United States of Entropy Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Pearl

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
5,736
Location
NYC
I didn't know what else to call this thread, and since it is a continuation of the first one, I decided to give it a Part 2.

Even though the unemployment rate may be going down in the U.S., and the economy is supposedly turning around, things are still tough for many people. HuffPo ran several profiles on the working poor - people who work full time but barely make ends meet.

A good job may be hard to find in this tepid recovery, but low-wage work still abounds. Whether it's washing dishes, serving Big Macs or folding sweaters for a store display, low-paying jobs have been added to the American economy at a fairly brisk clip since the recession ended in 2009. Middle- and high-paying jobs, not so much.

By one estimate, one in four private-sector jobs in the U.S. now pays less than $10 per hour, well below a living wage in many areas of the country. Compared to better-paying positions, these jobs are also more likely to come without regular schedules or benefits, like health care coverage, paid vacation time or sick leave -- the basic trappings of middle-class work. In other words, employment doesn't guarantee a life above the poverty line; according to census data, more than one in 10 Americans who work full-time are still poor.

They eat what they can afford, rather than what they want. Some avoid going to the doctor, even when they're gravely ill. Others turn off the hot water in their homes and wear clothes given to them by friends.

More Than 1 In 10 Americans Who Work Full Time Are Still Poor


'I May Die Broke. I May Get More Poor. I May Turn Around And Get Money Again. I Just Don't Know.'

What is so irritating is that in the comments section, it is appalling to see the lack of empathy some people have. Some are like, "oh big deal, the average poor American is wealthier than someone in Bangladesh". Other are saying, "they shouldn't have worked in that field or made bad money decisions. That's what they get."

Yes, this is only the comments section, but it is also what many Americans believe. It is upsetting to see many think that just because someone made unwise professional and/or financial decisions, they deserve to struggle. Even if they worked in a field that did well before 2008, there are still so many chiding them. Why should making mistakes mean paying for it with your health and sanity? It's not like they committed crimes or did anything illegal. They made mistakes, and there are plenty who admit they caused their own problems. Why should they suffer like this? They'd love to get off food stamps and get a better salary, so they're obviously not "lazy welfare bums" many think everyone on welfare is.

Rant over. For now. :)
 
Take heart that those unliveable wages are shifting the companies burden of paying their workers onto the taxpayer, where it belongs!.
 
"oh big deal, the average poor American is wealthier than someone in Bangladesh"

It might seem heartless (and maybe some of the comments you read were) but comparing "the poor" is not an unworthy way to judge economic systems, economic health over a span of time or economic policies. Look at any data and it will show you for instance that it's much better to be "poor" in a free market country than in a centrally-controlled economy. Much better to be "poor" in an economy that promotes prosperity and growth rather than one that promotes equality of outcome.
 
It might seem heartless (and maybe some of the comments you read were) but comparing "the poor" is not an unworthy way to judge economic systems, economic health over a span of time or economic policies. Look at any data and it will show you for instance that it's much better to be "poor" in a free market country than in a centrally-controlled economy. Much better to be "poor" in an economy that promotes prosperity and growth rather than one that promotes equality of outcome.


I basically agree with this, but I think that you and I (and many others here) fundamentally disagree on where equality of opportunity ends and equality of outcome begins.
 
Look at any data and it will show you for instance that it's much better to be "poor" in a free market country than in a centrally-controlled economy.

Except that this isn't an either/or proposition, but rather a spectrum from one extreme of the free market to the extreme of the centrally-controlled economy.
 
... rather than one that promotes equality of outcome.

Is this happening anywhere? Has it really been tried (even on a small scale?). I know the occasional politician runs on this concept - and a few revolutions have "promised" to make this happen, but has there really been a full-fledged effort to have nationwide, income equality?
 
It might seem heartless (and maybe some of the comments you read were) but comparing "the poor" is not an unworthy way to judge economic systems, economic health over a span of time or economic policies. Look at any data and it will show you for instance that it's much better to be "poor" in a free market country than in a centrally-controlled economy. Much better to be "poor" in an economy that promotes prosperity and growth rather than one that promotes equality of outcome.

But its difficult to promote prosperity and growth when it isn't always guaranteed. The economy will fluctuate, industries change due to advancing technology, factories are moved overseas for cheaper wages, and younger people are more likely to be hired than someone over 50. A free market may allow opportunities for financial and professional success, but there many other factors that prevent that, as we are seeing nowadays.
 
Is this happening anywhere? Has it really been tried (even on a small scale?). I know the occasional politician runs on this concept - and a few revolutions have "promised" to make this happen, but has there really been a full-fledged effort to have nationwide, income equality?

I don't think its possible to have income equality. Firstly, some professions naturally deserve higher wages than others. Should a store cashier make as much as an accountant?

Also, even if there was income equality, how people spend their paychecks is another matter. There are many who aren't financially smart, whether they make 30K, 50K or 100K. One thing to learn from this recession is the importance of being financially responsible and have some common sense. It is recommended to save enough money, such as eight months to a year's worth of your take-home money, to support yourself in times of a crisis. At the same time, there is no reason to live beyond your means and drive up your credit card debt. I remember one math class I took in high school gave a brief lesson on budgeting. But I don't remember any budgeting workshops while I was in college. Financial responsibility needs to be promoted more, IMO.
 
I don't think its possible to have income equality. Firstly, some professions naturally deserve higher wages than others. Should a store cashier make as much as an accountant?

Also, even if there was income equality, how people spend their paychecks is another matter. There are many who aren't financially smart, whether they make 30K, 50K or 100K. One thing to learn from this recession is the importance of being financially responsible and have some common sense. It is recommended to save enough money, such as eight months to a year's worth of your take-home money, to support yourself in times of a crisis. At the same time, there is no reason to live beyond your means and drive up your credit card debt. I remember one math class I took in high school gave a brief lesson on budgeting. But I don't remember any budgeting workshops while I was in college. Financial responsibility needs to be promoted more, IMO.

Great post!! :up:
 
You can't tell me the person who dispatches my truck to calls should be compensated the same as I am. They sit inside and answer the phones, and I get crazy drunk people spitting at me (plus, there's a whole level of responsibility that's different as well. If they send me to the wrong street, well even if my response if delayed because it, only in the most extreme of circumstances are those repercussions going to come close to what happens to me if I push the wrong medications and kill someone).
 
I no longer believe this.

From one angle, it would make sense for everyone to make the same wage. But in reality, it doesn't. Why should someone who is a cashier at a Pathmark make $80K a year? I do agree that the minimum wage should be raised to $10 - $ 12, but some jobs are too simple to garner that much of a wage (although it is certainly not simple to deal with insane customers, long hours, and having a smile on your face when all you really want to do is scream).

I do think salaries and wages to be reassessed, but I also don't think we should go that far. I even think perhaps an prospective employee's situation should be looked into. If a 35 year old divorced mother of two who lost her job a year ago and is applying for that supermarket cashier job, I think she should get paid a lot more than a high school student. How much, I can't say since I am not an economist or anything.

I've been thinking a lot about how uncertain the job market and the professional world can be, and I really feel there needs to be more of an obligation to support those who lose their jobs due to advancing technology or the job is moved overseas. Who should be obligated and how is something I am still trying to figure out. Once I have my thoughts in order, I'll post them here.
 
Why should someone who is a cashier at a Pathmark make $80K a year?

Why should someone who loses billions of dollars at a bank make tens of millions of dollars in salary?

In Plato's Republic, the best of the best could not accept money and lived in barracks.
 
You can't tell me the person who dispatches my truck to calls should be compensated the same as I am. They sit inside and answer the phones, and I get crazy drunk people spitting at me (plus, there's a whole level of responsibility that's different as well. If they send me to the wrong street, well even if my response if delayed because it, only in the most extreme of circumstances are those repercussions going to come close to what happens to me if I push the wrong medications and kill someone).

You are aware - that within 10 to 20 years - both your job and the job of the dispatcher will be obsolete to AI, drones, robots...etc.

Also - combat medics make far less than you, yet it could be argued their work is more dangerous and stressful. Should you be paid less to match them, or should they be paid more to match you?
 
Why should someone who loses billions of dollars at a bank make tens of millions of dollars in salary?

In Plato's Republic, the best of the best could not accept money and lived in barracks.

I'm not talking about Wall Street, though. I'm talking about everyday workers.

How much of Plato's Republic do you support? His vision included no families, and children raised in orphanage-like places who never knew their parents and their parents never knew them.
 
I'm not talking about Wall Street, though. I'm talking about everyday workers.

How much of Plato's Republic do you support? His vision included no families, and children raised in orphanage-like places who never knew their parents and their parents never knew them.

True - I don't support everything in this (or any other) utopic vision, but I do like the concept of the Guardians and the Philosopher-king.

As we enter the Age of Abundance - where energy is dirt cheap and any material can be fabricated on demand by additive printers, there will be less focus on wealth and salary and more focus on creativity and contribution. Traditional "high paying" jobs like doctors and lawyers will soon be obsolete.

