ITT: People who can't take a joke

How's George W. Bush getting on? Boris Johnson? There are plenty people born into inordinate wealth who are blithering idiots who get sat in top flight jobs on huge wages without any ability because dad's pal is the boss.

I said less likely. I didn't say they didn't happen. Though if they were commonplace, they wouldn't be such news-fodder...

And one anecdote proves what? I can provide plenty stories of unions doing great work for their members currently. Particularly many British ones in the midst of the massive public spending cuts we're undergoing, with swathes of people being forced to take significant pay cuts or simply losing their jobs.

Like I said, some unions get too powerful and become a problem, but they are a great aid to workers treated unfairly and illegally.

 

Kim Kardashian has an awesome ass, I feel its great that she's famous so we can all enjoy it

 

They both released sex tapes.

 

KIM KARDASHIAN HAS A SEX TAPE...


brb.

 

30 seconds or less buddy

It's actually just kind of "meh" but now we're derailing this bitch something fierce

 

And their surnames both end in "N."

 

Pay cuts or lost jobs in times of no profit is how business works, jobs are commodities not guarantees. Unions preventing job loss or wage decreases only serve to drive a company further into down and do nothing for economic recover. The entire point was unions go through extreme means to ensure their employees get their job regardless of circumstance, which is nonsense. They also have a bad habit of trying to combat sectoral shift.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, unions seem to magically believe otherwise.

 

About as much as two anecdotes do, I reckon.

 

Public sector cuts I said, not private. And not cuts that are required. And not all unions can be accused of the same stances and approaches, that's a ridiculous notion.

Guffaw.

The two people I mentioned were a response to a direct question as to how any wealthy person sustains their wealth whilst being poor at their jobs, as you know, and quite a different thing to a single tale about a particular union being bad as an attempt to demonstrate all unions are bad.

 

I have a deal for you guys. I'll personally support exactly equal opportunity in education and career path if I can have an equal shot with super attractive women, sports, guitar, sociability. I want smaller calves so I can run better and I want a faster metabolism.

Edit* I want to be a singer too.

 

Right, his one example doesn't prove that all unions are bad, and your two examples don't prove all millionaires who are poor at their job sustain their wealth. I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, just that you can't really call out the use of only one example when refuting another point with only two of your own.

 

If anything, I agree with folks like Orb/Rich about half the time and folks like Chronocide the other half, as my post from the Political Ideologies thread would suggest:

 

But the point was I suggested a couple of examples because Orb asked in a fashion that implied all daft millionaires lose their wealth, that only the hard working, able ones retain it. I didn't claim that all daft millionaires remain super-rich and only support it with a couple examples. SirMyghin however said ALL unions are bad and supported it with a solitary example.

 

This is a principle I wholeheartedly agree with. I really didn't mean to drag myself back into this; just wanted to highlight that.

Still, I had a spark and I thought I'd try one more time to explain what I was attempting to say before.

If I understand your overall points here correctly, which I very well may not -- you believe our system encourages the principle I quoted from you above, whereas I think our system does virtually everything it can to hamper it.

An important thing I'm going to point out here -- because this is where I think you're misunderstanding me -- is that when I say 'hamper', I don't mean it in some arbitrary boogey-man sense; I don't think (most) people want kids of any stripe to have to attend bad schools, or that (most) people want their fellow Americans to live in tent cities or urban areas below the poverty line. I don't think there's some proverbial dastardly villain with a mustache laughing jovially at poor people struggling.

I think (most) Americans have their own version of the American dream, whether it's picket fences, rock stardom, politics, etc, and I don't believe (most) of us wish to directly or indirectly inhibit anyone else's progress. All that said, without money nothing happens, and it's that simple. If the people have little-to-no income, they're not generating any revenue for their locally (or federally) funded services.

