Why should I work? (1 Viewer)

[ModernDiogenes]

That's because blacks are only 13% of the populace.

That’s a separate issue.

People don’t desire to live in restrictions of circumstance. They rebel against it. So why, in the case of the Black community, is a larger percentage of their number living in a chaining of economic constriction, generation into next generation? It’s not normal and other than the native population of the US hasn’t been experienced by any other group coming out of our ghettos.

I doubt it’s all on the Black community. How much is their stagnation attributable to their own doing and what percentage of it is restriction from outside their own community? I’d presume it takes both.

If any of it is on outside forces acting upon them we have an obligation to remove it before impressing on their community the obligation for lifting by boot straps.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Um, so what? That is a theoretical exercise that ignores much more is needed to run a pizza shop than just kitchen labor.

An employee being (somehow) entitled to some percentage of the return on investment (aka profit) of their employer is only a theoretical exercise, thus only ‘works’ (exists?) on paper.

I seriously doubt that an employer (job creator) would have decided to risk investing in (and managing) a Pizza business where they were allowed to profit no more than each of their (hourly?) employees. They would be far better off becoming an employee of such a Pizza business.

 

[Paradoxical]

Ever since humans walked the face of this planet, it has been this way, and the New Democrats and socialists imagine that they are gods and can change centuries of evolution in a few decades. Were there not multitudes of poor people when the kings, queens and emperors and a small band of loyal supporters ruled the masses? Was there ever a time when everyone had the same as everyone else, or even close to that? No, the world has always been run by the rich and powerful. Nearly every one of them worked and schemed their ways to the top, often working 16-hour days, sacrificing friends and family. The elected people now get paid lavishly and enjoy insider trading, donations, travel and power. That isn't enough. They need to control others to feel powerful and good about themselves. Some want to tinker with humanity and evolution and get their worth from being able to take from the rich and give to the poor.

While this salves their guilt, GIVING people things they didn't earn is a soul destroyer. People need to feel they are worth something and doing good and all we can do is all we can do. The OP writer imagines she should be able to do the impossible and feels sad that she can't. Who wouldn't? This is what true empathy is. She wants to make someone's life better, and the system is such that she is swimming uphill. Not all of the salmons make it. Only a few survive the treacherous currents. That doesn't mean the salmon should all stop swimming.

The ones who struggle and persevere through the strong currents and uphill climbs and jumps are the only ones victorious. As humans all we can do is tell people how to swim and teach them, if need be. We cannot make them. The only power we all have is to change who we are. And if we exert all of our strength and courage to help others and that wasn't enough, it is no longer our problem. It is the person who refused to listen and do the hard work of swimming against the current of obstacles, sadness, worry and all the bad things that have happened to them. When we can truly say I did my best and it still wasn't enough to save him or her, that is all that matters.

 

[Paradoxical]

That’s a separate issue.

People don’t desire to live in restrictions of circumstance. They rebel against it. So why, in the case of the Black community, is a larger percentage of their number living in a chaining of economic constriction, generation into next generation? It’s not normal and other than the native population of the US hasn’t been experienced by any other group coming out of our ghettos.

I doubt it’s all on the Black community. How much is their stagnation attributable to their own doing and what percentage of it is restriction from outside their own community? I’d presume it takes both.

If any of it is on outside forces acting upon them we have an obligation to remove it before impressing on their community the obligation for lifting by boot straps.

One word: Culture.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

What nation that has stronger socialist institutions than the US do you consider stagnant?

Canada?
European nations?
Nordic block countries?
Japan?
China?

You are conflating, as many do, actual socialism with democratic socialism. They aren’t the same thing.

I’m talking places like Cuba,Trotsky’s Russia.

Where the government actually owns and operates the means of production. Even China, today, is a hybrid. It’s not actually communist or socialist.

The only place actual socialism works, but that depends on how feminist one us as women get the short end of the stick, are the kibbutz in Israel, and that is because they aren’t big enough to exceed the reach of “one man one say” in everything that goes on.

