pstarr wrote:Marx was correct. Overpopulation on a finite planet will turn us all into beggars.
evilgenius wrote: The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.
seenmostofit wrote:evilgenius wrote: The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.
Who would you define as the "working class"? In America, it appears to be popular for children to all go to college, as though a nation of all college grads won't both A) devalue a college education and B) there won't be anyone left around to sell hamburgers, man the movie theaters or bus tables at local restaurants.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"
chris89 wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"
I think there's more to it than that. I know it sounds reasonable and even-handed to ask everyone to "just get along" but there's some legitimate reasons why the poor should be fighting for more and the rich should be willing to go with less. Someone on food stamps can't go with less without going hungry. Saying we need to cut right accross all government programmes is what the rich want anyhow in the best of times. It will have no negative impact on them. That is except for military spending.
evilgenius wrote:chris89 wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"
These things do come about as a result of arguments, but how can we expect some to die for the sake of an argument?
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs
chris89 wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs
What would be a meaningful number out of the 46 million Americans on food stamps?
Even if 45 million of those 46 million Americans have too many cats, a laptop and more than one pair of socks, are the one million legitimately poor and hungry Americans a meaningul number?
Outcast_Searcher wrote:So the two sides are MILES apart and show NO sign of any willingness to work toward ANY kind of compromise whatsoever. And this general trend has been going on for at least as long as the "war on poverty" in America.
Outcast_Searcher wrote: I don't see EITHER side actually doing anything meaningful to fix the overall problem, regardless of who gets elected.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests