Not sure how to title this

[SKL]

Yes. I'd like to have somebody respond to the question I posed, which is what model they can point to of a system in which the care of the poor was left to voluntary charity and the poor were taken care of.

 

There isn't a society anywhere that eliminated poverty. The most socialistic countries have poverty. The most high-tax countries have poverty. The most "free" countries have poverty. If the moon were colonized by 100 people, within 10 years, there would be poverty somewhere on the moon - regardless of the political structure up there.

 

Charity is love. Taxing is taking. I prefer to maximize the former, even if it leaves my pocketbook with the exact same balance. I believe in paying taxes for the common good, and I believe that if possible, there should be a government safety net for bare basic needs (but those with able bodies should have to work for it so they maintain their dignity). This should be kept to the least amount possible, so taxpayers have more money to invest in things that are better for the community than a government program - such as business expansion that creates real jobs, and true charity, and bringing up their children to be better citizens.

[deacongirl]

The thing is, many people are looking for justice, not charity. That's my position, at least. Charity is wonderful. Charity has a place. People should be charitable. But, charity isn't justice. We live in a world of deep and growing economic inequality, and many people see that as wrong. I know I do. Doing the right thing doesn't just involve making sure the material needs of the poor are met--although that's really important--but also changing the system so that it's not so unjust. Was it MLK who said something about how you can keep picking up people who get mugged along Jericho Road, but at a certain point, you'd want to stop and ask why so many people are stumbling and being attacked there? At a certain point, you might decide that whole road needs to be repaved, and that's what would best serve people.

 

So if the goal is justice, then no amount of charity--no matter how wonderful and necessary it is--can ever achieve that. Justice requires structural changes, and you can't achieve those on an individual level. IMO, a world in which all people will thrive requires both justice and charity, and so we need both individual voluntary giving and government efforts to address inequality and need.

 

Yes! You said it very well!

[Sputterduck]

Have you tried finding a job without internet access lately?

 

People got by for generations without phones, but there were several generations where a phone was a need. It was pretty much impossible to access certain services and to be gainfully employed without one.

 

People got by for generations with refrigeration, but today it would be extremely difficult in most parts of the U.S. to feed a family in a healthy way without one.

 

Just because something is new doesn't mean that it hasn't become quite necessary. I'd say the internet has become quite necessary for most people, particularly for those looking for work, and that's a situation many of the poor are in.

 

See... here's the thing. No, you don't. The internet might make thing easier. It might be really convenient. It is not a need for survival. It boggles my mind the things that some people "need". If you'd never known about them, you'd never miss them.

 

Do you also need a washing machine? I'm about to not have one. Do I care? No, not really. My family will be no worse for the wear.

 

I need a toilet in my new place. Why? Because there is no room for an outhouse, but there is a stripped bathroom. We do "need" a place to safety dispose of bodily waste. We don't have electricity there yet. Do I care? No, not really. Will the place shelter us from storms? Yes. That's a need taken care of right there. Will we be able to refrigerate our food? No. Do I care? No, not really. I can feed my family very, very healthily without one.

 

Lots of people around here live without electricity. I thought, coming from America, Wow! Big Deal! Is it really? No. Guess what? You go to bed when it's dark. You don't have a tv. So what? You don't have a fridge. So what? You don't have a computer. *shrug*

 

Maybe you "need" the internet to live the quintessential American life. You don't need it to survive, though. I once ran across someone who thought that cable was a "need", too. People really ought to look outside their own society before they really get stuck on certain needs.

[Mama Geek]

Is it justice that my dh works and 1/3 of his pay goes directly to the government so that someone else who doesn't work can get the money that the government takes from him.

 

Is it justice that the government is playing games with money and we have to reexamine what we do with our money on a regular basis so as not to loose it. With the financial state we are in my dh should be able to retire, but it is too likely the dollar will be devalued and the 401 K's will the worthless, is that justice?

 

Is it justice that money our families have worked for will likely go the to government when they pass away rather than to us and their grandkids?

 

Justice is not taking away what we have worked for to give it to someone else.

 

And by the way I have helped people out even though our taxes are through the roof and not all of it has been tax deductible.

[astrid]

The internet now is a need and not a luxury? Gosh. How did all the generations before us survive without the internet? Only 1/3 of the people in the world have internet. I wonder how they survive.

 

Why the snark?

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, it's a pretty different world today than the one in which "all the generations before us" lived, worked, and obtained vital information.

 

The 1/3 of the world that has internet is the 1/3 that lives, works and obtains information in first world countries. Those living in villages in Uganda or high in the Andes mountains do not have internet access, but then again, the internet does not have the influence over their cultures that it does on ours, in 21st century America.

 

astrid

[twoforjoy]

There isn't a society anywhere that eliminated poverty. The most socialistic countries have poverty. The most high-tax countries have poverty. The most "free" countries have poverty. If the moon were colonized by 100 people, within 10 years, there would be poverty somewhere on the moon - regardless of the political structure up there.

 

I'm not talking about poverty being eradicated. I'm talking about the actual, material situation of the poor. Is there a society in all of history where charitable giving was the only aid the poor got where many if not most people didn't live in deplorable conditions, significantly worse than the conditions they live in in countries with a government-supported safety net?

 

I believe that if possible, there should be a government safety net for bare basic needs (but those with able bodies should have to work for it so they maintain their dignity).

 

What about the many people living in poverty who are single mothers, particularly those with young children? Is caring for their children not sufficient work to maintain their dignity? If not, then what about those of us who stay home with our kids and are financially supported by our spouses? Do we lack dignity? I think it's a mistake to conflate dignity with paid outside employment.

