Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sourclams wrote:Socialism clearly hasn't worked out that well over the past few years.

Neither has capitalism.

Right these semantics are pretty boring but, socialism is not the opposite of capitalism, socialism builds on capitalism as a framework upon which the state controls the economy for the benefit of its populace rather than always necessarily for profit.

Forbes Magazine's blog isn't "some random blogger"...

Forbes as source? Nice.
The same Forbes that published an article on how men should run like hell away from women that had careers since those make the most awful wives and are most prone to cheat and make your life miserable.

...really nice

sourclams wrote:Manufacturing jobs today don't pay minimum wage. The plants at the company I work for (agricultural, hardly the richest positions in the sector) pay $12/hour starting with benefits. If you have experience on the job or are willing to do one of the more demanding positions, $12/hour bumps up to $16/hour pretty quickly. That's between $25k and $30k per year with benefits, and as I said, that's middling for the sector and ignoring overtime (which can increase your top line salary by more than 20%).

An individual can absolutely live on $30k/year with a 40 hour work week. You are not living lavishly, but you are living comfortably.

Post at least 2 job listings of these magical no-special-training-required factory positions. The only employment I can find around here is barely above minimum wage in a right-to-fire state. I did apply for a $9/hour job (which is the most I've ever made) and get interviewed but the guy thought I looked too skinny to do the work despite saying "I give everyone a chance to prove themselves" and that he'd, repeatedly mind you, call me regardless of whether I get the job or not which he didn't. Another of my friends ended up getting the job and he said he was forced to handle chemicals in an assembly line with minimum standard safety gear. He wasn't allowed to wash chemicals that were burning his arms as that would slow the line. He came to work sick one day and got canned for something unrelated, but it was because he was sick and wasn't moving fast enough despite being told he would be canned if he called in as well. Honestly everything you're saying in this thread is the opposite of what life has taught me. Hell, if someone loses their car how the hell are they supposed to get anywhere to work a better job?

And as for the people who "didn't seek better," some (much more than you'd like to admit) have no or little choice.

Monster Rain wrote:Kronk has already won this thread.

As soon as I saw the thread's name I had hoped to be the first to quote The Jerk, Kronk has indeed already won the thread.

I like the original article, it offers concrete steps that someone can take and offers suggestions about how to acquire the benefits that are available.

A lot of people stay in poverty because they don't know that there are avenues to help them out of poverty. The original author is providing some pretty good advice.

However, I particularly enjoyed this part in the linked Economist article:

One thing I find paradoxical is that highly numerate people, people in the engineering, business and technical fields (Mr Marks writes about the tech industry), are often most reluctant to consider social problems from a statistical point of view

This indicates a glaring and complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts of statistics. This sort of writing is why The Economist is getting more and more disappointing.

Perhaps it's just an idiot blogger.

biccat wrote:This indicates a glaring and complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts of statistics.

Still a better one than your own, however.

biccat wrote:I like the original article, it offers concrete steps that someone can take and offers suggestions about how to acquire the benefits that are available.

A lot of people stay in poverty because they don't know that there are avenues to help them out of poverty.

Uh. Like what?

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:I like the original article, it offers concrete steps that someone can take and offers suggestions about how to acquire the benefits that are available.

A lot of people stay in poverty because they don't know that there are avenues to help them out of poverty.

Uh. Like what?

I'm not sure which part of my post your question pertains to. I'll assume it's the second sentence.

Many kids who don't have access to the internet and news probably don't know that private schools offer scholarships for impoverished minority students. If these kids don't know about these opportunities, then they're not going to have a chance to get them.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:I like the original article, it offers concrete steps that someone can take and offers suggestions about how to acquire the benefits that are available.

A lot of people stay in poverty because they don't know that there are avenues to help them out of poverty.

Uh. Like what?

I'm not sure which part of my post your question pertains to. I'll assume it's the second sentence.

Many kids who don't have access to the internet and news probably don't know that private schools offer scholarships for impoverished minority students. If these kids don't know about these opportunities, then they're not going to have a chance to get them.

a)Not everyone who's impoverished is intellectually in the top 1% and
b)Not everyone in poverty is young enough to go to university
That discounts 99% of the poor already.

