Not at all. Anyone who begins with the assumption of the poor being lazy or undeserving, which is to say, nearly all conservatives through time. Unless you can come up with examples where they don't. I don't care enough to point out the dozen or so times that happened just in OT just yesterday.
Arizona governor calls for volunteers...
- Thread starter Little Raven
- Start date
Not at all. Anyone who begins with the assumption of the poor being lazy or undeserving, which is to say, nearly all conservatives through time. Unless you can come up with examples where they don't. I don't care enough to point out the dozen or so times that happened just in OT just yesterday.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Once again that is simply not true. The assumption is that lazy people tend to be poor. That is a fact. And obviously something which you have twisted around.
Conservatives from the beginning of the party have espoused the virtues of hard work and personal responsibility. That would allude to a harsh criticism of those who choose not to work hard and not to assume responsibility for their own life choices. Because like it or not, a relatively large number of poor may have avoided the situation had they chosen to take school seriously, hold a job long enough to secure promotions, and made good choices in personal spending. The people that chose to laze around, drop out of school, impregnate three or four girlfriends and ultimately fell into a felony arraignment don't have the right to cry victim. That is what conservatives believe. It has nothing to do with the act of being poor, and everything to do with the circumstances of being poor.
Some people are poor despite the life choices, and those deserve our support. The ones that are poor because of very poor life choices might not.
~Chris
I'd hardly call those problems a matter of laziness... For example, being stupid in personal finance is a matter of ignorance, not a matter of simply being too lazy. When a person thinks that a payday lending is a good idea, that's not because they're lazy.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Good point. I suppose I misused the word. Poor life choices, which would include the act of being lazy, is much better.
However, it's not too hard to figure out basic personal financing if one were to check out a book or two from the library, or utilize an internet kiosk and do some research. Avoiding that to catch up on American Idol could be construed as laziness.
However, it's not too hard to figure out basic personal financing if one were to check out a book or two from the library, or utilize an internet kiosk and do some research. Avoiding that to catch up on American Idol could be construed as laziness.
Once again, you prove me right. You make the assumption that they are poor because they are lazy. But it is your assumption, and it is based on nothing except the assuming a moral lack on the part of the poor.
In the real world, some people do make poor choices. However, there is simply no escaping the fact that the economy will not provide enough jobs for everyone able and willing to work. So an external condition, the fact that the number of jobs is less than the number of available workers, and you assume that the people who cannot find work are lazy. What about those for whom jobs do not exist?
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Mark said conservatives demonize the poor.
I say conservatives demonize the lazy (and to Bill's credit...the "folks who've made poor life choices".
So where is the conflict here? Do you seek to prove me wrong on the above exchange?
And BTW: would you conclude that most poor are poor because of bad choices, hard luck, or something else? Curious what you think "makes" your average poor person. And careful: I have said many times on here that the poor aren't lazy, but typically the lazy are poor.
~Chris
I say conservatives demonize the lazy (and to Bill's credit...the "folks who've made poor life choices".
So where is the conflict here? Do you seek to prove me wrong on the above exchange?
And BTW: would you conclude that most poor are poor because of bad choices, hard luck, or something else? Curious what you think "makes" your average poor person. And careful: I have said many times on here that the poor aren't lazy, but typically the lazy are poor.
~Chris
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Heck, I don't know. If I knew that, I might be a household name.
I'll concede that during difficult economic environments there are a vast number of people (hard working and educated) that cannot find work. But during the periods of full employment (5% or less), most times the people not working are not working because of some factor, chosen by them, that prevented them from being marketable. That, in a sense, is a poor life choice.
Normally though a period of economic recession doesn't necessarily mean those temporarily unemployed are driven to poverty. The safety nets for that are good and fair.
~Chris
I'll concede that during difficult economic environments there are a vast number of people (hard working and educated) that cannot find work. But during the periods of full employment (5% or less), most times the people not working are not working because of some factor, chosen by them, that prevented them from being marketable. That, in a sense, is a poor life choice.
Normally though a period of economic recession doesn't necessarily mean those temporarily unemployed are driven to poverty. The safety nets for that are good and fair.
~Chris
And now you call 5% unemployment "full employment". How does that not set off any alarms for you? During the best possible times, 5% of the people who would chose to be working that day, cannot find work. In the middle Aughts, which were fairly good times, the labor force participation rate in the US got up to around 2/3 of American adults below retirement age being in the workforce. What's that, 140 million people total? So 5% is 7 million people that would have worked that day if there have been jobs for them. And that's a good day. If a good day means that 7 million people cannot find work, then what exactly are their options?
kosiosko 1
King
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 992
@ Cutlass
to your 7 million i would also add the millions of people working 2 part time jobs just keeping their heads above water. its probably why America is so religious , people praying they don't get sick, or can meet the rent payment, it's an odd concept that poor people don't work, or that its a single parent raising 2 kids poor life choices that led to her being divorced
to your 7 million i would also add the millions of people working 2 part time jobs just keeping their heads above water. its probably why America is so religious , people praying they don't get sick, or can meet the rent payment, it's an odd concept that poor people don't work, or that its a single parent raising 2 kids poor life choices that led to her being divorced
yellow_peril
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30
No, that's completely wrong. A vast majority of those 5% are unwilling to work (retired or lazy) or unable to work (students). Basic economics.
kosiosko 1
King
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 992
how can you have basic economics if the basic statistics are wrong , wouldn't that mean basic economics were based on faulty information
No, that's completely wrong. That figure only includes those people actively looking for work. The retired, full time students, all unwilling to work, or unable to work, are not included as part of the labor force. The unemployment rate is not the part of the US population that is not working. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the workforce of the US that is unemployed. And the workforce does not include those people who choose to not work.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Yea, economists call full employment (ie. structural employment) 5%.