[LucyStoner]

What about the US before the income tax was instituted? My understanding of history is that the tariffs in place in the US were used to protect our industry. Families, churches and communities pulled together to take care of each other.

 

 

In some cases that is true. Yet there was widespread poverty and a very low standard of living for many. The care of poor people who could not work or could barely work was commonly auctioned off to the lowest bidder who then put people to work in some way or left them to sit/lay in tents or shanties until their death. People who were poor and disabled often lost their kids to the state or to orphanages, adoption of older kids was primarily driven by wanting free domestic or farm help etc. Kids went to work at 8, 9, 10 years old in factories with safety records that would sicken anyone today. It was NOT all sunshine and roses. Just visit the museums attached to these old institutions where disabled people were sent. People with minor limps or CP locked up to waste away in mental hospitals like they were mentally vegetables. My grandfather was an orphan in Texas in the 1910s. He was horribly abused. The community did not come together to help every single person.

 

You know why social security was passed? Because in our "help our own family" driven country, older adults were

starving to death because they could not physically work.

Edited August 30, 2011 by kijipt

[SKL]

I disagree completely. When companies are moving overseas and subjecting people to sweat shop conditions for pennies a day that seems like a lot more than the inconvenience of paying a living wage.

 

Overestimating the worth of their labor? People doing hard jobs in the meat packing industry, factories and warehouses do want to be able to feed their families just as anyone else does. No, it isn't a white collar job but blue collar people have children as well, they work hard, do their jobs and should be able to survive without having to get a second job.

 

I am sure it is a pretty good deal to let those people try and live on Walmart and fast food pay instead but it isn't good for our economy when the middle class is disappearing and more and more people are relying on food stamps and other social services to survive

 

Um, I happen to be a co-owner of one of those "sweatshops" you are taling about. Our workers sit in comfortable chairs and earn far more than the US minimum wage. They are in hot demand as there is a lot of competition for their skills. Do they each own a cadillac and/or a minivan? No. Neither do I.

 

If I could get comparable, affordable help in the USA, I would hire it. But anyone with half the required skills expects to make more money than the work product can be sold for. Young Americans can be incredibly "entitled." So either I outsource or I shut down all together. I choose to remain open, employ people, and offer a product that benefits folks. (I do hire Americans to do jobs where it makes more sense. But I don't consider it my responsibility to solve the US unemployment problem. I didn't create it.)

 

BTW, other countries have plenty of regulations. More than the USA, in fact. And they are especially observant of what US companies do, since they expect us to have moneybags.

 

But mostly, I don't think it's anyone's business what Bill Gates decides to do with his money, assuming he obeys the laws. I'm sure he has paid a lot more in taxes than all of us put together, already. As a high taxpayer myself, I'm convinced that the liberals will never think I have paid enough taxes, even if I empty out my savings, sell my house, and send my children out to mow lawns all day, because I dare to be a politically conservative business owner.

[Slartibartfast]

In some cases that is true. Yet there was widespread poverty and a very low standard of living for many. The care of poor people who could not work or could barely work was commonly auctioned off to the lowest bidder who then put people to work in some way or left them to sit/lay in tents or shanties until their death. People who were poor and disabled often lost their kids to the state or to orphanages, adoption of older kids was primarily driven by wanting free domestic or farm help etc. Kids went to work at 8, 9, 10 years old in factories with safety records that would sicken anyone today. It was NOT all sunshine and roses. Just visit the museums attached to these old institutions where disabled people were sent. People with minor limps or CP locked up to waste away in mental hospitals like they were mentally vegetables. My grandfather was an orphan in Texas in the 1910s. He was horribly abused. The community did not come together to help every single person.

 

You know why social security was passed? Because in our "help our own family" driven country, older adults were starving to death because they could not afford to work.

 

My grandfather and his siblings all picked cotton as children. Even now if you are around them for very long one of them will say "I would rather pick 100 pounds of cotton than...."

[Sputterduck]

Why the snark?

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, it's a pretty different world today than the one in which "all the generations before us" lived, worked, and obtained vital information.

 

The 1/3 of the world that has internet is the 1/3 that lives, works and obtains information in first world countries. Those living in villages in Uganda or high in the Andes mountains do not have internet access, but then again, the internet does not have the influence over their cultures that it does on ours, in 21st century America.

 

astrid

 

Well, I just looked it up and apparently 30 percent of Americans don't use the internet. Anyhow...

 

Can people really not see the difference between a need and a convenience? It's embarrassing to me as an American that people come across as so spoiled. The internet, smart phones, washing machines, dishwashers, tvs, etc. are conveniences. Why the snark? Because I'm half sad and half embarrassed.

 

They are very nice to have. Humans life does not require them. Typical American life may. If they suddenly ceased to exist, we'd all survive. No joke.

[Sputterduck]

My grandfather and his siblings all picked cotton as children. Even now if you are around them for very long one of them will say "I would rather pick 100 pounds of cotton than...."

 

So did my grandma and all her siblings! They farmed in rural Mississippi and were dirt poor. Amazing bunch of people. I miss them all.

[astrid]

In some cases that is true. Yet there was widespread poverty and a very low standard of living for many. The care of poor people who could not work or could barely work was commonly auctioned off to the lowest bidder who then put people to work in some way or left them to sit/lay in tents or shanties until their death. People who were poor and disabled often lost their kids to the state or to orphanages, adoption of older kids was primarily driven by wanting free domestic or farm help etc. Kids went to work at 8, 9, 10 years old in factories with safety records that would sicken anyone today. It was NOT all sunshine and roses. Just visit the museums attached to these old institutions where disabled people were sent. People with minor limps or CP locked up to waste away in mental hospitals like they were mentally vegetables. My grandfather was an orphan in Texas in the 1910s. He was horribly abused. The community did not come together to help every single person.

