Painful too
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Painful too
ClassyPenguin
Banned
GAF is full of people who make $60K plus a year, confirmed. A true "fuck you, I got mine" mentality.
That should be the US' new slogan. "Welcome to the United States of America! Land of the free*, home of the brave, and fuck you all, I got mine."
*If you are a white, straight, Christian male.
These boots are make for walkin'
and that's just what they'll do.
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Funnily enough when you mentioned it was weak by historical standards, I was going to chime in with the "lol austerity" bit. You preempted that nicely.
Black Mamba
Member
I think the employment part is going to start picking up real soon this year through next year. It's the first time I've been optimistic about it.
There's a slack between GDP recovery and employment at times and I think we're seeing that. But I'm hopeful that's about to turn around.
Then again, the GOP can honestly fuck everything up with the debt ceiling bullshit. God forbid they allow the America recovery, even at a far below optimal pace, on a Democrat's watch.
You mean other than everything after the comma?
Ding ding ding! Someone doesn't know how the world works.
I'd like to revise my answer to include the comma. It's superfluous.
I want to distinguish something. There's the philosophy that some methods of killing are more indiscriminate and should be forcefully discouraged. I'm not arguing against that.
I'm commenting on this specific situation. To phrase my thinking differently, if the exact same people were killed or wounded via a conventional bombing campaign, with precisely the same causualties (deaths and wounded), we would not be having this conversation. And if said killings where continuing, we still would not be having this conversation. We'd just be watching the death toll tally up waiting for the "wrong" weapon to be used. That is what I find strange. I get why chemical weapons are treated differently. I don't get why the death toll, regardless of the weapon used, is not a greater part of the conversation.
I'm still not sure where I come down on this. In part because I don't feel like I know nearly enough about the situation; both because I haven't sought out enough news, and because I'm dubious of the quality of news I'm getting. But I lean heavily toward non-intervention, at least militarily. But it strikes me as odd that the human element is not at the fore of the debate.
Edit: basically this:
for Funky papa:
And really, this is what we should be focused on.
empty vessel
Member
Certainly politically driven narratives that enter some media will portray austerity as helping the economy, but actual financial press is unlikely to. For example, the Bloomberg piece posted earlier presents austerity as a drag (albeit not as straighforwardly as one might like):
I'm not nearly as optimistic as Mr. Jones that the economy will continue improving with flat government spending. But his comment does at least acknowledge sequestration as a drag that must be "weathered" as opposed to, say, something helpful to economic recovery.
Fenderputty
Banned
I know this wasn't originally an Operation Ivy song, but I only sing it in the punk version. I'm not sure why.
It's the best version, that's all.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Also, that minimum wage thread.
You would think pro-capitalists would be in favor of higher minimum wage.
Avon Barksdale
Member
On the note about the 50 year anniversary, let's share the other side of the coin's thought pattern:
Oi...
And Republicans wonder why they struggle with Black voters...
AnotherNils
Member
I see what you're getting at and you're right. Basically we've sat on the sidelines because we don't know which side is better, yet we're now getting up because of the method of killing. The message we're sending is almost completely exclusive from the actual Syrian Civil War. The message we're sending isn't "Don't kill your own people" it's "Don't use chemical weapons."
It's a little disturbing when you put it that way.
Also, that minimum wage thread.
Fuck You, Got Mine: The Thread
Black Mamba
Member
Remembering MLJ Jr's biggest speech or touring Oil Fields?
DAT OPTICS.
Also I haven't read the minimum wage thread. But I'm guessing those against it and/or wage risers basically just argue/
A. They dumb people they should be happy they get paid at all
B. min wage rises will kill employment,
Both cases being a lot of herp derp buffoonery.
Also that it'll lead to inflation, bootstraps and how come they get raises but not me. It's really managed to hit all of the notes you'd expect from a thread like this.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I think this is it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=664645
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=664645
You missed all the bootstraps and whatnot. We've basically won at this point.
Black Mamba
Member
The minimum wage debate whether on GAF or anywhere else is something I've always considered a great example of the stupidity of the American electorate.
1. Show people how the top 1% has greatly out-earned the rest of America in wealth, income, etc over the past 30 years in an enormous and egregious fashion. Most Americans will agree this is absurd, they will agree the middle and lower classes are getting screwed, that corporations are profiting, that something must be done to protect the middle class. In fact, most Americans already know and hate that this is happening.
2. Propose to them a minimum wage hike, one of the best policies to help the lower and middle classes, and they will start whining about how dumb min wage workers are and don't deserve that pay.
So to sum up, Americans think income inequality is out of control but they rail against one of the best policies to stop income inequality.
These people will hold these same completely inconsistent positions at the same time and not notice it. I guarantee you if someone actually bothered they could find people in the min wage thread (against it) who railed against corporate profits or the top 1% in another.
