to everything, just saying, while public transpo like EU has is convenient and for their setup the most efficient, it's not for everyone and does have its drawbacks.

Chuck

What? It's not an "either" "or" situation, they have mass transit available or they can use cars.

 

[chucky2]

So they double (or more) their social cost. Not worth it for anyone but the cities or poor people.

 

[ivwshane]

So they double (or more) their social cost. Not worth it for anyone but the cities or poor people.

So not worth it for the majority of people? I guess it's a good thing you don't decide such things.

 

[Mxylplyx]

So they double (or more) their social cost. Not worth it for anyone but the cities or poor people.

It would appear to me that any policy used to promote the concept of community is of no value to you. You stated before that people having kids they cant afford is not your problem. On the contrary, those kids absolutely do become your problem, because they often become burdens on the welfare state or the judicial system. Many conservatives I've noticed seem more interested in making sure people suffer for their mistakes than promoting policies that keep them from making those mistakes in the first place.

 

[Craig234]

It would appear to me that any policy used to promote the concept of community is of no value to you. You stated before that people having kids they cant afford is not your problem. On the contrary, those kids absolutely do become your problem, because they often become burdens on the welfare state or the judicial system. Many conservatives I've noticed seem more interested in making sure people suffer for their mistakes than promoting policies that keep them from making those mistakes in the first place.

suffer for their mistakes... unless they're wealthy people. Not many bankers in jail.

 

[randomrogue]

Does everyone understand the concept of a standard of living and quality of life?

Society A: More sick, uneducated, poor, and unhappy people.
Society B: Less money and higher taxes but better access to education, healthcare, maternity leave, vacation, pension, mass transit, etc.

The USA is heading in a direction that is disturbing. 12% don't even graduate from high school, literacy rates are approaching 60% and there is about 23% of the population that is functionally illiterate. Wealth is being centralized with about 20% of Americans owning 85% of all wealth and it's getting worse. Americans have no legal right to time off and are expected to focus their lives around work rather than family and other non-materialistic values. You can clearly see that there are people in this thread who feel that they are better than others and that some don't even deserve the right to have children. The twilight of American's lives will be spent in relative poverty since 58% of Americans don't even have a retirement plan.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want but this is the first generation where children are doing worse than their parents and it's only getting worse and worse. The size of the American middle class has shrunk and the income of the middle class has really shrunk.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but having lived in both societies I'm of the opinion that B is better. I think history is finding this to be true as well as the income disparity and standard of living in the USA sinks further.

 

[Craig234]

Unfortunately, in the global economy, countries are either pulling others up or down.

China is pulling the US down, because of increased labor competition with 'cheap labor'.

Europe pulls the rest of the workd up with more compensation for workers.

The US is pulling Europe down because of the things in this thread.

Unfortunately, the question 'which is better' isn't the only question - Europe might be better for workers, but that may not matter much about what happens.

 

[chucky2]

So not worth it for the majority of people? I guess it's a good thing you don't decide such things.

Majority of people in which locations? If it's the city, absolutely. I think it's not only a great idea but a necessary idea...which makes the idea great only because its so commonsensical. Worth it for poor people? Well, as long as where they need to go is served by the city public transpo, absolutely. Rather than paying for a vehicle, gas, insurance (although, many poor people I know just decide not to have car insurance), maintenance, etc., they simply take public transpo. So of course its a good deal for them.

People not in the city and not poor? People not in the city already need to have a vehicle and all the costs that go along with it, but may or may not benefit from the societal cost of the public transpo...yet, (likely) perhaps pay for it in taxes (since making ridership tickets cover the true costs leads to reduced ridership).

So is it a good idea I don't decide such things? If I did, I'd decide immediately that the city needed public transpo. It just makes sense for a city. Poor people would need to figure out WTF to do, they're poor. But, obviously, if you're laying out a city you'd put in/reserve routes into the city that your trains/subways can use to get people into said city. It would stand to reason that if the poor are not already in the city, sucking off the city tit, then they'd be along those routes.

Would I have trains connecting Rockford, IL and Joliet, IL? Uh, No. Would I have a train connecting Bradley, IL to Manteno, IL? Uh, No. And I wouldn't be signing people up to pay for that bad decision, no matter how much public transpo and/or the poor whined how awesome it'd be.

It would appear to me that any policy used to promote the concept of community is of no value to you. You stated before that people having kids they cant afford is not your problem. On the contrary, those kids absolutely do become your problem, because they often become burdens on the welfare state or the judicial system. Many conservatives I've noticed seem more interested in making sure people suffer for their mistakes than promoting policies that keep them from making those mistakes in the first place.

It would appear to you to be wrong then. In that other thread I also said that the solution to people knowingly having kids they can't afford is to incentivize it, along with requistite loss in incentive which would be a punishment, so these same people maybe think a little harder about their careless and selfish actions. When the ghetto/trailerpark chick decides to spread her legs for the already on welfare loser, perhaps the knowledge she's going to lose the $4k per year societal bonus she's getting for not getting knocked up will cross her mind. Perhaps the free birth control they both can readily get will be used to prevent that little mistake they were about to make.

Failing that, they should suffer for their F up. Bad decisions shouldn't be rewarded, they should be punished. That's what makes the pain of bad decisions felt so hopefully they and/or others will not go down the same road. And as I said in the other thread: We've been doing the reward bad decisions thing for decades now with completely predictable results...can't we maybe try it my way and see how that goes?