 

You know why social security was passed? Because in our "help our own family" driven country, older adults were

starving to death because they could not physically work.

 

Orphan Trains.

 

astrid

[Mama Geek]

African-Americans and white sharecroppers were living in deplorable conditions and in dire poverty in the 1920s.

 

Today, blacks and rural white people still make up a good chunk of the poor. They are living in much, much better conditions than they were back then.

 

I don't know where you have been, but the slums in this country are horrible. The poor african americans in this country often live in fear for their lives. I've lived in entitlement areas. I've seen high crime rates that include murder, grand theft, drugs, gangs, and rape. I really don't see how you can say this is better. I have known african americans that have worked hard and gotten out of that life and you know. They are probably the ones hurt the most because the majority of people think that the government gave them what they got instead of them earning it on their own.

[twoforjoy]

Well, I just looked it up and apparently 30 percent of Americans don't use the internet. Anyhow...

 

Can people really not see the difference between a need and a convenience? It's embarrassing to me as an American that people come across as so spoiled. The internet, smart phones, washing machines, dishwashers, tvs, etc. are conveniences. Why the snark? Because I'm half sad and half embarrassed.

 

They are very nice to have. Humans life does not require them. Typical American life may. If they suddenly ceased to exist, we'd all survive. No joke.

 

I think you are assuming that things fall into two categories, needs and luxuries. We're not simply talking about "stuff you will drop dead without." We're talking about the things you need to make a decent life for yourself in our society. For the poor, I'd say that things that would allow them to move out of poverty, like education, are not luxuries. And, if you are looking for a job, then internet access is pretty much necessary, especially in parts of the country where there aren't a lot of places where public internet can be accessed (like local libraries).

 

Do we want people to move out of poverty? We certainly can't expect them to do so if all they have is what is absolutely necessary to keep them from falling down dead within the year.

 

I think there's a large category of things that fall between "need" and "luxury." Is a car a need? No. But, is it a luxury? In many parts of the country, it's not that, either. It's not simply a convenience, either. It's something that you don't need to keep you alive, but that you do need if you want to be able to access healthy food, obtain gainful employment, and do other things that will significantly improve your quality of life and provide opportunities for advancement. I'd put internet access into that category.

[Slartibartfast]

Um, I happen to be a co-owner of one of those "sweatshops" you are taling about. Our workers sit in comfortable chairs and earn far more than the US minimum wage. They are in hot demand as there is a lot of competition for their skills. Do they each own a cadillac and/or a minivan? No. Neither do I.

 

If I could get comparable, affordable help in the USA, I would hire it. But anyone with half the required skills expects to make more money than the work product can be sold for. Young Americans can be incredibly "entitled." So either I outsource or I shut down all together. I choose to remain open, employ people, and offer a product that benefits folks. (I do hire Americans to do jobs where it makes more sense. But I don't consider it my responsibility to solve the US unemployment problem. I didn't create it.)

 

BTW, other countries have plenty of regulations. More than the USA, in fact. And they are especially observant of what US companies do, since they expect us to have moneybags.

 

But mostly, I don't think it's anyone's business what Bill Gates decides to do with his money, assuming he obeys the laws. I'm sure he has paid a lot more in taxes than all of us put together, already. As a high taxpayer myself, I'm convinced that the liberals will never think I have paid enough taxes, even if I empty out my savings, sell my house, and send my children out to mow lawns all day, because I dare to be a politically conservative business owner.

 

I am not a liberal. It isn't about taxes, people need jobs not handouts.

[twoforjoy]

I don't know where you have been, but the slums in this country are horrible. The poor african americans in this country often live in fear for their lives. I've lived in entitlement areas. I've seen high crime rates that include murder, grand theft, drugs, gangs, and rape. I really don't see how you can say this is better. I have known african americans that have worked hard and gotten out of that life and you know. They are probably the ones hurt the most because the majority of people think that the government gave them what they got instead of them earning it on their own.

 

I live in Detroit. I do not believe for one second that the African-Americans living in poverty here wish they were living back in sharecropper days or that they were doing better then. Could life be better for poor blacks? Of course it could. But to imagine it was better back before the government started providing assistance is nonsense. Blacks were one of the groups that did not benefit much from private charity because people liked their money to go to people who looked and lived like them, and to imagine they'd be better off if government assistance were eradicated is to ignore the reality of the situation and how complex the interaction between race and poverty is in this country.

[Colleen]

I find it extremely frustrating to see people that are obviously getting assistance with iPhones, carrying Coach bags, and $150 tennis shoes.

What do people who are "obviously" getting assistance look like? In what way is it "obvious" to you? How do you arrive at that determination? You certainly seem to keep close tabs on them.

 

When housing, medical care, transportation, and education costs become reasonable, then maybe I'll be willing to start talking about who should or shouldn't have an iPhone.

Right on.

[Sputterduck]

I think you are assuming that things fall into two categories, needs and luxuries. We're not simply talking about "stuff you will drop dead without." We're talking about the things you need to make a decent life for yourself in our society. For the poor, I'd say that things that would allow them to move out of poverty, like education, are not luxuries. And, if you are looking for a job, then internet access is pretty much necessary, especially in parts of the country where there aren't a lot of places where public internet can be accessed (like local libraries).

 

Do we want people to move out of poverty? We certainly can't expect them to do so if all they have is what is absolutely necessary to keep them from falling down dead within the year.

