We're people, people.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Our REAL employment (workforce participation corrected for partime labor) has been dropping since 1980, it dropped massively during the reagan era as real jobs were replaced by part time and minimum wage.

What's a "real job", in your opinion?

If a person can meet their needs and save a bit by working less than 40 hours a week, why should they work more? (Unless they enjoy what they do, of course.)

Why should anyone expect the technical skills they learned in school, decades ago, to still be in demand now? I sure don't expect to get paid much for writing FORTRAN IV programs and punching them into card decks. My experience with CDC and DEC machines is not in any great demand, either.

Or in another field, would you be much good as an auto mechanic today if you only knew carburetors and ignition points?

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

What's a "real job", in your opinion?

If a person can meet their needs and save a bit by working less than 40 hours a week, why should they work more? (Unless they enjoy what they do, of course.)

Why should anyone expect the technical skills they learned in school, decades ago, to still be in demand now? I sure don't expect to get paid much for writing FORTRAN IV programs and punching them into card decks. My experience with CDC and DEC machines is not in any great demand, either.

Or in another field, would you be much good as an auto mechanic today if you only knew carburetors and ignition points?

Anything under 32hrs is not fully employed and would be represented by a fraction, historic REAL workforce participation was higher (by hours worked) that is the only metric that reall makes any sense. Because by other standards my mother who sometimes only works 3 hours a week would be considered "fully employed" the normal participation metric.

The issue with college is NEW graduates are not able to apply the skills they got recently, not with people who graduated in 1972

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Too bad "Needs" aren't actual ones Eh?

If they didn't have all that crap they wouldn't need welfare!

When I was a kid my father broke his back and was permanently disabled and could not find work because no one wanted to hire a liability.

My folks had a house that wasn't paid for and had an ancient beater (hmm a rambler in the 80's), they were having trouble paying bills and providing food and looked into getting welfare. They were told unless they lost the car, house and everything else they did not qualify. They couldn't easily sell the house because they owed almost the full value anyway and the $50 car was basically worthless back then (only 1 & 3 worked on the tree)

I ended up only getting whatever food they could grow out of the garden and whatever deer my father could hunt, needless to say I was very skinny. I did get free school lunches (eventually)

Odd how times change, a good reason to make it easy to get on welfare and even easier to get back off.

The trouble is if these people have no job to get and no skilz, what then, put them and the kids in the street or maybe put the kids in foster homes?

No good solution there.

I have no problem with someone who needs assistance like in your families case, thats what it is there for. The guy that used to live across the street was abusing the system, he was proud of the fact that he didn't have to work.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

I have no problem with someone who needs assistance like in your families case, thats what it is there for. The guy that used to live across the street was abusing the system, he was proud of the fact that he didn't have to work.

Well at least you talk to him (he nods, deferring to the original topic). I'm confused though; I thought Clinton put an end to 'live on welfare forever' with his welfare-to-work initiative. Is that gone? If so when? If not, are your neighbors finding a way around it?

I had acquaintances years ago who were effectively living work-free by being 'disabled' and therefore eligible for SS and other stuff. Husband/wife couple, both gaming the system. They didn't live very high off the hog but they always had a roof over their heads - and a beer in their hands.

[ecomodded]

Originally Posted by Christ

I talk to just about everyone I meet. Some are receptive, some are [not].

I don't always talk about political topics, or religious topics, sometimes it's just a "how ya doin" and a nod... sometimes that's all it really needs to be.

Talk to people. We're not all face-glued to our phones and computers all day. We're human. We're inherently social. We desire contact.

MAKE CONTACT.

I agree , a friendly hello and smile to a passerby can be the difference between feeling that people sure are cold and unfriendly in this city to there is a sense of community in this city.
I should try harder myself to be more 'nice' to those i pass-by, i used to be, i gave up, the grumpy people discouraged me..

[monoshock]

Originally Posted by ecomodded

I agree , a friendly hello and smile to a passerby can be the difference between feeling that people sure are cold and unfriendly in this city to there is a sense of community in this city.
I should try harder myself to be more 'nice' to those i pass-by, i used to be, i gave up, the grumpy people discouraged me..

Thanks for re-railing this thread.

[TheEnemy]

They are gaming the system some how.

He and his family moved out, the new renters are much better, friendly and work for a living.

I ocassionaly visit and get along with most of my neighbors.

[ecomodded]

I'm confused how a thread on being nice to people ends up on hating people. Start your own thread on why you hate losers .. the negativity is not good for the soul.
Sorry to be a *****.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Anything under 32hrs is not fully employed and would be represented by a fraction, historic REAL workforce participation was higher (by hours worked) that is the only metric that reall makes any sense.

Why? What's so magical about working 40 hours, 32 hours, or whatever a week? Wasn't that long ago that longer work weeks were standard practice.

And for those college graduates, nobody forced them to major in English Lit or whatever not-in-demand subject they chose.

[shovel]

If we're to express distaste for those who game the system on the "have nots" end of the scale, we must equally express it for those who game the system on the "haves" end. We've all read about companies like General Electric who earn (and may deserve) enormous profits but game the system to avoid paying taxes, despite necessarily using public resources to achieve their income.

So the topic of recognizing we're all people actually is a good one and one relevant to this very business of inequality, exploitation of well-intentioned safety nets, and antisocial behavior by individuals and corporate entities alike. How?

If we don't know each other, it becomes easier to dismiss the fact that we may be stealing from each other. If I work a 50+ hour week of skilled, critical employment and pay out 40% of my income to pay for social services we all use, and another able-bodied person contributes nothing but still uses the same roads I paid for, enjoys the same stable society whose education and bureaus of standards and civil servants I paid for, etc.. then that person is stealing from me. If we know each other, and he has to look me in the eye, and be made aware of the fact he's living on my effort then perhaps he can begin to feel the sensation of shame that social animals must necessarily feel in order to experience enduring stability.

Tribal societies and small populations had the advantage that mooches and jerks could be shunned and because of isolation and resource dynamics, that could have a very real effect. Bellicose and unjust leaders & despots could be assassinated. Society today is, as this thread started to illustrate, fragmented enough that anyone unwelcome from one group can simply hop to another with no ill effects. Shops have so many customers per day they cannot possibly maintain an effective list of who isn't welcome, and they're so close together that anyone unwelcome in one shop can simply go next door and continue doing business or being a jerk in whatever way got them kicked out of the first place. On the opposite end of that, because we each interact with so many different people in our lives we rarely feel a sense of community that would lead us to even notice if we were shunned. If Ecomodder.com banned me for something I might be hurt about it for a moment but ultimately life would just go on without any interruption and I'd just keep blathering on somewhere else. If my next-door neighbor stopped talking to me, it would take me a few months to notice because we hardly talk now and we like each other (i think?) .

So to tie all that up into a thought, we've changed from the tribal means of managing social stability and the future inevitably happens - we appear now to be facing a problem of managing the distribution of trade media (that would be "money") and of balancing the contributions we each make to our collective well-being.

We can choose to let a solution occur entirely on its own or we can engineer a solution by deliberately thinking ahead and making proactive choices. I think it's obvious which of those I support.