USA Work and Quality of Life Issues

[randomrogue]

Of course that comment was directed at Chuck. We have very few reasons to be on this planet. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? Biologically our purpose is pretty clear as well. For some to think that there are people around who don't deserve to have families because they are poor is absurd.

 

[randomrogue]

Interestingly, are there even trailer parks in Europe? I don't think I've ever seen one.

 

[Murloc]

Interestingly, are there even trailer parks in Europe? I don't think I've ever seen one.

no there are none AFAIK, except for tourists who keep their roulotte in the camping site and go down there every summer (maybe they move them around on the winter to maintain the grass). No one lives in one permanently though.
Gypsies with roulottes move around multiple times a year and squat on private properties illegally or in free camping sites so that's not a trailer park either.
The ones that live permanently in a place usually live in indian style favelas, no real walls and streets like in brazil, just a bunch of trash in abandoned sites fashioned into houses.

The thing that comes closest to a permanent real housing is the wooden shacks they build in Lithuania:

pure illegal squatting, no registration, no taxes paid, no nothing, it's apparently the drug citadel in Vilnius. They apparently burned down the local police station too.

still not trailers though, and this is the worst permanent housing there is in Europe.
Legal poor people usually live in social housing/commieblocks.

EDIT: I found a pic of the trash-style building they adopt in Italy. This is worse than the shacks.

EDIT2: I found what comes closest to a trailer park: a mixed trash-roulottes encampment

or legal shacks put there for them:

these look like trailers without wheels.

 

[Craig234]

Funny story, since you ask about trailer parks.

In Monaco, at the glamorous casino - a place where I've seen an aristocrat-looking woman in enormous fancy dress with an entourage take over a whole room for presumably very high stakes gambling, where they say millions are regularly lost as fortunes get spent from the nobility of Europe, where the most expensive cars in the world are parked in mass out front near the harbor with the most luxurious yachts in the world:

Off to the side of the casino, there is a totally unglamorous little room in a basement, with nothing but a neon sign naming it the 'Las Vegas Room', filled with American tourists dressed poorly and enjoying themselves enormously on loud slot machines. The Monaco staff appears to have made that room as 'the place to divert and hold' low-end American tourists, where everyone is happier with the situation - no loud people in Hawaaiian shirts and t-shirts trashing the Casino, and the tourists getting 'fun'.

I didn't have the clothes (suit and tie at least) to get into the nicer parts of the Casino, but I remember in a room that was kind of lonely, there was a slot machine for $100 plays, someone else wandered in the room, played the machine 15 times not winning anything, and wandered off.

 

[randomrogue]

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.

A high school dropout can get remedial labor jobs but is competing with immigrants. Given the choice between hiring a high school dropout and a Mexican I always hired the Mexican. They had better work ethic and were just trying to get ahead just like all of our families did when they first came to America.

Here's what I saw. First guy I hired was an older Mexican immigrant who I gathered got legalized during the Reagan administration. I then hired his cousin, neighbor, nephew, etc and they were all younger, legal, and had just graduated from high school. While the first guy could barely speak English the rest of them could and as they got older and had families of their own you could see how they were becoming part of the middle class, raising bilingual children, buying houses/cars, and making something of themselves as we promoted them, gave them raises, etc.

If I compare this to a demotivated high school dropout? Not even in the same league and that's why those people are reserved for bottom of the barrel jobs and poverty. It says a lot to be so pathetic that you couldn't finish basic education in the USA. 12% don't graduate high school. At least when I was in High School you could pass the GED at 14 and it only required basic reading, writing, and math skills. I think they've raised the age since then but the skills haven't changed. It's so easy.

I even had a job in college working with welfare families getting their children jobs. There's a huge difference between a white family on welfare and immigrants. The immigrant family is burning to make something of themselves and have a better life for their children. The white families (which were rare) were terrible and I even had a kid just lay back and go to sleep during my interview.

What really bothers me though is our literacy rate. We are churning people out of the system who aren't even getting the basic skills you should have. Parents would rather their illiterate children be passed through the grades then suffer some kind of social stigma by being held back. Someone needs to stop that. We have 3rd world literacy rates and nobody is talking about it since the CIA factbook just lists it as perfect year after year.

I can't imagine people thinking, "Hey, it's cool that I can't get a good job, can't read and write, and am worthless since the government is giving me $500 a month and food stamps". I can imagine them feeling like worthless pieces of shit though.

You are so worried about distribution of wealth but when you look at the actual figures in the USA the wealth is currently being redistributed to the rich. Almost all the money in the USA is owned by a very small percentage of the population and it's increasing in that direction. Do you favor that or would you rather have a middle class?

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.

I have a problem with our taxes too. Above I showed that I don't have a problem with paying more taxes since I get all those benefits but in the USA paying that sum of taxes and effectively getting no benefits really does bother me. Our social security program is a joke. Medicare really needs some work. However everyone should be saving for retirement. I had thousands saved when I was 18 since my work insisted on it, had a profit sharing program, matched everything dollar for dollar, and somewhat explained what was going on. People need to realize that despite tax money being paid if you don't save money you will be very poor when you retire. This is different in Europe since they offer pension plans through the unions. Even if you save zero you won't be poor and can live a dignified life.

 

[chucky2]

No, you have it backwards.

I'm just shocked, shocked, that you'd say that.

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

Really? It can't be both? It can't be the insane rich guy not spreading the wealth (at least within his own company) and it can't be the 3rd gen welfare user who decides getting knocked up is a good move, someone (meaning society of course) will pay for it? That's the problem with ideology...it can never be equally both, it's always the other extremes fault.

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

This statement right here tells me one thing: You have absolutely no practical experience for which you preach. You've been to a soup kitchen...to do your penance so you feel jizzy about yourself, but then you go home to the nice area and post on AT about which multi-thousand $ TV you want to get. You cannot possibly have made that statement and had any real day to day lengthy experience about the "common people" which we are discussing. In light of this, there really is no point in responding to you further, but I'll do so for completeness.

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.

God, you're still hopefully confused. Your hate of the evil rich keeps you from even properly staying focused to keep your own message straight. Those are not "life choices" the $B's make, those are business decisions. It doesn't matter if a $B has a kid, because, shocker, the $B has the $$$ to take care of their problem themselves, without asking society to pay for their little mistake.

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.

As usual, your analogy fails. Please, [please, stop trying to do analogies. I can't even fix your analogy for you it's so broke. The only thing I can think of to get it close to Reality is that the successful thief decides to drink a bottle of water he brought himself instead of buy from the water bottle peddler who is 4th gen welfare, parents never should have had him, society never should have let him happen, he never paid attention in school, never cared, and now sells water while collecting a multitude of societal handouts. Oh, and him and his woman (not wife though, just woman), the woman btw is the same deal as him, they just had their 2nd 5th gen welfare.

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

Not true at all. I care very much about them having kids: 1.) because it's going to screw them over more in the long run, and they already need infinite help there to get off and remain off the public dole, and 2.) I don't want their absolutely necessary bundle of joy to be n+1 gen welfare dependent as well, which it absolutely will be.

See? I care.

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'.

Oh, believe me, I know! Each time I go to the grocery store and see the stunning amount of things being bought with a Links card, I'm reminded of that each and every time. Forgive me for being selfish about my tax money vaporizing for no good reason, I forgot, it's not really my money, it's the Fed/State money, they just allow me to keep some of it.

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.

It is stunning how confused you are. I actually had hope for you when you weren't in P&N for so long, that you finally maybe realized how incredibly wrong you were. But DC has like re-awakened you. I'll give you this, which I am absolute certain you will feel proud to hear: You haven't changed a bit.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Of course that comment was directed at Chuck. We have very few reasons to be on this planet. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? Biologically our purpose is pretty clear as well. For some to think that there are people around who don't deserve to have families because they are poor is absurd.

Then I cannot imagine why you made it. I never, not once, said people should not have kids, nor do not have the right to have kids. What I said was, if they cannot afford themselves, to be specific, if they're collecting public handout and/or are barely affording themselves but not collecting public handouts, then having a kid is incredibly selfish of them and should not be done.

Why should it not be done? Not because they don't have a right to. Not because they don't deserve to. Because they cannot afford to.

The problem though is, society keeps being both a nice dupe and paying for these peoples selfishness, and, at the same time, society (pushed by one side amazingly enough) keeps devolving the family unit, personal responsibility, responsible decision making, education, etc, thereby exacerbating and perpetuating the societal decline and circumstances, conditions, and likely future these poor bastards are going to be born in to.

I cannot imagine someone who has an ounce of responsibility in them disagreeing with anything I've posted here (or the other thread). I mean, I can imagine it, but, I'd imagine it was from certain people of certain political leanings...

Chuck

 

[randomrogue]

You have repeatedly referred to children as mistakes.

I haven't brought politics into this since I don't think this is a political issue in the USA. We like to make it a political issue but the difference between the two major political parties is almost nil. I think this is an issue of society as a whole. It's really more of a capitalistic issue since society basically says that he who dies with the most toys and money wins and the priority in life should be the acquisition of such things.