 

I think there's a large category of things that fall between "need" and "luxury." Is a car a need? No. But, is it a luxury? In many parts of the country, it's not that, either. It's not simply a convenience, either. It's something that you don't need to keep you alive, but that you do need if you want to be able to access healthy food, obtain gainful employment, and do other things that will significantly improve your quality of life and provide opportunities for advancement. I'd put internet access into that category.

 

I think the problem is what people consider "decent" is really rather the high end of privileged compared to the majority of the world.

 

And you know... you can still go to the newspaper for jobs. You can also drop your resume off at places. You can still ask around. You can still call employers to see who is hiring. There are temp agencies. There are employment offices. There are signs in shop windows. All of the ways that people got a job before 1990 are still available. I'm trying to think of anyone I know recently whose gotten a job and I can't think of one who got it through the internet... It helps for sure. It is convenient. But there are still many avenues through with one may get a job. The internet is only one.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Not sure why you're grilling me; I just offered a possible guess as to why some of the research removes giving through religious institutions.

 

Sheesh. Easy there...

 

astrid

 

Didn't realize responding equalled grilling.

 

Back to my novel.

[SKL]

The thing is, many people are looking for justice, not charity. That's my position, at least. Charity is wonderful. Charity has a place. People should be charitable. But, charity isn't justice. We live in a world of deep and growing economic inequality, and many people see that as wrong. I know I do. Doing the right thing doesn't just involve making sure the material needs of the poor are met--although that's really important--but also changing the system so that it's not so unjust.

 

So if the goal is justice, then no amount of charity--no matter how wonderful and necessary it is--can ever achieve that. Justice requires structural changes, and you can't achieve those on an individual level. IMO, a world in which all people will thrive requires both justice and charity, and so we need both individual voluntary giving and government efforts to address inequality and need.

 

What exactly is justice? Is it justice that a person who does not work has a lot less than someone who has worked an average 80 hours per week for the past 20+ years? YES! Is it justice that a person who has not bothered to take his education seriously makes less money than someone who did homework into the wee hours? YES! Is it justice that my tax bill was bigger than my entire pay last year? NO! Is it justice that people are constantly being forced to pay more so that people can be rewarded for doing less? NO!

 

Justice is served by letting able-bodied people experience the results of their own choices. Assuaging the results of someone else's bad choices is more along the lines of charity.

 

Why do you think financial inequality is unjust?

 

If you're talking about ending discrimination, etc., that's fine and dandy, but find a way to do it that doesn't involve picking my pocket. Like I said before, hire some people who need jobs. Don't just point fingers and go on about what everyone else should do.

 

Or are you talking about reparations for past discrimination? How about this. Nothing will improve a man's life more than learning how to cope and better himself. There is no better way for a man to learn this than the school of hard knocks. Continuously coddling people because they had a bad start does not help in the long run, however "just" it may sound. What people need is an opportunity to do real work and get paid what it's really worth. Which is not $50/hour for unskilled labor - no matter how many kids someone has.

Edited August 30, 2011 by SKL

[Julie in Austin]

Sebastian writes,

 

The bolded above does not match what I have read over the years in The Economist. (My search terms are giving me horrid results, but here is an article from Business Week from a couple years ago.) . . . I can understand that some families might choose not to step out on their own in order to maintain medical coverage. I just have not seen anything that links universal health care coverage with high rates of entrepreneurship.

 

Of course there are other factors at play, so I don't disagree with anything you said, but health care fears do play a role. I hope I am not breaking the rules re linking to articles in political debates on this board, but try this:

 

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html.

 

Mama geek asks,

 

Is it justice that my dh works and 1/3 of his pay goes directly to the government so that someone else who doesn't work can get the money that the government takes from him.

 

Even when it comes to food stamps, about half of people using them have jobs. Most redistributive-to-the-poor on the fed level is through the earned income credit which requires . . . earned income. There are serious limits on 'welfare'--only a few years over a lifetime. So I don't really understand where the "people who don't work" idea comes from.

 

I would also ask you to consider this: Would your husband be making as much money as he is if there were no safety net? Would he have as many customers as he does if the poverty rate doubled? Would he have to hire private security if we slashed police? What would he have to spend on training employees if we had no free schools? How much would your family have to spend on meningitis or TB treatment if we had no public health services? Are you interested in cleaning your own water, generating your own electricity, etc.? What if your family paid 100% of your grandparents' health care costs? Do you want to pay to defend your family against people who should be in jail? If your husband were to die, want to go without social security survivor benefits? Do you take the mortgage interest deduction? Child tax credit? Student loans? Use the Interstates?

 

Which is a long way of saying that I think the formulation "my husband works and the govt takes that money and gives it to people who don't work" is not fair. There is someone on this board whose sig says, "I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization."

[Slartibartfast]

 

What exactly is justice? Is it justice that a person who does not work has a lot less than someone who has worked an average 80 hours per week for the past 20+ years? YES! Is it justice that a person who has not bothered to take his education seriously makes less money than someone who did homework into the wee hours? YES! Is it justice that my tax bill was bigger than my entire pay last year? NO! Is it justice that people are constantly being forced to pay more so that people can be rewarded for doing less? NO!

 

Justice is served by letting able-bodied people experience the results of their own choices. Assuaging the results of someone else's bad choices is more long the lines of charity.

 

Why do you think financial inequality is unjust?

 

If you're talking about ending discrimination, etc., that's fine and dandy, but find a way to do it that doesn't involve picking my pocket. Like I said before, hire some people who need jobs. Don't just point fingers and go on about what everyone else should do.