Hoarding wealth and resources likely won't be possible when people can "have" just about any "thing" they want - when they want it.
 
True - I don't support everything in this (or any other) utopic vision, but I do like the concept of the Guardians and the Philosopher-king.

As we enter the Age of Abundance - where energy is dirt cheap and any material can be fabricated on demand by additive printers, there will be less focus on wealth and salary and more focus on creativity and contribution. Traditional "high paying" jobs like doctors and lawyers will soon be obsolete.

So anyone can do a lung transplant or reattach a torn retina in AEONLAND? Anyone can throw a 100 mph fastball, write a #1 pop song, invent a duck call or blueprint a 100 story skyscraper?
Hoarding wealth and resources likely won't be possible when people can "have" just about any "thing" they want - when they want it.

Are there patents, copyrights, private property, borders or commerce or are we talking one worldwide free-love/all-you-can-eat/this-land-is-your-land-this-land-is-my-land commune?

I'm sorry to be so cynical but... really? Me, I like the incentive of self-interest tempered by Matthew 7:12.
 
Are there patents, copyrights, private property, borders or commerce or are we talking one worldwide free-love/all-you-can-eat/this-land-is-your-land-this-land-is-my-land commune?

I'm sorry to be so cynical but... really? Me, I like the incentive of self-interest tempered by Matthew 7:12.

I'm confused. I highly doubt AEON is referring to anything hippie-like at all. I mean, free love? I fail to understand where you came up with that idea.

But while we are on the subject of communes and even communism...

And all who believed were together and had all things in common,
and they sold their possessions and goods and divided them among all men, as every man had need.
- Acts 2:44-45

:wink:
 
Jesus, at least according to Paul of Tarsus, was practically a free-love communist hippie that believed in wealth redistribution.

Romans 15:1-3 said:
We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.”
 
So anyone can do a lung transplant or reattach a torn retina in AEONLAND? Anyone can throw a 100 mph fastball, write a #1 pop song, invent a duck call or blueprint a 100 story skyscraper?
We all have tapped and untapped capabilities. Also, in AEONLAND - meaning 20 years or so in the future if you pay at least a little attention to the science articles being published on a daily basis - people won't be the ones doing lung transplants and everyone will be able to throw a 100 mph fastball if they wish. We will rethink what it means to compete because for the most part - we will be working together to explore the universe . Furthermore, in what religion or moral philosophy is it considered a noble goal to be "better" than someone else? (other than Nietzche perhaps). Other have mentioned Jesus - the very Son of God. He chose to be a humble carpenter/drifter instead of an Emperor.
It is noble to hold others up, not push them down.

Are there patents, copyrights, private property, borders or commerce or are we talking one worldwide free-love/all-you-can-eat/this-land-is-your-land-this-land-is-my-land commune?
It started with open-source software. It's a model that is now spreading through research.

I'm sorry to be so cynical but... really? Me, I like the incentive of self-interest tempered by Matthew 7:12.
It won't be easy. So many will fight to keep their pennies until they finally realize, they are worthless.


start here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology
 
I'm confused. I highly doubt AEON is referring to anything hippie-like at all. I mean, free love? I fail to understand where you came up with that idea.

But while we are on the subject of communes and even communism...


:wink:

I'm glad you quoted that part of the Book of Acts. The Red State Christian Republicans need to have these verses thumped over their head over and over again. Then perhaps they will stop being the foot soldiers for the wealthy.
 
More news from "AEONLAND":

The long-range revolutionary potential of developments at the nanoscale will come from atomically precise manufacturing, a technology analogous to digital information technologies or 3D printing: a general-purpose way to make intricate patterns of something, in this case, patterns of advanced materials that form advanced products of all kinds. An engineering analysis shows that costs of production can be extraordinarily low in terms of labor, materials, energy, and environmental impact, while product performance can be at or beyond today's state of the art.
 
You are aware - that within 10 to 20 years - both your job and the job of the dispatcher will be obsolete to AI, drones, robots...etc.

Also - combat medics make far less than you, yet it could be argued their work is more dangerous and stressful. Should you be paid less to match them, or should they be paid more to match you?

Not sure how robots replacing me in a decade is in anyway related to how much money I should or shouldn't make now. Maybe I missed something with the changing in pages on this thread, but I have no idea where you're going with this anymore.
 
Not sure how robots replacing me in a decade is in anyway related to how much money I should or shouldn't make now. Maybe I missed something with the changing in pages on this thread, but I have no idea where you're going with this anymore.
I suppose it was more of an indirect and more polite way of saying that you're not special. Also - I pointed out there are currently men and women who work more difficult/dangerous jobs than you, yet get paid less.