Joey wrote:
a)Not everyone who's impoverished is intellectually in the top 1% and
b)Not everyone in poverty is young enough to go to university
That discounts 99% of the poor already.

a) You don't need to be intellectually in the top 1%. I'm sure that most of the rich white kids who go to private schools aren't in the top 1% intellectually.
b) The article is addressed to "young black kids". I'm pretty sure that the target audience is old enough to go to school. You know, 'cause they're kids.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Post at least 2 job listings of these magical no-special-training-required factory positions. The only employment I can find around here is barely above minimum wage in a right-to-fire state. I did apply for a $9/hour job (which is the most I've ever made) and get interviewed but the guy thought I looked too skinny to do the work despite saying "I give everyone a chance to prove themselves" and that he'd, repeatedly mind you, call me regardless of whether I get the job or not which he didn't. Another of my friends ended up getting the job and he said he was forced to handle chemicals in an assembly line with minimum standard safety gear. He wasn't allowed to wash chemicals that were burning his arms as that would slow the line. He came to work sick one day and got canned for something unrelated, but it was because he was sick and wasn't moving fast enough despite being told he would be canned if he called in as well. Honestly everything you're saying in this thread is the opposite of what life has taught me. Hell, if someone loses their car how the hell are they supposed to get anywhere to work a better job?

And as for the people who "didn't seek better," some (much more than you'd like to admit) have no or little choice.

http://www.cargillmeatsolutions.com/Beardstown/employment.htm

On any given week, that location is generally looking for twenty or more people. It's at least representative of most hourly meatpacking facilities in the industry so Tyson, Farmland, Smithfield, JBS, National, and Swift are going to offer similar openings and wages.

Generally all that's required is a GED and all training and necessary equipment is provided; the pay scale and benefits are structured that way. Because bladework is often a requirement, the screening is usually pretty strict; drug screenings, no history of violent crime. From personal experience, I can tell you that it's hard work.

Sorry life has thus far cut you a raw deal. You can bemoan your fate and wail and gnash your teeth, or you can go find something better--because it exists. I know plenty of people with no car who still got to work every day. It's called carpooling, a bike, or a bus. There are temporary measures you can take to build capital in order to move to an area with better long term employment opportunities. Many companies like I just listed offer moving assistance; bus tickets, temporary housing. You can always get a minimum wage job and save for a few months. Just about every larger urban area has some sort of plasma donation clinic, and some even have advanced medical studies facilities where you can 'sell yourself to science' for a week in pharmaceutical studies. I did this myself during a tough stretch in college and made $600 in 4 days (and I'm fine).

The kicker is, if there's no opportunity in your area, be willing to leave your area.

I wonder what a poor black kid would have to say about this thread.

Joey wrote:
b)Not everyone in poverty is young enough to go to university

Don't know about the US, but here it's ridiculously easy to get into university as a mature student. At least, it was for me.

Sorry life has thus far cut you a raw deal. You can bemoan your fate and wail and gnash your teeth, or you can go find something better--because it exists. I know plenty of people with no car who still got to work every day. It's called carpooling, a bike, or a bus. There are temporary measures you can take to build capital in order to move to an area with better long term employment opportunities. Many companies like I just listed offer moving assistance; bus tickets, temporary housing. You can always get a minimum wage job and save for a few months. Just about every larger urban area has some sort of plasma donation clinic, and some even have advanced medical studies facilities where you can 'sell yourself to science' for a week in pharmaceutical studies. I did this myself during a tough stretch in college and made $600 in 4 days (and I'm fine).

Spot on!
The whole entitlement gimmegimme mentality is disgusting, people are so used to getting everything for free these days that few even work that extra mile to find something or come up with something better.
Its far easier to simply wallow in the same spot out of old habit just complaining and getting free things then putting ass on the line and grabbing what you want by using work, intellect and sweat.
...at least over here.

But I guess the governments want that too as long as the population is docile and doesnt question things they will keep voting for whatever sucker promises them the bigger welfare check.

shadowsnip wrote:I wonder what a poor black kid would have to say about this thread.

Probably "I wish someone had told me not to play Tau".

//low blow

I’d become expert at Google Scholar.

This one kind of annoys me, because its an extremely familiar issue.

To be brief, Google Scholar is useful for only one thing: finding the names of articles so you can then acquire them via other means. The issue is that these "other means" generally are not free. Some libraries have access to robust full-text services like Jstore and EBSCO, but the majority of them are not public institutions, and are instead affiliated with Universities; many of which restrict access to their facilities or simply are not easily accessible for those living in poverty (while poverty is still concentrated in urban areas, it is increasingly spreading to formerly affluent suburban communities as well).

Okay, what about people who work their asses off but get next to nothing?

You guys-- yes, you, Pyriel, and you, sourclams, dont' work very hard. You don't come home every day exhausted, barely able to muster up the strength to eat dinner and then collapse on your bed (I know this because you're posting here fairly frequently, so obviously you have plenty of free time). You don't work three jobs like some people I know. I dare say you have a pretty happy life, not because you worked hard for it, but because you were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time so your efforts actually counted for something whereas someone else's just maintained the status quo of suck.

dogma wrote: (while poverty is still concentrated in urban areas, it is increasingly spreading to formerly affluent suburban communities as well).