 

Or are you talking about reparations for past discrimination? How about this. Nothing will improve a man's life more than learning how to cope and better himself. There is no better way for a man to learn this than the school of hard knocks. Continuously coddling people because they had a bad start does not help in the long run, however "just" it may sound. What people need is an opportunity to do real work and get paid what it's really worth. Which is not $50/hour for unskilled labor - no matter how many kids someone has.

 

I am not going to feel bad for someone complaining about paying a lot of taxes while also saying they outsource jobs. I am just not.

 

I believe the living wage is about $9-10 or less in many areas. I am sure there are a lot of people in some states who would love to get that pay. That is still under 20K a year.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Sis

[SKL]

What about the many people living in poverty who are single mothers, particularly those with young children? Is caring for their children not sufficient work to maintain their dignity? If not, then what about those of us who stay home with our kids and are financially supported by our spouses? Do we lack dignity? I think it's a mistake to conflate dignity with paid outside employment.

 

I am a single mother, and I work. There are jobs a mother with a child can do.

 

I did not conflate dignity with paid outside employment. I conflated it with taking care of yourself and your kids (as a couple, if you're married), if you're bodily able.

[Happy]

I think the problem is what people consider "decent" is really rather the high end of privileged compared to the majority of the world.

 

And you know... you can still go to the newspaper for jobs. You can also drop your resume off at places. You can still ask around. You can still call employers to see who is hiring. There are temp agencies. There are employment offices. There are signs in shop windows. All of the ways that people got a job before 1990 are still available. I'm trying to think of anyone I know recently whose gotten a job and I can't think of one who got it through the internet... It helps for sure. It is convenient. But there are still many avenues through with one may get a job. The internet is only one.

 

I'm responding to the bolded. Nope, not too many places these days. One of the first hurdles to jump in getting a job is internet access. Just ask my young adult sons...they heard me say this same thing--drop a resume by--and proved to me that it simply isn't as possible as I believed. Maybe in a small town, but not here in little ole Dallas/Ft. Worth and suburbs.

 

My husband must have internet access for his job. 20 years ago, no, it was not a necessity. He must have a cell phone--required by his company--and while they chip in, we pay for it. My career demands internet access and a cell phone. That wasn't true a generation ago.

[SKL]

I am not going to feel bad for someone complaining about paying a lot of taxes while also saying they outsource jobs. I am just not.

 

The US needs to take accountability for its own mistakes that lead to unemployment and unemployability. Blaming me for the fact that the US workforce does not meet the needs of US employers is a waste of breath.

 

I believe the living wage is about $9 or less in many areas. I am sure there are a lot of people in some states who would love to get that pay.

 

Then feel free to hire them. Why should I?

[Rivka]

Okay, I just realized that we don't have moderators because of Irene.

 

Yikes.

[Sputterduck]

I'm responding to the bolded. Nope, not too many places these days. One of the first hurdles to jump in getting a job is internet access. Just ask my young adult sons...they heard me say this same thing--drop a resume by--and proved to me that it simply isn't as possible as I believed. Maybe in a small town, but not here in little ole Dallas/Ft. Worth and suburbs.

 

My husband must have internet access for his job. 20 years ago, no, it was not a necessity. He must have a cell phone--required by his company--and while they chip in, we pay for it. My career demands internet access and a cell phone. That wasn't true a generation ago.

 

I got a job in a large metropolitan area by dropping off resumes in this decade. My ex got a job in a large metropolitan area through the newspaper... in this decade. Then he got another job, yes, in this decade, filling out a real life paper application form. Oh, and before those jobs, he got a job by word of mouth and then calling the company! We're amazingly backward, right!

 

My major is in IT. I attend a university with the help of the internet. Is the internet a human need? No. Would I survive without it? You bet. It's super convenient that I can be really far away from my university and still do my classes. It's amazingly convenient that I will be able to have a mobile career where I can work in just about any country. I am so thankful that I have access to these wonderful conveniences. They make my life so much easier and they allow me to do things I wouldn't otherwise be able to do. That's exactly what the definition of convenience is.

[Slartibartfast]

The US needs to take accountability for its own mistakes that lead to unemployment and unemployability. Blaming me for the fact that the US workforce does not meet the needs of US employers is a waste of breath.

 

How are these people unemployable for unskilled labor? What exactly are these people needing to do that is SO difficult that it cannot be performed by the average American while ALSO being unskilled labor?

 

FWIW when I was working I trained a LOT of people for jobs. There were very few who I believe were truly unable to perform the work, I just happen to believe people deserve a fair shake. But then again, my belief in people might be why every employer I ever had wanted me to be the one to train people.

 

 

Then feel free to hire them. Why should I?

 

I believe every American Employer should.

[SKL]

How are these people unemployable for unskilled labor? What exactly are these people needing to do that is SO difficult that it cannot be performed by the average American while ALSO being unskilled labor?

 

I am not in the market for unskilled labor.

[Slartibartfast]

I am not in the market for unskilled labor.

 

but you did say

 

Which is not $50/hour for unskilled labor - no matter how many kids someone has.

 

But I know good and well there are a lot of people who would stand in line for hours for a chance to apply for 1/5 of that pay.

[SKL]

 

I believe every American Employer should [hire unskilled US workers].

 

Jobs aren't created to accommodate potential workers. Jobs happen when businesses have some reason to expand, such as an economy that would sustain a market for their goods/services, a tax structure that leaves a few more bucks for payroll, and the freedom to build their business as they see fit.

 

Prospective employees need to be able to do the jobs that are available - not the other way around.