This notion of "deserve" is the notion I'm challenging.
 
The notion of deserve is a requirement with the system we have built in place, where value comes from work. You need to challenge the system as a whole before you can even start discussing this idea.
 
The notion of deserve is a requirement with the system we have built in place, where value comes from work. You need to challenge the system as a whole before you can even start discussing this idea.

That's being challenged daily with all the unemployed twenty-somethings that were told they would "deserve" job if they finished college. There are numerous highly intelligent, highly educated people sitting on the sidelines of the economy because of technology and corporate greed.

The current system of "dues" and "reward" is outdated - designed for a different age.
 
We all have tapped and untapped capabilities. Also, in AEONLAND - meaning 20 years or so in the future if you pay at least a little attention to the science articles being published on a daily basis - people won't be the ones doing lung transplants and everyone will be able to throw a 100 mph fastball if they wish. We will rethink what it means to compete because for the most part - we will be working together to explore the universe.

Hey, I like science fiction too (which is not to say that many unimaginable technologies will see fruition in the next 20 years) but put me down as a dystopian rather than a universalist utopian. It is the nature of man I'm afraid. The individual liberty and human rights enjoyed by Western civilization the past 400 years is the great exception not the rule. And the technologies you dream of in the hands of tyrants will lead to hell on earth.
Furthermore, in what religion or moral philosophy is it considered a noble goal to be "better" than someone else? (other than Nietzche perhaps).

Wrong way to look at it. It's not comparing to others it's comparing to our God given potential. Everyone is blessed with some talent and they owe it to themselves and to God to develop them. Some are rarer than others or more in demand in a meritocracy (which leads to income inequality) but I don't see that as a bad thing.
Now which religion teaches that joy is found in money or coveting the possessions of another?

Other have mentioned Jesus - the very Son of God. He chose to be a humble carpenter/drifter instead of an Emperor.
It is noble to hold others up, not push them down.

[/url]

I agree. You won't find me degrading "burger-flipper jobs" or such. Anyone can serve God through their work.
 
Hey, I like science fiction too (which is not to say that many unimaginable technologies will see fruition in the next 20 years) but put me down as a dystopian rather than a universalist utopian. It is the nature of man I'm afraid. The individual liberty and human rights enjoyed by Western civilization the past 400 years is the great exception not the rule. And the technologies you dream of in the hands of tyrants will lead to hell on earth.
I can understand your skepticism about mankind. We've certainly earned it. I suppose I remain optimistic about technology it because it seems that there are only two real possibilities: A Star Trek-type future or human extinction. Since it's not much fun thinking about our demise, I'm concentrating on my future application to Start Fleet (after they've restored my body to 22 year old health and vigor).

Wrong way to look at it. It's not comparing to others it's comparing to our God given potential. Everyone is blessed with some talent and they owe it to themselves and to God to develop them. Some are rarer than others or more in demand in a meritocracy (which leads to income inequality) but I don't see that as a bad thing.
Should that be measured in money? Would a non-Olsteen Christ agree with you on this? I agree with you about reaching our God-given potential, I just don't think there needs to be a salary "level" attached to the measurement of that goal.

Now which religion teaches that joy is found in money or coveting the possessions of another?
I think you lost me here...


I agree. You won't find me degrading "burger-flipper jobs" or such. Anyone can serve God through their work.
Yes, and I contend that if every human being was guaranteed food, shelter, and safety - we would see an absolute explosion of creativity and service.
 
I suppose it was more of an indirect and more polite way of saying that you're not special. Also - I pointed out there are currently men and women who work more difficult/dangerous jobs than you, yet get paid less.

This notion of "deserve" is the notion I'm challenging.

Got it, you took my example to be me bitching that I'm underpaid, which I wasn't saying. I was just using the most immediate example I could think of. but this wouldn't be fym if people didn't make assumptions like that. Half the debates in here are people explaining and re-explaining their point when someone misunderstands/adds their own implications to a post. Like the part about how you're under the impression that I don't think people with more dangerous/stressful/demanding/requiring more education or more responsibility deserve to be paid better than I do--now maybe you're not accusing me of hypocrisy and I'm just as guilty of reading too much into your post as you appear to be. Sure, I think a combat medic should be paid more to perform their job than me as a civilian medic. If I subscribe to the belief that I should be paid more than the dispatcher, why wouldn't I think someone who does my job x 20 under the threat of enemy attack is worthy of better compensation? It has nothing to do with being special.
 
Back
Top Bottom