1. Show people how the top 1% has greatly out-earned the rest of America in wealth, income, etc over the past 30 years in an enormous and egregious fashion. Most Americans will agree this is absurd, they will agree the middle and lower classes are getting screwed, that corporations are profiting, that something must be done to protect the middle class. In fact, most Americans already know and hate that this is happening.
2. Propose to them a minimum wage hike, one of the best policies to help the lower and middle classes, and they will start whining about how dumb min wage workers are and don't deserve that pay.
So to sum up, Americans think income inequality is out of control but they rail against one of the best policies to stop income inequality.
These people will hold these same completely inconsistent positions at the same time and not notice it. I guarantee you if someone actually bothered they could find people in the min wage thread (against it) who railed against corporate profits or the top 1% in another.
along with that don't these fools realize that minimum wage at one point was below 25him cents at one point in history?! By their logic it should've stagnated and not kept up with inflation. That's horsehit mentality
R10Neymarfan
Member
I still remember that one thread where this woman worked two jobs, barely got by. And most of GAF complained that she shouldn't of had three children and it was her fault, she deserves it, etc. Ugh....
Also, people should get a job. But if you have certain jobs, you're lazy because it's not a real job.
Personally, I am a fan of a guaranteed living income. Direct transfer payments, especially to everyone, just seems like a far simpler, better, and more efficient way to ensure a decent standard of living than minimum wage, welfare and other such programs
Just think how efficient our government and corporations could be if we did that, had universal health care, livable social security, and zero corporate taxes (income and capital gains tax rates would increase).
Too bad it will never happen
Just think how efficient our government and corporations could be if we did that, had universal health care, livable social security, and zero corporate taxes (income and capital gains tax rates would increase).
Too bad it will never happen
It would be nice, but I think the argument against it is that certain people are just predisposed to not want to work. And that would make it even easier to not.
I'm in favor of policies that are contingent on the person actively looking for work.
Black Mamba
Member
Giving people straight transfer cash opposed to a higher wage if they're working has psychological issues.
People want to be paid for their work and paid decently. This makes people feel better about themselves.
it's also why it's sad at how people look down on others for the type of job they perform. But it's really just a representation of their own insecurities.
This too. I don't want to incentive not working. Safety nets should be there to help people in a time of need or unfortunate circumstances, not to just allow anyone to just chill. Everyone who can work should work and earn decently enough to provide.
I really don't think it will be an issue because the idea of what being paid decently is will change if we have direct transfer payments. Right now 50Kish is probably a decent, resepctable wage. After transfer payments, that job might pay 30k. A minimum wage job now might only be 20 hours a week and pay 8k a year or something. It will still have the same psychological impact of wage status and accomplishment. It simply removes the concept of being totally screwed if you are working 20 hours a week for minimum wage or are unemployed
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Expansion of safety nets and programs such food stamps and WIC to be more accessible than just people at or below poverty would be more realistic and I think, better.
Black Mamba
Member
You mean raising the EITC a lot? I'm fine with raising the EITC, but I won't discount the psychological effects of earning a living.
I'd much rather a person earn $15 hr than receive $5 hr and the equivalent of $10 hr in direct transfer. That said, I think a mix of the two is good policy. As we do have the EITC now and I like it but I'd like min. wages to go up as well.
I'm more concerned about these transfers to people who don't work, however. Again, people who get laid off or are disabled, etc deserve the safety net but I also don't want to simply make it amenable to not work and just live your entire life by these transfers. That's not the case right now because all these transfers are too low but you can raise them too high.
I think people should just do whatever they want to do with their time. fuck calvinism/protestant ethics.
No, Im in favor of giving everyone 10k-20k (pick an appropriate number) and go from there. I think the vast majority of people will want to work, or at least work part time. As for the rest? Well, we do not have enough jobs to go around now. Those people not working really shouldnt matter.
I don't think there is any inherent moralgood value in working. Sure, its great to keep busy, but you can do that with hobbies, art and music. Personally, that sounds like a much more morally good way to go about things than sitting in front of a cash register all day
Plus, it will be far better for education and children. Want to stay home when the kids are young so that they get proper socialization and education? Well, you can actually do that now without fucking yourself and your kid over!