 

But again, if you disagree, go ahead and hire a few domestic workers. I'm sure there are people in your neighborhood who would love to clean your bathrooms for $20/hour. Heck, you might get lucky and find one who will take $10.

[SKL]

but you did say

 

 

 

I never said my employees are unskilled.

[twoforjoy]

But again, if you disagree, go ahead and hire a few domestic workers. I'm sure there are people in your neighborhood who would love to clean your bathrooms for $20/hour. Heck, you might get lucky and find one who will take $10.

 

I'm getting the sense that your reality is not my reality. I don't know where these unskilled workers demanding $50/hr are, or these domestic workers asking for $20/hr are, but I've never encountered them. My husband has a Ph.D., and he makes about $22/hr. (now, that is--when he started his job he was making $12/hr, with a master's degree). And, we feel extremely fortunate, because many people we know aren't doing nearly as well.

[Slartibartfast]

Jobs aren't created to accommodate potential workers. Jobs happen when businesses have some reason to expand, such as an economy that would sustain a market for their goods/services, a tax structure that leaves a few more bucks for payroll, and the freedom to build their business as they see fit.

 

Prospective employees need to be able to do the jobs that are available - not the other way around.

 

But again, if you disagree, go ahead and hire a few domestic workers. I'm sure there are people in your neighborhood who would love to clean your bathrooms for $20/hour. Heck, you might get lucky and find one who will take $10.

 

But there will never be an economy that will sustain a larger market for more goods if the jobs making those goods are overseas.

 

In my neighborhood? :lol: If I asked for applicants for cleaning my bathroom for $10 an hour there would be a line down the street. But I am not going to pay someone to clean my bathroom. I don't know anyone who could afford to pay someone that. I have worked for less than that.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Sis

[WishboneDawn]

I disagree. There are charities that send 100 percent of donated money directly to help and have literally zero overhead because they are staffed purely by volunteers. There are also many where 95-99 percent of the money goes directly to help people. That is not true of government. The overhead is ridiculous.

 

And I'm not saying that because of news stories I heard on the radio or the tv, like many people. I come from a family where you are either a successful business owner or you work fairly high up in the government. Trust me... The government is many things, but it is not efficient.

 

I'm not arguing it. I'm simply putting forth some reasoning that might help the OP understand the POV of others.

[twoforjoy]

In my neighborhood? :lol: If I asked for applicants for cleaning my bathroom for $10 an hour there would be a line down the street. But I am not going to pay someone to clean my bathroom. I don't know anyone who could afford to pay someone that. I have worked for less than that.

 

Seriously. If I offered $10/hr to clean my house I'd get a line down the street even if I was only willing to hire college grads.

 

I have a master's and spent a couple of years working part-time for $8/hr after grad school. It was all I could find.

[MamaBearMO]

How are these people unemployable for unskilled labor? What exactly are these people needing to do that is SO difficult that it cannot be performed by the average American while ALSO being unskilled labor?

 

FWIW when I was working I trained a LOT of people for jobs. There were very few who I believe were truly unable to perform the work, I just happen to believe people deserve a fair shake. But then again, my belief in people might be why every employer I ever had wanted me to be the one to train people.

 

I believe every American Employer should.

 

I'm pretty new around here, and this thread is most definitely an interesting read.

 

I have to wonder, are you an employer yourself?

[Happy]

I got a job in a large metropolitan area by dropping off resumes in this decade. My ex got a job in a large metropolitan area through the newspaper... in this decade. Then he got another job, yes, in this decade, filling out a real life paper application form. Oh, and before those jobs, he got a job by word of mouth and then calling the company! We're amazingly backward, right!

 

My major is in IT. I attend a university with the help of the internet. Is the internet a human need? No. Would I survive without it? You bet. It's super convenient that I can be really far away from my university and still do my classes. It's amazingly convenient that I will be able to have a mobile career where I can work in just about any country. I am so thankful that I have access to these wonderful conveniences. They make my life so much easier and they allow me to do things I wouldn't otherwise be able to do. That's exactly what the definition of convenience is.

 

In this decade may be the operative words there. My sons were looking for work in the past several months.

 

Sure, of course, there are people and companies who have paper applications--but fewer and fewer every day. I think Hobby Lobby still does, but the majority of places where my sons applied only accepted online apps. (Hibbett Sports, Academy, Home Depot, Walmart, Game Stop, McDonald's, Albertsons...) There are places like Target and Kroger that have a kiosk in house for folks to use to apply. It's harder and harder to live without internet these days, but you are right. Not impossible. It's like living with out a car here in Texas. Yes, it can be done, but it's darn hard to live that way.

 

I've very much enjoyed this discussion!

[deacongirl]

What exactly is justice? Is it justice that a person who does not work has a lot less than someone who has worked an average 80 hours per week for the past 20+ years? YES! Is it justice that a person who has not bothered to take his education seriously makes less money than someone who did homework into the wee hours? YES! Is it justice that my tax bill was bigger than my entire pay last year? NO! Is it justice that people are constantly being forced to pay more so that people can be rewarded for doing less? NO!

 

Justice is served by letting able-bodied people experience the results of their own choices. Assuaging the results of someone else's bad choices is more long the lines of charity.

 

Why do you think financial inequality is unjust?

 

If you're talking about ending discrimination, etc., that's fine and dandy, but find a way to do it that doesn't involve picking my pocket. Like I said before, hire some people who need jobs. Don't just point fingers and go on about what everyone else should do.

