No, the US is too complacent and pacified. Things would have to get way worse for actual change.
Unemployment benefit extensions
- Thread starter Mensch1351
- Start date
No, the US is too complacent and pacified. Things would have to get way worse for actual change.
SilverTrain
Legendary Member
What are you talking about? Are you disagreeing that the job market is evolving or are you trying to make some other point? Can you be a little more vague?
Your comment about education not being more important than ever is interesting. In the early 1900's there was little mechanisation, no computers and no understanding of the human genome shaping jobs and the industry. No, education was not as important then. Yes, i do have an ideology - that the baseline education for a society needs to be raised as technology advances.
Last edited:
This is where I agree with you. I work for a large global company and for three years the workers have been getting shafted. Mangers are still getting their bonuses while no one has been getting raises. Insurance costs have gone up and deductibles have tripled. Work loads have increased dramatically and resources have been reduced. All the while people are told they should be happy to have a job. While being unemployed sucks the hostility in our work environment is growing daily. But as you said, no one is saying a thing. We are becoming a society of cattle.
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
There is a difference between collecting welfare and collecting unemployment insurance. All us who earn a paycheck pay for our own unemployment insurance. It's not like these folks collecting unemployment checks are collecting welfare. They are collecting on the insurance which they paid premiums via mandatory paycheck deductions. That's what insurance is for, isn't it?
It's a gross mistake to lump those collecting on their unemployment insurance as welfare recipients. They are often lumped together as leeches on the system, when in fact, this is not the case as those on unemployment are merely collecting on their insurance. Don't confuse the two.
It's a gross mistake to lump those collecting on their unemployment insurance as welfare recipients. They are often lumped together as leeches on the system, when in fact, this is not the case as those on unemployment are merely collecting on their insurance. Don't confuse the two.
Last edited:
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
I can certainly understand why you're confused... That's almost inevitably the outcome when people try to twist reality suit their ideology.
You clearly said in this post, that if people want to share in the success of the economy, they need college degrees.
Yet in your most recent rant, you're whining that everyone at your job is getting systemically fucked over by the wealthy upper management, has been for years, and isn't even concerned about doing anything about it.
So if I as the reader accept your claim that a lack of education is why people in this country are getting collectively screwed by upper management, then I must logically assume that your company is populated with people who lack college degrees... If they had degrees, according to your own ideology, they should be raking in fat bank. Yet they aren't.
You see why you make no sense? You make an assertion based on ideology, and then a few comments later, point out a real-world issue confronting working Americans that smashes your own logic to bits. Uh, hello?
Last edited:
Like welfare is not social insurance which we all pay premiums for at those times when we dont need it?
It is still an insurance program even when its run by the state and is not called that.
Let's be really clear: The Repugincans have no desire to help the unemployed. Their only loyalty is to the rich who buy them their offices - and that probably goes for all of the Congress. The longer people are unemployed, the lower wages they will accept with no benefits or certainty of security and that is great for the corporations. We will soon have a working class that is one big temporary worker pool willing to fight for whatever scraps the oligarchs will throw to them.
midlifebear
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 175
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
mwealex, so sorry to burst your solipsistic bubble, but a public education focusing upon reading, writing, math and history was seen as fundamental to guaranteeing the success of the United State's future at the turn of the 1800's to the 1900's. The local public school was the cynosure of every community and the teachers were regarded with a level of respect that certainly doesn't exist today. It's flaming obvious the history of education in the United States was not covered in the poor education you received. And if you attended public schools, I'm not surprised. The US Government has purposefully dumb-downed the requirements for graduating High School; especially since Reagan was Governor of California and publicly ridiculed by the faculties of UCLA, UC Berkeley, and USC during a series of famous open forums that left "The Gipper" running with his tail behind his legs. He never forgot the sting of being uncovered as lacking the intellectual skills to competently debate the professors working in those State-run institutions. The early 1970's were the beginning of the end for equal access to a quality education in the USA. Trust me. I was there -- alive, well, and paying close attention.
Point of fact, the last "education" President was LBJ who was cobbled by the same economic issues that plague the USA today: a never-ending war to keep the rich invested in a generally thriving enterprise known as the military industrial complex. Martin Marietta is still a great company to own stock in. Coincidence? Nope. From checking my Charles Schwab tools it appears that Halliburton, one of the newer conglomerates, is still a good, safe investment.
Last edited:
We can control the poor. We just scare them about the 'homosexual agenda', the baby killers, the Muslims that want to kill you, and all the other boogie men you can think of. They are the easiest to control. Just watch a couple episodes of Glenn Beck and see how easy it is.
I'd say it's more the old that are easier to control. As a whole, they're much more worried about their security and freedoms, since many of them are retired or close to it. They know starting over is not an option at their age, so they're quite susceptible to fear messages. As you said, just watch a few episodes of Glenn Beck. Keep in mind what the average age of a Fox News viewer is: 65.
Channelwood
Experimental Member
I don't know what your location is, and laws vary from state to state and country to country, so there may be some weird regional regulations where you live. But if by "all of us who earn a paycheck" you're referring to the American public, you are sorely mistaken. The cost of unemployment insurance premiums is borne by the employer, not the employee, in every state whose laws I am familiar with. The UI laws vary by state, but most states have laws specifically making it illegal to deduct UI premium payments from an employee.
If you have an example where someone can show a paycheck stub with a deduction for UI premiums, I'd be happy to hear about it. But that would be an example of a rare exception to the rule. The basic premise "[All of us who earn a paycheck] are collecting on the insurance which they paid premiums via mandatory paycheck deductions" is flat out wrong.
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
I've always wondered why senile old people can vote.
If you can't work anymore because you can't cut it, then how can you possibly cut it as a voter? I think once you hit 65, you should have to take a competency test to prove you're still a functional adult. (and as I get older and closer to that age myself, my opinion on the issue has only gotten stronger)
- b.c.,
An old argument, technically correct but in actually a short sighted assessment based on those whose desire it is to distance U.I. from being anything remotely close to something "earned" by the claimant.
Yes, technically, the cost is borne by the employer, and the people at your local dept. of labor make it their business to tell every claimant that up front, as if to say "we don't owe you 'jack'."
Well, certainly as taxpayers, employees pay (in part) for the support and administration of that program on the federal level, if not on the state, as well as for the salaries of those who work for the department.
Additionally, extended benefits usually DON'T come from those employer contributions. They are federally subsidized (by our taxes).
And finally, don't think for one moment that your employer hasn't already taken into account ALL of their costs, including that of U.I., before they decide on what to pay you as a employee.
So yes, in many ways, the employee does contribute to the till.
I work in California and all paychecks I have earned take out a percentage for Unemployment Insurance, much like Social Security and disabllity. I believe this was the case in NY also but it's been a long time since I've worked there. The UI benefits are half paid for by the CA state government and the other half by the employer for 26 weeks and then it becomes subsidized by the federal government.
Last edited:
What we have now is a backlash against workers rights, probably because many workers now see themselves as bosses. Those workers rights were won by civil disobedience (ie crime, icluding murder, robbery, rioting and destruction of property). Welfare right etc etc are protection money. You can be sure that when things get bad enough this will swing back the other way.