The second you exceed that grasp and require a representative body you establish an elite class and their goes Marxism out the window. Even Marx acknowledged that before he died, stating his ideas could never actually work because of that short coming.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

One word: Culture.

Culture isn’t formed in a vacuum.

So again, how much is a result of internal and how much external?

 

[gbg3]

This seems to be a very active thread this morning, albeit an older thread. The only comment I've read so far is comment 1. This sentence really grabbed my attention.

This is especially important because if I'm trying to convince someone to get a job that pays enough they might lose out on essential services they've been relying on to survive.

This is a huge problem our country needs to address. When we have reached a point where people think it's optional to work to support one's own needs, with another viable option being to have the government support them instead, we've created a mess. I suspect this is exactly why many in Congress believe some types of government assistance need to be tied to proof of work. Government helping people stay afloat and, hopefully, working toward staying afloat or advancing without help - is one thing. Government simply supporting able people who make a choice to not work - is quite another thing and illogical.

 

[WillyPete]

I work a job where that's a very common question. Most of the people I work with struggle with getting a good job and for some of them they don't see the point in getting a job at all, other than to survive. What I mean is when I ask why should I work isn't "what do I need to do to survive?". This means threatening them with reduced benefits won't stop them from needing benefits. It just means they go without something they need. It's "why should I put in the time and energy to a job where they won't pay me enough to live and not just survive"? This is especially important because if I'm trying to convince someone to get a job that pays enough they might lose out on essential services they've been relying on to survive. In other words I'm asking them to take a serious risk when there's no real benefit to be seen. To say nothing if there aren't actually any good paying jobs in their area or the jobs are only temp or only part-time with no benefits.

So genuine question, why should a person work, especially when they know that it's not in their best interests to do so?

Yes, that seems like a broken incentive arrangement.

I expect we'd do better by offering people a reward for good behavior, rather than punishing bad behavior.

In this case, it seems like it should be possible to provide enough of a tax cut to make holding ANY legal job preferable to using public aid.

Say the average is 10k in benefits, you just make the first 12k of income tax free. Maybe the incentive grows a bit each year, so people are encouraged to stay employed.

I'm sure that math is complicated, but the concept is simple enough.

These don't need to be massive rewards to be effective, people will seize upon them naturally, it's how we're wired to behave.

Reward the behavior you want, and you'll get more of it.

 

[NatMorton]

An employee being (somehow) entitled to some percentage of the return on investment (aka profit) of their employer is only a theoretical exercise, thus only ‘works’ (exists?) on paper.

I seriously doubt that an employer (job creator) would have decided to risk investing in (and managing) a Pizza business where they were allowed to profit no more than each of their (hourly?) employees. They would be far better off becoming an employee of such a Pizza business.

The hypocrisy here is that these same people who demand a kitchen worker get $75/hour wouldn't dream of purchasing goods or services priced higher than they team those products or services are worth. They are allowed to assess value fairly for themselves but that same behavior from others should be considered exploitation.

It's remarkably selfish when you think about it.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Ever since humans walked the face of this planet, it has been this way, and the New Democrats and socialists imagine that they are gods and can change centuries of evolution in a few decades. Were there not multitudes of poor people when the kings, queens and emperors and a small band of loyal supporters ruled the masses? Was there ever a time when everyone had the same as everyone else, or even close to that? No, the world has always been run by the rich and powerful. Nearly every one of them worked and schemed their ways to the top, often working 16-hour days, sacrificing friends and family. The elected people now get paid lavishly and enjoy insider trading, donations, travel and power. That isn't enough. They need to control others to feel powerful and good about themselves. Some want to tinker with humanity and evolution and get their worth from being able to take from the rich and give to the poor.

That is a historical rewrite.

It is the wealthy and powerful who have, historically, rigged the game to not only remain so but add to the divide.

Given you are so wrong about this everything you build upon its foundation is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Yes, that seems like a broken incentive arrangement.

I expect we'd do better by offering people a reward for good behavior, rather than punishing bad behavior.

In this case, it seems like it should be possible to provide enough of a tax cut to make holding ANY legal job preferable to using public aid.