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

Maybe the words 'careless and selfish actions' apply more to the people who suck so much wealth from others that they can't afford kids, not to the parents.

Maybe it's not ok to choose policies that leave people in society unable to afford kids, so that a few can have all the wealth.

 

[chucky2]

Does everyone understand the concept of a standard of living and quality of life?

snip You can clearly see that there are people in this thread who feel that they are better than others and that some don't even deserve the right to have children. snip

I certainly hope that comment wasn't directed at me.

 

[werepossum]

It would appear to me that any policy used to promote the concept of community is of no value to you. You stated before that people having kids they cant afford is not your problem. On the contrary, those kids absolutely do become your problem, because they often become burdens on the welfare state or the judicial system. Many conservatives I've noticed seem more interested in making sure people suffer for their mistakes than promoting policies that keep them from making those mistakes in the first place.

We do have that tendency. Chucky has a point though, although yours is also valid.

Does everyone understand the concept of a standard of living and quality of life?

Society A: More sick, uneducated, poor, and unhappy people.
Society B: Less money and higher taxes but better access to education, healthcare, maternity leave, vacation, pension, mass transit, etc.

The USA is heading in a direction that is disturbing. 12% don't even graduate from high school, literacy rates are approaching 60% and there is about 23% of the population that is functionally illiterate. Wealth is being centralized with about 20% of Americans owning 85% of all wealth and it's getting worse. Americans have no legal right to time off and are expected to focus their lives around work rather than family and other non-materialistic values. You can clearly see that there are people in this thread who feel that they are better than others and that some don't even deserve the right to have children. The twilight of American's lives will be spent in relative poverty since 58% of Americans don't even have a retirement plan.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want but this is the first generation where children are doing worse than their parents and it's only getting worse and worse. The size of the American middle class has shrunk and the income of the middle class has really shrunk.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but having lived in both societies I'm of the opinion that B is better. I think history is finding this to be true as well as the income disparity and standard of living in the USA sinks further.

Part of that is due to this being the first generation where graduating high school does not by itself confer much of an advantage. Unskilled and even skilled labor without formal education requirements has been grossly devalued not because of the profit motive, but because of illegal immigration and outsourcing. At the same time, government benefits have steadily risen. And for minorities, we have an entire industry devoted to convincing them they cannot succeed without government, so why even bother trying? Simple eternal churning of wealth via confiscation and redistribution may make you feel better, but it will only accelerate this direction, and it also reduces the number of people who are productive. The lower the reward, the less motive to risk capital, at least within America. The fewer effects of not bothering with education, the more people who don't bother with education. Ditto for work. This is not an effect for which government is wholly blameless.

As far as saving for retirement, when the federal income tax began it affected 2% of the population. Now it's at roughly 50%. Government takes about 15% of your total compensation just in the name of retirement, and takes 15% or more of most middle class workers' remaining compensation. Not exactly surprising when government takes a third of one's income and then complains that we aren't saving enough.

 

[chucky2]

Maybe the words 'careless and selfish actions' apply more to the people who suck so much wealth from others that they can't afford kids, not to the parents.

Maybe it's not ok to choose policies that leave people in society unable to afford kids, so that a few can have all the wealth.

Maybe the words 'careless and selfish actions' apply more to the people who already cannot afford themselves, but then willingly choose to bring an expensive toy into the world at societies expense and say Haha deal with it while I make another 2 - 4.

Maybe it's not ok to break down longstanding policies that cut out traditional societal values that have kept people in line and honest for decades/centuries, that build a sense of right and wrong, a sense of personal responsibility, and a self worth. Maybe people with these values ingrained into them pay attention in school, make good and correct life choices, and therefore aren't a reoccurring every generation problem.

That maybe couldn't be it, could it?

 

[Craig234]

Maybe the words 'careless and selfish actions' apply more to the people who already cannot afford themselves, but then willingly choose to bring an expensive toy into the world at societies expense and say Haha deal with it while I make another 2 - 4.

Maybe it's not ok to break down longstanding policies that cut out traditional societal values that have kept people in line and honest for decades/centuries, that build a sense of right and wrong, a sense of personal responsibility, and a self worth. Maybe people with these values ingrained into them pay attention in school, make good and correct life choices, and therefore aren't a reoccurring every generation problem.

That maybe couldn't be it, could it?

No, you have it backwards.

The selfishness is the class who makes others so poor they can't afford kids.

The 'honesty' of the common people isn't the problem; the honesty of the extractors is.

The billionares can afford kids, but much of what they do is the most harmful things done to the American people, stripping people of more and more of their wealth.

Those aren't 'good and correct life choices.

Your logic is like saying that a successful thief is the one making good choices because they're well off, and the lives they destroy are the selfish people.

 

[Craig234]

I certainly hope that comment wasn't directed at me.

I hope it was, it fits. You could care less about the poor having kids, all you say is 'don't'.

The US has had all kinds of policies that fight and reduce poverty. You don't care about that - your entire view of the issue is 'stop being so selfish, poor people'.

That's largely how we created a strong and prosperous middle class out of poverty.

There would be no anti-poverty efforts if it were up to you, I'm pretty convinced.