 

Or are you talking about reparations for past discrimination? How about this. Nothing will improve a man's life more than learning how to cope and better himself. There is no better way for a man to learn this than the school of hard knocks. Continuously coddling people because they had a bad start does not help in the long run, however "just" it may sound. What people need is an opportunity to do real work and get paid what it's really worth. Which is not $50/hour for unskilled labor - no matter how many kids someone has.

 

First--I have to apologize for doing the quote thing wrong--I was agreeing with Two for Joy and cannot take credit for what she said so well.

 

I've spent enough time working with children born into poverty in Camden, NJ, to remain unconvinced that the current circumstances are just.

 

I also agree with this:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/krista+tippett

"...In a related vein, the thing that struck me most from Hilfiker’s interview was his discussion of charity vs. justice. Christians (and most if not all religious traditions share this) are called to both, and they are very different. Charity helps those in immediate need. Justice addresses structural issues that keep people marginalized, oppressed and underserved. Neither can be neglected. To neglect charity to focus on structural changes is to show callous disregard to the suffering in front of us. A structural focus is long-term, and as Keynes said, in the long run we’re all dead. To neglect structural imbalances is to ignore the underlying problems and condemn those affected (and society) to continued suffering."

 

And this:

http://www.thenation.com/article/36893/unjust-spoils?page=0,1

"None of us can thrive in a nation divided between a small number of people receiving an ever larger share of the nation's income and wealth, and everyone else receiving a declining share. The lopsidedness not only diminishes economic growth but also tears at the social fabric of our society."

 

And Krugman:

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/more-thoughts-on-equality-of-opportunity/#?wtoeid=growl1_r1_v5

“My vision of economic morality is more or less Rawlsian: we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be. And I believe that this vision leads, in practice, to something like the kind of society Western democracies have constructed since World War II — societies in which the hard-working, talented and/or lucky can get rich, but in which some of their wealth is taxed away to pay for a social safety net, because you could have been one of those who strikes out.

Such a society doesn’t correspond to any kind of abstract ideal, whether it’s “people should be allowed to keep what they earn†or “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needsâ€. It’s a very non-Utopian compromise. But it works, and it’s a pretty decent arrangement (more decent in some countries than others.)

That decency is what’s under attack by claims that it’s immoral to deprive society’s winners of any portion of their winnings. It isn’t."

 

"Charity is no substitue for justice withheld."

St. Augustine

 

Charity sees the need, not the cause. German proverb

[8circles]

I believe every American Employer should.

 

Why doesn't this apply to all American citizens? All Americans should hire people to clean their toilets & must pay them a living wage.

[twoforjoy]

Sure, of course, there are people and companies who have paper applications--but fewer and fewer every day. I think Hobby Lobby still does, but the majority of places where my sons applied only accepted online apps. (Hibbett Sports, Academy, Home Depot, Walmart, Game Stop, McDonald's, Albertsons...) There are places like Target and Kroger that have a kiosk in house for folks to use to apply.

 

Those are all for service jobs, too, which probably don't pay all that well.

 

I know that the major employers around where I live, the hospitals, universities, and car companies, only post job openings online at this point. I don't know if they take paper applications, but if there's an opening, you'll either have to track down somebody in person to ask (who will probably direct you to their website) or go online. I haven't seen a lot of jobs advertised in the paper in a while.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm pretty new around here, and this thread is most definitely an interesting read.

 

I have to wonder, are you an employer yourself?

 

No? I live in Kansas City, a lot of my neighbors would love $10 an hour.

[Mama Geek]

 

Even when it comes to food stamps, about half of people using them have jobs. Most redistributive-to-the-poor on the fed level is through the earned income credit which requires . . . earned income. There are serious limits on 'welfare'--only a few years over a lifetime. So I don't really understand where the "people who don't work" idea comes from.

My brothers new wife hasn't worked a day in her life. She has 3 kids and has only recently married my brother. She wasn't getting help from the fathers of her children. She is in her 30's and has lived off government assistance for more than a few years.

 

I would also ask you to consider this: Would your husband be making as much money as he is if there were no safety net? I think he would be making more.

 

Would he have as many customers as he does if the poverty rate doubled?

I think if the government would let the free market go then the poverty rate would decrease. With this would have to come major cuts in what it costs to hire people.

 

Would he have to hire private security if we slashed police?

I am going to likely end up doing this anyway and by the way this is a state and local issue not a federal issue.

 

What would he have to spend on training employees if we had no free schools? Private schools exist and do fairly well. Also there are lots of homeschooled kids that I think are fairly successful:D

 

How much would your family have to spend on meningitis or TB treatment if we had no public health services? We pay cash for our healthcare and we don't run to the dr every time one of us sneezes

 

Are you interested in cleaning your own water, generating your own electricity, etc.? I think if the government was completely out of it private industry would step in and do this. Years ago we lived in an area where we paid for private trash service. You know what they picked up our trash and did a good job.

 

What if your family paid 100% of your grandparents' health care costs? I am not going to touch this one because healthcare discussions are pointless on this forum

 

Do you want to pay to defend your family against people who should be in jail? I believe in the second amendment and guns just don't cost that much.

 

If your husband were to die, want to go without social security survivor benefits? If my dh were to die we would survive without SS benefits, even if I had to go back to work.

 

Do you take the mortgage interest deduction? No, my house is paid off.

Child tax credit? Yes, I am going to try to get as much of the money back as we pay into taxes as I can.

Student loans? Yes and they are paid back in full with interest.

Use the Interstates?Yes I use the interstates, but I also pay gas tax that should cover the interstates every time I fill up my car. Instead that money goes to useless things like mass transit.