This entire thread is about something different. It's about the quality of people's lives. Health care, education, retirement, transportation, personal time, and of course raising children. You've taken it to a new level though by saying that only those with money should be able to have children while I'm saying that people should not be in a position where they cannot afford to have kids. I'm also saying that if you get to a point where you think people don't deserve to have children because they don't have money then you are really putting yourself in a small corner since most people on this planet don't have money. I believe that Americans should be educated, they should not go broke because of healthcare costs, and they should be able to live decent lives with dignity.

 

[chucky2]

Of course, because I've been referring to people on the public dole having them. If you can't afford yourself, having a kid(s) is a mistake. Not a 'Shoot I dropped the cookie on the floor' mistake, but, a massive and huge F up mistake. I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand...

EDIT: And, No, I've never said that 'people with money' should be the only ones having kids. People that can afford to take care of themselves, and their kid(s), without public handout, should feel free to have as many of the little bundle of joys they want (preferably no more than 2...we have enough sprawl already). If that means you can do that at $40k income level, hardly what I'd call "people with money", go for it.

 

[chucky2]

Back on topic:

Can you expound on this vacation as a country thing? What about the peon workers...what happens to them and where do they go?

 

[randomrogue]

Back on topic:

Can you expound on this vacation as a country thing? What about the peon workers...what happens to them and where do they go?

Where ever they want? Many people stay home and go to the countryside or something. Buddy of mine is on vacation right now and he's just happy to stay home, catch up with friends, enjoy the weather, and read a book.

You have to remember that it's much easier to go on vacation to different places in Europe. I was in Stockholm and you can take a cruise to Finland for $45 round trip. They had cruises to Russia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania too. That's the price for 4 people btw. If you want to save money you can then go buy tax free alcohol and drink in your cabin rather than at the bar. If you live in Amsterdam then there are so many places nearby that it's pretty awesome. Denmark, Germany, England, Belgium. With Ryanair you can get to all corners of the continent for very cheap. If you're in Southern Europe you can take a boat to Morocco. They also have these last minute deals everywhere so if you want a nice mini-vacation you can pay say $500 for airfare and hotel to Egypt for a week. I hope that's enough examples.

The thing is that everyone gets time off. Lots of it. Even if you're an hourly employee you get time off.

 

[chucky2]

But who is serving all these people if everyone is off at once?

 

[randomrogue]

But who is serving all these people if everyone is off at once?

Everyone? We don't evacuate. I would really recommend just visiting Europe. I'm not talking in 100% absolutes. During the summer though most people go on vacation. Not everyone. We don't just all starve to death, have no police, fires are burning out of control, and sewage is piled 10 meters deep. It's a rational vacation period.

 

[chucky2]

Ok, that was what I was trying to understand. Maybe I took you too literally. So the bulk of people go on a community funded vacation. Sounds ideal for those that couldn't otherwise afford it! I know large demographics of people here that would absolutely be all for it.

 

[randomrogue]

Community funded vacation? I'm not sure what you're even talking about with that.

People go on vacation. They do whatever they want to do with their time. It's no different than in the USA except that here we get 25+ days of vacation a year and in the USA you have no legal rights to it but generally get 10 days.

 

[davidthemaster3]

I think randomrogue means that corporations/businesses have the vacation time, but service related jobs (like restaurants) don't put all their employees on vacation (or maybe they hire temporary employees cause of all the people on vacation ).

I do however agree with the quality of life and poverty. Here in Québec, we do have poverty and homeless people, but not even near the levels of the US ...
We pay lot's of taxes, but we also have health care and a 7$ per day daycare system.

 

[Craig234]

It's a little like Christmas in the US. Most people are off for Christmas, but not all stores close, not all services are unavailable. It's just longer for Europe.

 

[chucky2]

Community funded vacation? I'm not sure what you're even talking about with that.

What do you mean? You don't think the businesses just let that extra time and pay eat into their profit do you? That's passed down to their customers. Each time their customer buys something/uses their service, they're funding the community paid vacation. It's no different than in the States, but, it's just to a greater degree.

People go on vacation. They do whatever they want to do with their time. It's no different than in the USA except that here we get 25+ days of vacation a year and in the USA you have no legal rights to it but generally get 10 days.

Ok, I get it. It's just like the US but mandated to be longer and community funded. I get it now.

Chuck

 

[randomrogue]

Yeah, in some parts of the world people run businesses without exploiting every last nickel out of their employees. Unions hold power and make sure the employees are treated like human beings.

You look at it from such a profit driven point of view. I mean with that attitude of course we shouldn't give any vacation to anyone. They should be there driving sales, bringing in profits, and growing the company. As long as they don't go insane it's all good right?