Source?

I simply don't buy into this creeping miasma of doom and depression that those who primarily have far-Left OR far-Right agendas are trying to perpetuate.

The last three years have sucked. Yes, quite. But 2010 sucked less than 2009, 2011 sucked less than 2010, and all forecasts point to 2012 sucking less than 2011. Economic measures and the markets themselves have told us this. Unemployment has gone down. Job openings have gone up. Companies' profitability and value is generally higher now than a couple years ago.

Yes, there are problems. Net worth was crushed at an individual homeowner level when the housing market crashed. This had far-reaching consequences because for years people believed that their house was their single greatest asset and invested into their house as such. Throw incredibly leveraged home balance sheets via over-reliance on credit on top of it and irresponsible lending to people who could not make their payments, including low-income families, and we built a bubble that only a good stout recession could pop.

The US has actually got its feet back under itself, economically. Things aren't improving as fast as we want, but GDP is still growing and we're making progress. The big problem currently is the unwinding of the Eurozone's own unsustainable social welfare programs, the lack of productivity in southern Eurozone, and the very real risk of European recession that creates headwinds for the Americas and Asia.

sourclams wrote:Source?

Dunno about source, but a lot of neighborhoods are going downhill locally.

But that's just anecdotal evidence. I'm interested in seeing what Dogma finds as well.

Melissia wrote:Okay, what about people who work their asses off but get next to nothing?

Working hard does not equate to creating value. I do not 'work hard' anymore. I no longer put in 14 hour days or 6 day workweeks, I no longer get up at 4:00 am, and I no longer have my arm wrist-deep in a hog carcass or work 3rd shift kill floor sanitation, washing a day's accumulation of blood into a trough, which was largely what my work life looked like between 2007 and 2009. In college I worked, donated plasma, sold myself to science. Professionally, as a liberal arts graduate in late 2007 I took the first and best job that was offered to me, moved across the country twice, and did absolutely everything that my employers asked of me and asked for more once I got that done. My goal was to constantly re-update my personal skill set to have ever-increasing value to my employers and leverage myself the biggest paycheck and bonus contribution possible. I've watched 8 people on a floor of ~75 employees get fired or demoted in the last 3 years, and they were always the poorest-performing individuals.

I now have a desk job as a livestock economist and futures trader that allows my wife to stay home and take care of our child while our family earning remains well above the median for the nation.

Working hard does not mean you should get paid a lot. If I went to my current job with thumbtacks in my shoes and hopped up and down on one foot blindfolded, I would be exhausted, injured, and incompetent by the end of my first workday. I would have also created less value for my employer, be worth less to my company, and any rational hiring professional would want to replace me with someone better. A minimum wage, part-time job is never going to be a 'career'. It was never intended to be a career; it's a starting point for people to build work experience before finding a career track. In a world of increasing automation, unskilled manual labor has next to no intrinsic value anymore. 'Working Hard to Get Ahead' does not equate to showing up in a field 14 hours a day anymore; you need to improve your skill set, sniff out opportunity, and build upon a technical skill/knowledge base.

I can't help but agree with sourclams here.

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote: (while poverty is still concentrated in urban areas, it is increasingly spreading to formerly affluent suburban communities as well).

Source?

Here is an example from Cleveland, and here is an example from Chicago. Here is one surveying major US metro areas, here is another (though it doesn't link to source material).

sourclams wrote:I took the first and best job that was offered to me, moved across the country twice, and did absolutely everything that my employers asked of me and asked for more once I got that done.

Funny, many people do things like this but STILL have gak jobs with tons of debt.

It sounds like you refuse to admit that you got lucky and got a job able to support your lifestyle.

There's just not enough jobs out there for everyone to be as lucky as you. For myself, I worked my ass off in manual labor jobs, got fet up with it and got went and became a certified pharmacy technician, couldn't find a pharmacy tech job anywhere-- there were openings, but nowhere near as many opens as there were people who need a job or want a better job. So I went to college. Now as I try to find part-time work to help pay for college and I can't (including going back to the same jobs I had before even), because noone wants to hire students because there's so many people who don't have jobs that employers can be so picky.

And there's millions more like me.

sourclams wrote:Working hard does not equate to creating value.

Summed this up in a nutshell. I'm not clear were Melissia is going here; is the argument that being a janitor or garbageman is more physically taxing than, say, a stockbroker and so they should be paid more?

Either Biicat or Sebster or someone made a good point on here about that once. Working hard in and of itself is not useful, compared with working at something someone else wants that requires something less common then two hands and a strong back.

Ouze wrote:I'm not clear were Melissia is going here

Don't know why, it's rather plainly obvious.