RustyNails
Member
There is a term in international relations where one government defers a belligerent governments' actions to a certain extent. It happens only until that government or its assets gets attacked by the belligerent government, or WMDs are used, or basically something very bad is imminent. In other words, US would give Syrian government the benefit of doubt until the cows come home. Syrian government's position is that they are fighting the terrorists that want to destabilize the region, so US knows the parameters of the conversation. Under this situation Assad could have theoretically slowly wiped out the entire Syrian population using nothing but small arms fire. I believe these parameters are stored and kept hidden in the case rebellion fails and in the far off future there is a need to mend relations. But the usage of weapons like Sarin gas, nerve agent, mustard gas etc means that the parameters of conversation no longer hold true. The Syrian government is now slaughtering the civilians en masse indiscriminately and making sure that the generations to come will be affected by it due to birth defects. In this modified situation, the US can no longer defer Syria's actions. Their intentions are clear and that is indiscriminate attacks on civilians. That is why the red line was drawn by Obama, and now that Syria has crossed it, US wants to take action. The situation right now isn't clear cut because of the complexity of the issue, Russia and China's stonewalling and lack of clear evidence as of now (could change in the near future). The fact that Assad could have used the chemical attack against his people not inspite of Obama's warning, but because of it is also a unique factor in this conflict. He could have done so under the shelter of Russia's protection, in order to show his friends in Iran and Lebenon that he was able to poke a dragon in it's nose and get away with it. Maybe he will do it again because he knows the dragon is shackled by the weight of public cynicism and the current president's confrontational relationship with the opposition in Congress. So there's that America's legacy in the region angle. Best solution would have Qatar or Saudi Arabia taking the lead for once and spending their blood and money on it instead of relying on US again. We don't give them F-16s for nothing. Part of me wants US to not get involved so Qatar/Saudi Arabia can feel the weight. I don't know why US doesn't or cant force them because even though they have oil, it's a symbiotic relationship. Anyways I'm going on a tangent so I'll stop.
Black Mamba
Member
not sure if srs.
Well, we already do that. But are you denying that there is a point where too many people will not work?
But somebody has to run a cash register. Or wash the sick elderly. I mean, if you give everyone $30k to start, who is going to help shower elderly people for a few extra bucks?
You've disincentized all the "ugly" jobs as I'll call it that are completely necessary for our modern society to work.
Furthermore, if people are working in large numbers, our technological progress is going to slow down. I don't think it's a coincidence that women entering the workforce and massive computing technology advances were around the same time.
We can all work less hours. Less days. I don't believe people should have to work 6 or 7 days a week, 12-16 hour a day (multiple jobs or not) to get by. That is not right.
But I also don't see how swinging the pendulum to the other extreme where 30 million people opt out of the labor force to doodle on a notepad makes any sense.
Are you endorsing home-schooling?
Well, those shitty jobs suddenly become extremely well paying jobs that I am sure someone will want to do. And cash register jobs can simply be done by automation
I am not endorsing home-schooling. I am endorsing giving parents the opportunity to stay home with their 0-4 yearold kid, instead of shipping him off to some shitty daycare place. That is the time we are failing our kids. It isnt the school system that is the problem. It is our complete failure in early childhood education because parents do not have a suitable place to put their kids when they work and can't simply forgo because they need the paycheck
As for production, well, I guess we will have to see what the tipping point is and whether automation and the like can make up or make many of our individual production irreleveant
Totally srs. shitty baggage from the industrial age. gotta get rid of that shit in the coming decades, especially by the time almost any job involving hard manual labor will be automated(this actually really isn't all that far off, you guys. it's one of my bigger worries, right after climate change and nuclear proliferation.).
haha, I happen to be quite familiar with this field and I have no idea where you got this from. Never seen anyone draw this connection, nor would I call the seventies particular impressive compared to the oughties when it comes to computing technology advances.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
The automation fetish irks me. Like self-checkout is fine and all, but I doubt we are going to be seeing any type of fully automated kitchen or store. It's one of the reasons Fresh and Easy failed to catch on, Americans simply don't like that style.
RustyNails
Member
But in order to change that the entire paradigm of capitalist America has to change. Here everyone must work in order to survive. The kids will be taken care of at daycare because you have enough money to spend. If you quit your job to look after the kids, who will pay for your meals? Because you have $3000 mortgage every month that you and your husband both decided was a good deal. I'm not just blaming the rich people for the downfall of our family unit. Even middle-class to poor people have to resort to daycare planning because bills, bills, bills that kill. If you look at immigrant cultures in America, they rarely resort to daycares. Most of the time, the grandma, aunts or some other maternal relative will be there to provide proper upbringing. But in our culture, even grandma has to work.
YES! Food is the one thing we won't be trusting robots to do. I mean try and open a restaurant and see how hard it is. There are a lot of hoops to jump through when it comes to handling food, I wrote about it a year or two back. It's relatively easy stuff, but easy to screw up as well. There isn't a whole lot of room for error when it comes to food, one under-cooked burger and you've got food poisoning. We aren't going to be replacing food service workers anytime soon.
Well, I think my plan of giving every adult individual 20k a year would change that paradigm. Thats why I am saying it would be one of the benefits
- Status