Say the average is 10k in benefits, you just make the first 12k of income tax free. Maybe the incentive grows a bit each year, so people are encouraged to stay employed.

I'm sure that math is complicated, but the concept is simple enough.

These don't need to be massive rewards to be effective, people will seize upon them naturally, it's how we're wired to behave.

Reward the behavior you want, and you'll get more of it.

Sure that might work, but it still doesn't solve my immediate problem. Does that make sense?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

This seems to be a very active thread this morning, albeit an older thread. The only comment I've read so far is comment 1. This sentence really grabbed my attention.


This is a huge problem our country needs to address. When we have reached a point where people think it's optional to work to support one's own needs, with another viable option being to have the government support them instead, we've created a mess. I suspect this is exactly why many in Congress believe some types of government assistance need to be tied to proof of work. Government helping people stay afloat and, hopefully, working toward staying afloat or advancing without help - is one thing. Government simply supporting able people who make a choice to not work - is quite another thing and illogical.

I absolutely agree, it's a messed up system I work for. That being said, it doesn't help me with what I need to do today. I need to convince people who aren't capable of working, to work.

 

[NatMorton]

I need to convince people who aren't capable of working, to work.

Again, the only sound advice to this is don't bother. By definition, you are being asked to do the impossible.

You now face a choice: simply go through the motions and collect your paychecks or go find a new job that will offer you work that is more emotionally satisfying.

 

[BirdinHand]

I suspect we will eventually be forced to address this directly. It would work so much better if we created it with intention

Yep.

This will be where we eventually arrive.

The question is…are we going to do it correctly?

It’s not looking promising. It’s looking like we will wind up with abject poverty vs. a level of dignity.

 

[Paradoxical]

Culture isn’t formed in a vacuum.

So again, how much is a result of internal and how much external?

100% internal

 

[BabaVoss]

Yep.

This will be where we eventually arrive.

The question is…are we going to do it correctly?

It’s not looking promising. It’s looking like we will wind up with abject poverty vs. a level of dignity.

Agreed. We didn’t learn anything from the time of serfs and lords, apparently.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The hypocrisy here is that these same people who demand a kitchen worker get $75/hour wouldn't dream of purchasing goods or services priced higher than they team those products or services are worth. They are allowed to assess value fairly for themselves but that same behavior from others should be considered exploitation.

It's remarkably selfish when you think about it.

In the theoretical land of unicorns and rainbows someone (other than themselves, of course) would invest in, start and manage a Pizza business for the same pay as they would receive by working in one owned and managed by someone else. Obviously, it’s only theoretical that a typical full-time Pizza business worker would be paid $156K/year.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

100% internal

Opinion: That is, at least to some extent to be determined, fundamentally wrong and likely just a little racist.

Nothing is 100%, thus exclusively, one group’s fault in a society that is a conglomerate of groups sharing resources and space. There is usually enough blame to go around.

 

[NatMorton]

In the theoretical land of unicorns and rainbows someone (other than themselves, of course) would invest in, start and manage a Pizza business for the same pay as they would receive by working in one owned and managed by someone else. Obviously, it’s only theoretical that a typical full-time Pizza business worker would be paid $156K/year.

Don't forget about the emotional satisfaction they gain by advocating for such nonsense. It's really what it all comes down to.

 

[bongsaway]

But it is the governments fault. Corporations do what is best for them by the laws and regulations they must follow. The government makes these laws and regulations.

It is president Clinton's fault. He signed into law the global free trade agreements that have had out union wage manufacturing jobs move to other countries.

Horseshit. The government does not control what corporate America charges their customers If you want a good steak but don't want to pay the price, you are welcome to not pay the price. I learned that from Republicans. What the markets will bear, that's another one I like and now all of a sudden you want to blame government, I'm shocked.

 

[Paradoxical]

That is a historical rewrite.

It is the wealthy and powerful who have, historically, rigged the game to not only remain so but add to the divide.

Given you are so wrong about this everything you build upon its foundation is fundamentally flawed.