For the mid-aughts there was discussion that the number should be lowered to reflect the current reality for the time of around 3-4%. There will always be residual unemployment with people undergoing career changes, going back to school, etc which is why this number exists. Full employment, in real terms, is virtually impossible and to my knowledge has never happend. Even during WWII the working-male employment was less than 99%.
A segment of the unemployed aren't necessarily unable to find work...other factors are in play here....
Surely you aren't arguing against the notion that a large number of these unemployed simply don't want to work, are you?
Yea, economists call full employment (ie. structural employment) 5%.
Full employment, in real terms, is virtually impossible and to my knowledge has never happend. Even during WWII the working-male employment was less than 99%.
A segment of the unemployed aren't necessarily unable to find work...other factors are in play here....
Surely you aren't arguing against the notion that a large number of these unemployed simply don't want to work, are you?
The people who don't want to work are not counted in U3. The most common unemployment number is only those people currently looking for work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics
So, yes, on a good day there are 7 million Americans who are trying to work and unable to find a job.
Now, see, here's the part conservatives very frequently do not want to acknowledge or deal with: In practical terms real full employment, as you mentioned above, is not going to happen.
So. You can admit that real full employment is not going to happen, and that these people are out of work because of a lack of jobs. And if you do that, then you have to accept that the system is the cause of the problem. And because everyone else benefits from that system, there is a moral obligation to compensate those who are left out. Further, there is a moral obligation to not starve out people who are left behind by the system.
Or you can take the path of far too many conservatives, and make excuse after excuse after excuse for why those people are undeserving and should be abandoned to their fate.
But Cutlass, if you help one of the deserving ones, you might help one of the underserving ones and that's just not fair to the guy working hard and paying taxes and lucky enough not to get fired for surfing the net all day.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Isn't that the crux of my last post??? Perhaps you misunderstood my use of unemployment in my question to you. Surely I mean the overall number of those not working...not the typical unemployment rate cited by all.
I certainly don't admit "the system is the cause of the problem". I don't think there is a problem with elements of the labor force enduring circumstances which might lead to a temporary situation of unemployment. And I don't know of any intelligent conservatives that would dispute any of that. And I'm not aware of any other system so far tried on earth that dealt with this number of transient workers.
The problem is the compensation part; there are pretty good numbers out there illustrating the segment of society which chooses not to actively seek employment and thus aren't included in unemployment figures. These numbers are pretty big....the reason that Clinton capitulated on welfare reform actually. And it is these people we lambast.
Undeserving doesn't play a part in this equation. Nobody has a moral obligation...not even you Cutlass...to prop up those who wish not to contribute to society. Nobody demands they do...the repercussions should be harsh enough to encourage those who choose not to work to reconsider. And for the rest...there is unemployment insurance, which most conservative leaders have embraced (albeit with much more frugality than the left).
It's not difficult to avoid your "compensation" element to this argument; again, the GOP and Bill Clinton neutralized some of these numbers back in the 90's.
Remember, we are still going back and forth trying to define the difference between demonizing the poor and demonizing the lazy......so I don't see what this exchange does for that. It seems like we are two people that understand labor forces in our economy enough to not disagree on the mechanics of it.
Hahahaha....I'd venture some on this board JR??
~Chris
And yet the problem is that demonizing the "lazy", assuming you could find any significant number of them, is used to demonize the poor. And that's been my point from the beginning. Sure, you can drive a lot of the poor into crime, prison, and homelessness. Which has nothing to do with the "lazy". Because the "lazy" is, for the most part, a fictional political concept used to attack the legitimately poor. No matter what else happens, a person is always better off working than on welfare. And people respond to that.
When there are many millions of people looking for work, and not finding it, some people give up. This isn't laziness. This is discouragement.
When there are many millions of people looking for work, and not finding it, some people give up. This isn't laziness. This is discouragement.
I am in the middle of helping a friend try to find a job. She has been out of work for over a year (lost her job due to the September 2008 banking meltdown) and has been searching diligently. Yesterday was the low point. She was set to start a training class for a new customer service job this Monday, but her background check came back with a false positive criminal offense. So Monday, I will be doing my part to get things cleared up so she can start training on the 15th. She is far from lazy, it's just her work background makes it tough in this market and it is likely she lost out even on entry level jobs due to the false positve on her background check (she already faced an uphill climb on most customer-contact entry level jobs based on her age, weight, and ethnic background). She just finally found a perspective employer that gave her the courtesy of telling her precisely why they could not hire her and now she can hopefully fix the situation. It depends on the good graces and efficiency of Leon County, Florida, so who knows.
And no, it is not likely she could have found out about the false positive by doing a background check on herself. The company that did the background check for her prospective employer only does them for companies, not individuals. I put down the money yesterday to do standard, comprehensive background checks that would be available to her and the false positive did not show up.
And no, it is not likely she could have found out about the false positive by doing a background check on herself. The company that did the background check for her prospective employer only does them for companies, not individuals. I put down the money yesterday to do standard, comprehensive background checks that would be available to her and the false positive did not show up.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Just look at the way people live. Yea...the ones with garbage all over the backyard and twelve broken down cars laying around are just lazy. No fiction there.
Now there's something we can disagree with.
And JR---good on you for helping your friend...give 'em hell!
~Chris