People say "work hard and you'll succeed", people say "work smart and you'll succeed", but nobody is willing to admit the plain fact that luck is more important than either working hard or working smart.

Just look at the application process itself, trying to get a better job: When ten people apply for a job and only one position is available, it comes down to luck as much as anything who gets picked. If the interviewer was in a particularly good mood that day, or a bad one; judgement calls between several potential employees of equal potential value comes down to essentially random guessing by the employer on which one they think might work better with their company. You can try to influence this value, but then again, so does everyone else; if you're lucky enough to be more charismatic than your competition (or less, if that's what they're looking for), then that again goes to prove my point.

If you get a job because you know someone at the place, again, that's also as much luck as anything, luck in that you happened to befriend them; for that matter even if you specifically TRY to get to know someone at your desired place of employment, if you catch them at a bad time they'll probably mark you down as an annoyance and not want to hire you, whereas if they're in a good mood chances are they'll remember you and be more likely to hire you.

And this assumes equality of skill-- which would be a lucky situation indeed for most younger people. The older generations are retiring later and later, or not retiring at all, keeping their jobs or taking part time jobs to supplement their income, all the while sapping away at the younger generation's income and quality of life for their own benefit through the AARP and other organizations' death grip on social security. If you want to whine about entitlements, there's your goddamned entitlements. Even in good economic times a person with no work experience is going to have a difficult time finding a job that's worth a damn, whether they're a college graduate or someone fresh out of high school; and these are not good economic times.


And so on and so forth. I'm sure it's easier for you to look down your nose at people who are having hard times, though.

biccat wrote:

One thing I find paradoxical is that highly numerate people, people in the engineering, business and technical fields (Mr Marks writes about the tech industry), are often most reluctant to consider social problems from a statistical point of view

This indicates a glaring and complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts of statistics.

Not so much. Its one man's qualitative assessment regarding what he views as a paradox; that people who seem insistent on using numeric data to understand one particular type of the world are reticent to do the same regarding another. Of course, this isn't really a paradox as one wouldn't necessarily expect an engineer to look to numeric data in order to form opinions regarding anything not related to engineering, just as a philosopher won't necessarily look to qualitative data to form opinions on matters not related to philosophy (presuming his philosophy is not already based in quantitative data).

However, the statement above provides no evidence which suggests that the author does not understand the nature of statistics, you're merely drawing an inappropriate inference.

Melissia wrote:

Ouze wrote:I'm not clear were Melissia is going here

Don't know why, it's rather plainly obvious.

People say "work hard and you'll succeed", people say "work smart and you'll succeed", but nobody is willing to admit the plain fact that luck is more important than either working hard or working smart.

(snip)

And so on and so forth. I'm sure it's easier for you to look down your nose at people who are having hard times, though.

At first I thought this was possibly the opening to an interesting discussion, but I saw how you chose to close it. Since It doesn't appear that you actually require me to express an opinion for you to determine my thoughts or motivations, I've decided I'd be better off doing something more productive with my time, like teaching myself the banjo or staring at a lightbulb.

sourclams wrote:
Working hard does not equate to creating value.

True.

sourclams wrote:

Professionally, as a liberal arts graduate in late 2007 I took the first and best job that was offered to me, moved across the country twice, and did absolutely everything that my employers asked of me and asked for more once I got that done. My goal was to constantly re-update my personal skill set to have ever-increasing value to my employers and leverage myself the biggest paycheck and bonus contribution possible.

I now have a desk job as a livestock economist and futures trader that allows my wife to stay home and take care of our child while our family earning remains well above the median for the nation.

So, what happens if you would have choosen the wrong personal skill set to learn?

What would of happened if your wife suddenly became termianlly ill and you had to spend time helping her and raising the children instead of you supporting her by simply working?

How about your business decides to relocate to Southeast Asia?

Let's fac eit. All of us are self-made to a certain degree due to choices you make at any one juncture of your life. However, a lot of luck, right place right time, knowing the proper people, and simply being healthy mentally and physically is necessary to be "successful" in life. Take a closer look at your own personal story of success and think about what would have happened if you would have made a different choice at any different time, or the existing pre-conditions hadn't been there at all.

As for the core article, it seemed like pretty by-the-numbers entitled guy trying to justify why he didn't have to look out for anyone else and was self-made. Typical claptrap type of article that I have read 100's of times. Yeah, pretty practical advice; in a vaccuum.

Ouze wrote:At first I thought this was possibly the opening to an interesting discussion, but I saw how you chose to close it.

Apologies-- my irritation got the best of me.

Hopefully given the amount of people in this thread and online who were doing exactly that, you can understand my annoyance.