All righty then. Let me give you a true-life example proving how humanity is, instead of some theories by academics who imagine that a world can operate where there is no class system, and everyone has the same with their being no poor people and no rich people. Firstly, you have to do away with the notion that everyone has the same work ethic as others and that a government can set the wages for labor. When a government does that, it creates worker shortages because a restaurant owner will not pay $50.00 an hour to cook or sweep floors and if he is made to, people then won't eat at restaurants because the prices are too high.

I worked really hard at MLM for about two years in my younger days. I built downlines by creating ads and web pages and studied hard, watched numerous videos, attended seminars, meetings, phone calls. MLM is like life. At the top are 1% of people. Near the top are 5% trying to be a 1 percenter. At the bottom you have 1% and near the bottom about 5%. In the middle is where the masses fall. Those in MLM lie through their teeth with ads that make people believe that you can be where they are with little or no work or by placing a few ads. So, what happens is the bottom tiers believe that and pay an entry fee and do little or no work.

Those in the middle so some work and certainly not nearly as much as the top 5-6%. They would dabble in it, talk it up to friends and relatives, study some and maybe make a few bucks. They hang on for a few months and then drop out because they find out that the promise of little or no work was a lie. The top 5-6% didn't want to tell them that they personally work 12 hour days, 7 days a week and only some of them make enough money to do it full time. They have to hustle, learn new ways to promote, sacrifice friends and family, be on the phone or computer all the time.

MLM is life. It's the way life is and works. Now then, suppose someone like YOU comes along and tells MLM companies something like, "No, no NO! This isn't fair. There should be NO people on the bottom. You guys at the top are taking advantage of them. I am passing legislation that makes you people at the top send 0% of your money down to the ones at the bottom because they are poor people, and you are rich and I am a champion of equity and fairness."

Whayt would happen is those people at the bottom would accept the money they didn't work for and demand even more. The people at the top would join those in the middle and not work as hard anymore because it doesn't pay. The MLM soon collapses.

Now, put Country in place of MLM and you will discover the problem with socialism and progressivism. The COUNTRY would collapse as has been proven the world over.

 

[Paradoxical]

Opinion: That is, at least to some extent to be determined, fundamentally wrong and likely just a little racist.

Nothing is 100%, thus exclusively, one group’s fault in a society that is a conglomerate of groups sharing resources and space. There is usually enough blame to go around.

Tell that to the black people who are successes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Don't forget about the emotional satisfaction they gain by advocating for such nonsense. It's really what it all comes down to.

They are quite generous when it comes to giving (or taking) away other people’s money.

 

[WillyPete]

Sure that might work, but it still doesn't solve my immediate problem. Does that make sense?

I am late to the party, but if you mean what to do about having a job you dislike...

Gotta endure it until you are willing to do whatever it takes to improve you situation.

No one is coming to help you. Perversely that thought helped me in similar circumstances. Gotta do it yourself.

I don't know what "it" might be. Maybe a move or career change is needed.

That's the only options I know of. I've done it, twisted in a garbage job for nearly a decade.

It sucked, but the next job was the best I've ever had.

Take heart! Survival is self-correcting, you can't get it wrong.

 

[BirdinHand]

Actually, I think a lot of the blame can be placed on the citizens themselves. We have a “Me Generation” of crybabies in this country, people who blame everyone but themselves for the unenviable predicaments they find themselves

I would likely disagree with who the “me” generation REALLY is.

Where I sit? It’s the Boomers.

Generations BEFORE the Boomers and generations AFTER have much greater grasp of collectivism than the Boomer generation does.

The Boomers are the epitome of “I got mine, screw the next guy” and thinking that they - by their own merit and hard work - got where they are in their own.

Ignoring and spitting in the face of the generations that came before them that took strides to make it so that the Boomers could experience the prosperity they did.

The majority of inequality gaps we have seen growing have been because of this mindset.

No, the world has always been run by the rich and powerful. Nearly every one of them worked and schemed their ways to the top, often working 16-hour days, sacrificing friends and family

No, they didn’t.

You are conflating, as many do, actual socialism with democratic socialism

I’ve done no such thing. You’ve made an incorrect assumption.