Good morning, all.
another diatribe?
Diatribe? Moi? I just defend my admittedly somewhat unpopular opinions.
you might lose your 'Young Republicans' membership
I lost that years ago. Now I am an 'Ungracefully Aging Republican".
your reply focuses too much on the individual. i do believe that "anyone can do it," in the sense that any individual has the capacities to make it in the market. however, not everyone can do it in the sense that a capitalism, by its very nature, doesn't provide enough work to provide for all members in the society. if there are 100 people and 95 jobs, not everyone can make it.
In the "5 myths of welfare" that Dystopic cites, myth 5 is about creating public jobs, not just public handouts, which I would support. However, at the less than 5% current national unemployment, everybody that can (or wants to) work is working. So, do we need to fund a 1930s style CCC program? Maybe we do, as a way to teach job skills and help those at the bottom move up.
if there are 100 people and 95 jobs, not everyone can make it. in this sense, capitalism must produce poverty
If there are 95 jobs. In a perfect world, a capitalistic society would create 101 jobs. Granted, the jobs at the bottom would be just oiling the machines, but they would be there.
"But when the 'economic cake' shrinks,
But as long as our GNP is growing our "economic cake" is growing, too? Isn't it? Or am I missing something?
The whole argument about NAFTA centered on whether or not a growing global economy would harm or help us. I think that it is helping the world, and helping us as a side effect, but there are people who are being hurt in the process, which is unavoidable.
and they paradoxically end up working to make themselves poorer.
This argument works well with serfs, not so well with citizens. How many people do you know that are in exactly the same job (not profession - the same JOB) for twenty years?People move up the ladder as they acquire more skills and wealth. That's the point - we aren't trapped in the same jobs.
that our wealth comes from others' poverty.
I'm not taking food out of starving kids' mouths, but that is focusing too much on the individual
I'll say again, wealth
grows. It is possible, if not desirable, to create wealth. If there is more money to go around, everyone will get some, even the poor.
America want to cut it's poor loose and use them as bonded labour ie "slaves"
In a sense, Marcus, we are all bonded labor. I'm trading my freedom for a paycheck. Does that make me an indentured servant?
we have so little in our culture that will help us see the ways we're just actors on the stage of culture playing out scripts that were written before we had a say in it -- certainly no positive examples.
You know, that's true. All of my (sometimes vehement) arguments are based on my personal experience. We really don't have a national vision of how to uplift the poor.
"Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor" is what it says on the Statue of Liberty. Well, they're here and struggling. I suppose we should figure out how to help.
is your name Jack by the way? first name - Imallright
Nope. My name is Igot...Igotmyne Ugetyours.
I think care should be provided to those in need
The scary thing is that the government defines need then, not the free market. That seems like a bad idea.
notice that the 50th, 20th, and 10th percentiles show almost no economic growth?
If what you have said earlier is true, Dystopic, half of the nation should be going down. It's not. The top half isn't stealing money from the bottom half.
Yes, most growth is taking place in the top half. And the goal, like your fence builders, is to get into the top half, not remain where you are. That's capitalism. Also, can you correlate age of worker to that chart? I would bet the average age at the bottom stays fairly young, since we all start out at the bottom.