 

[chucky2]

No, we should be giving them vacation so they're mentally able to remain productive. From a business POV though, you don't want Gov or the employees legislating it, you want employees to choose if they want to work at each business with each business policy. These gives both the employee and the business maximum flexibility. In the EU system, it sounds like they've traded that for employee benefit, which is fine, it's their system and their businesses.

I just really wonder as the world becomes more and more global and integrated, and these countries like China and India that we make fun of now start seriously turning out truly competitive people and actually keep them there, how a place like the EU is going to compete since they'll be losing on the cost side already, losing on the productivity side, and then losing - from a business POV - on the benefits side.

Isolationalism? High tariffs? Whether official or behind the scenes I don't see much other choice for them...

Chuck

 

[ivwshane]

No, we should be giving them vacation so they're mentally able to remain productive. From a business POV though, you don't want Gov or the employees legislating it, you want employees to choose if they want to work at each business with each business policy. These gives both the employee and the business maximum flexibility. In the EU system, it sounds like they've traded that for employee benefit, which is fine, it's their system and their businesses.

I just really wonder as the world becomes more and more global and integrated, and these countries like China and India that we make fun of now start seriously turning out truly competitive people and actually keep them there, how a place like the EU is going to compete since they'll be losing on the cost side already, losing on the productivity side, and then losing - from a business POV - on the benefits side.

Isolationalism? High tariffs? Whether official or behind the scenes I don't see much other choice for them...

Chuck

So how does one choose where to work based on "perks" if A) there is currently a shortage of jobs B) Even the existing jobs are going to places where the workers are willing to work for less?
You want potentail employees to exercise their power but you've just demonstrated that they have no power and that companies have the upper hand, unless you have specialized skills.

So fuck everyone else that makes the world go around because those with the skills (currently) can get what they want. Right? That's your thinking?

 

[chucky2]

Basically that's what's happening anyways. I find it odd that some of the same people that want society to band together and impose societal values on businesses are the same people who don't want societal values to be imposed on businesses. It's like they want to pick and choose based on their own values, but, F everyone elses.

I'm still wondering how EU is going to compete internationally with a powerhouse future China and India. The former already has their people indoctrinated at both a societal and business level to kick back and enjoy, while the latter will have a society driving their competitive business levels through the roof. We (even in the US) keep using this excuse that they have people who can't think/design/reason/whatever. That will change, eventually. I'm curious to know how you think the EU (and even the US) is going to compete with that?

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

So how does one choose where to work based on "perks" if A) there is currently a shortage of jobs B) Even the existing jobs are going to places where the workers are willing to work for less?
You want potentail employees to exercise their power but you've just demonstrated that they have no power and that companies have the upper hand, unless you have specialized skills.

So fuck everyone else that makes the world go around because those with the skills (currently) can get what they want. Right? That's your thinking?

What's the problem? You can choose to have your children work at a business with child labor, or not if you don't agree. You can choose to work at a business that provides a safe working environment, or one that doesn't. You can choose to work at a business that beats its workers for extra productivity, or one that doesn't. Of course all these choices will be available to all workers, competition will never force a race to the bottom. Freedom.

All that matters is that the government doesn't force any limitations.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So how does one choose where to work based on "perks" if A) there is currently a shortage of jobs B) Even the existing jobs are going to places where the workers are willing to work for less?
You want potentail employees to exercise their power but you've just demonstrated that they have no power and that companies have the upper hand, unless you have specialized skills.

So fuck everyone else that makes the world go around because those with the skills (currently) can get what they want. Right? That's your thinking?

It is more then just that, the corporations are not playing fair ball with the markets, they learned years ago that competing is too expensive and they will all do better if they cooperate. So now they create artificial scarcity in the job market to drive the price down by doing regular rounds of layoffs and rehires. They lobbies Congress to increase the H1B vista's so that they can hire foreign workers at half the price of American workers, which then leave American workers out of a job and willing to work for less.

Over all the American corporations have become very good at manipulating the system to remove the workers ability to bargain.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm still wondering how EU is going to compete internationally with a powerhouse future China and India. The former already has their people indoctrinated at both a societal and business level to kick back and enjoy, while the latter will have a society driving their competitive business levels through the roof. We (even in the US) keep using this excuse that they have people who can't think/design/reason/whatever. That will change, eventually. I'm curious to know how you think the EU (and even the US) is going to compete with that?

We are not. No one is going to be able to compete with China or India directly. It will have to be done with tariffs or other governmental limitations. Really, no one can compete with them today, which is part of the problem our economy is having.

Personally, I think you are crazy if you have money in long term investments in American companies. The best you can hope for is that they get bought out by a Chinese company for their brand name.