 

Which is a long way of saying that I think the formulation "my husband works and the govt takes that money and gives it to people who don't work" is not fair. There is someone on this board whose sig says, "I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization."

 

I don't like paying taxes and I look for every legal opportunity to pay less in taxes. A good chunk of the money does go to entitlement programs. It still comes down to take from us and give to those the government deems as more deserving.

[MamaBearMO]

Those are all for service jobs, too, which probably don't pay all that well.

 

I know that the major employers around where I live, the hospitals, universities, and car companies, only post job openings online at this point. I don't know if they take paper applications, but if there's an opening, you'll either have to track down somebody in person to ask (who will probably direct you to their website) or go online. I haven't seen a lot of jobs advertised in the paper in a while.

 

The library where I live has a bank of computers with internet access for free. The colleges in our area also have times where computer rooms are open to the public for free access. And, the parks department here maintains two sites (on the public transportation system) where computers provide access to the internet for free. I doubt my little town in the middle of nowhere is the only one with this level of service.

[Sputterduck]

In this decade may be the operative words there. My sons were looking for work in the past several months.

 

Sure, of course, there are people and companies who have paper applications--but fewer and fewer every day. I think Hobby Lobby still does, but the majority of places where my sons applied only accepted online apps. (Hibbett Sports, Academy, Home Depot, Walmart, Game Stop, McDonald's, Albertsons...) There are places like Target and Kroger that have a kiosk in house for folks to use to apply. It's harder and harder to live without internet these days, but you are right. Not impossible. It's like living with out a car here in Texas. Yes, it can be done, but it's darn hard to live that way.

 

I've very much enjoyed this discussion!

 

That's because the moderators are away. :lol:

 

My ex's employers from the examples I gave were an engineering firm, a sign making shop, and the government.

[leeannpal]

I don't like paying taxes and I look for every legal opportunity to pay less in taxes. A good chunk of the money does go to entitlement programs. It still comes down to take from us and give to those the government deems as more deserving.

And you might have a different point of view if you ever needed one of those "entitlement" programs. As an example, my friend's husband, who worked hard all his life as a blue collar skilled worker and later a supervisor at the factory, has Multiple Sclerosis. This year, has health declined so much that he had to quit work. He is 50 years old, years away from retirement benefits. Reluctantly, they applied for and got SS benefits. I say reluctantly because they were always of the mentality that those who received services from the government were lazy and not willing to work. Unfortunately, my frined has received a few comments from people about how they are taking the easy way out. I so wish the idea that anything can be overcome if you just work hard enough were not such an ingrained part of our culture.

Edited August 30, 2011 by leeannpal

[Colleen]

I think the problem is what people consider "decent" is really rather the high end of privileged compared to the majority of the world.

I hear you, and I often make this point myself, but this particular conversation originated in reference to the United States.

 

And you know... you can still go to the newspaper for jobs. You can also drop your resume off at places. You can still ask around. You can still call employers to see who is hiring. There are temp agencies. There are employment offices. There are signs in shop windows. All of the ways that people got a job before 1990 are still available. I'm trying to think of anyone I know recently whose gotten a job and I can't think of one who got it through the internet.

This doesn't surprise me, given that you live in a small village in Mexico.:) But again, if we're discussing the norm in the United States, some of your assumptions here are faulty. Most newspapers contain very little in the way of job listings ~ or may only include the listings on their web site. Increasingly, employers don't accept resumes in person. Making contact with employers really does, in this day and age in the United States, by no means comparable to the pre-1990 world. It just isn't.

[Sputterduck]

Those are all for service jobs, too, which probably don't pay all that well.

 

I know that the major employers around where I live, the hospitals, universities, and car companies, only post job openings online at this point. I don't know if they take paper applications, but if there's an opening, you'll either have to track down somebody in person to ask (who will probably direct you to their website) or go online. I haven't seen a lot of jobs advertised in the paper in a while.

 

Or you can just call the HR department.

[twoforjoy]

I don't like paying taxes and I look for every legal opportunity to pay less in taxes. A good chunk of the money does go to entitlement programs.

 

A good chunk goes to Social Security and Medicare. A *very* small amount goes to things like food stamps, WIC, TANF, and other programs for the poor.

 

It still comes down to take from us and give to those the government deems as more deserving.

 

More needy. There's a difference. Nobody is saying that a poor person deserves the money more than you do. But, they need it more. And, social stability pretty much depends on not having a bunch of desperate, starving, penniless people running around.

 

Do you know why we have government assistance? Not because the government decided, because it's so kind and generous, to help the poor. Because we were like thisclose to communism become a real force in our political system. Workers were agitating. People who are watching their kids starve go radical. They set up tent cities outside of the business that laid them off and demand a job at a living wage. They beg and panhandle. They strike. They threaten to overthrow the whole system. They scare the people with money and the people in power. So, the government, in the interest of preserving capitalism and thwarting potential revolution and keeping businesses (that don't want to pay everybody a living wage) happy, instituted a safety net.

 

If you want to see the kind of pretty-much-unfettered capitalism we have go down really fast, then get rid of the safety net.

[Sputterduck]

I hear you, and I often make this point myself, but this particular conversation originated in reference to the United States.

 

This doesn't surprise me, given that you live in a small village in Mexico.:) But again, if we're discussing the norm in the United States, some of your assumptions here are faulty. Most newspapers contain very little in the way of job listings ~ or may only include the listings on their web site. Increasingly, employers don't accept resumes in person. Making contact with employers really does, in this day and age in the United States, by no means comparable to the pre-1990 world. It just isn't.

 

LOL I was referring to the people I know in America, though I can see where that was ambiguous.