Without the money, public transportation suffers -> less buses for those who can't afford cars to get to work -> less opportunity

Without the money, public schools suffer -> fewer teachers, less 'non-essential' (elective/extracurricular/music!!!) curriculum, less gifted/talented programs (if any), more kids per class room, etc -> less opportunity

Without the money, public safety suffers -> fewer police, fire fighters, road upkeep, increased crime -> less opportunity

Without the money, dietary options suffer -> fewer grocery stores, less fresh product in grocery stores, less restaurants serving decent food, more cheap fast food chains, and with the rising costs of food being what they have been, these people can't afford good fresh food, anyway -> less opportunity

And that's all I'm getting at. I'm not speaking to politics or public policy; just making the observation that money makes the World go round, and the closest thing to an 'easy' button that exists in our system is the possession of wealth. I'm not crying injustice; just calling an orange an orange.

 

I agree with a lot of what orb has said.

I don't however understand why any of it means we can't help people?

 

Just consolidating to save space.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying and I think you are on the right track with respect to my points.

In response to yours, I agree, money makes the world go 'round. But my question is, where does the money to pay for all these things come from - in your opinion? Is it taxes? Is it the wealthy? Is it successful individuals?

That's what I've never understood about some Liberal/Lefty mindsets (not necessarily yours personally) that is, you want all these wonderful services to pay for all these programs and benefits, ya know, improve everyone's quality of life, I get that. But yet at the same time you revile those that are successful and become wealthy because they're never paying *enough* unless they're knocked down a few levels. I mean it's like this great equalizer, too wealthy? Pay more for services for people that can't afford them! Bring them up and level the playing field!

But then, where's the incentive to succeed and really excel at anything? I mean, if you know you're going to run a company and make money, why would you bother if someone is reaching into your pocket and squeezing your tit till it's purple and emptying your wallet?

I look at it with a guitar analogy, say you scrounged and saved to buy a Blackmachine 7, whatever the fucking model is, let's say it's expensive for arguments' sake. So you have this super nice guitar, you worked hard for it, why the fuck would you just *give* it to some fucking numbnut, for free? Because he doesn't have one?

So you say, well that other guy can't get one. He's tried saving and all he can afford is an SX strat. My advice to him is, work your ass off! Save. Even if it takes YEARS, you'll earn that bitch and enjoy the living fuck out of it. And if you don't get to save up to that B7 or whatever, you'll *at least* be able to buy a Bernie Rico Jr. or some other sweet axe.

The money you talk about to fund public services and make everyone's lives better just has to come from somewhere, so I just don't understand the mentality of people that think like "hey, that guy over there has a bigger slice of pie, I *want* it!!!! Gimme it!!!"

 

Nothing wrong with helping people at face value, but unfortunately *some* people will take the help and never help themselves. They *don't* want a hand-up, they want a hand-out. Gimme gimme gimme. And then there's some that even with the best of intentions, accept a hand-up, and then screw it up, and blow it, and then end up hating the system and getting discouraged too easily.

Help is a good thing, so is charity, but people should never, EVER rely on them to succeed or exist as the basis of their lives. And *some* do. That's my only issue.

 

This is entirely true. The problem is that it's generally cheaper to pay out and let the system be abused to a degree, than to means test it on such a level that it's only the deserving and needy who receive help.

I'm a big supporter of high taxation so as to provide the needy with help and to have things like the NHS and free education. And I mean much higher than we in the UK have already (which is already much higher than you have in the states, which compared with most nations is very low). The Scandinavian nations have amongst the strongest economies and highest living standards in the world, with brilliant education and healthcare services because of their high taxation and huge public spending. They're a model I think the rest of the world should pay more attention to.

 

Well that's the thing, no one agrees to what *degree* the abuse should be tolerated unfortunately. I'm sure my standards and yours on that bit would probably differ greatly

As to the taxation point, I understand the need for taxes, I just don't understand the need to tax the living shit out of people because to me, it too quickly removes the incentive to be successful in the first place. If European countries are at one end of the scale with respect to taxation, and the US is on the other, I would say the best solution is probably to meet somewhere in the middle. I don't think we should swing full force though in the other direction (towards Euro countries).