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.

 Jubear wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Well obviously we need the government to stop providing for people then, don't we?

Not every person, but still. If the fact that the government paying for someone so as that people can " learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues", obviously we need to stop letting people learn they will be taken care of.

Seriously, look at the rest of the world. We have far more generous welfare, and much higher minimum wages, and much higher social mobility. Your theory that welfare makes people stay there is complete and total bunk.

Yeah, 19% of welfare recipients are on welfare for less than 7 months.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

 cincydooley wrote:

Like thru a voucher system that allows students to be bussed out of failing schools at that schools expense? Already done.

Well, at the expense of the people who support that school by way of taxation.

And, bear in mind, it is very difficult to create a voucher system which reduces per-student cost without also reducing the quality of education.

 cincydooley wrote:

Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.

Pell Grants were capped at 5,550 USD for the 2011-12 academic year. The average cost of studying at a 4-year, public institution in the 2010-11 academic year was 15,918 USD per academic year.

Hardly a free ride.

 cincydooley wrote:

There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues.

They might also learn that many people write them off as lower class (read: worthless), and so determine that the probability of successful advancement is very low.

 Jubear wrote:
I am a current great example of this working. I have spent the last yeah getting paid to study by the government (with some part time work mixed in so i have some cash for fun) As a result I have moved out of unskilled retail work and into a much higher pay bracket in my chosen field, Instead of having to work a gakky job full time and spending years studying part time I got to focus on my study and got the result I wanted much easier and faster and that translates into me being a nice little earner for the government.

Exactly. It just shouldn't be that hard to realise that if people have a little spare time and money they might use that to help make something more of themselves.


And then there's this interesting finding I posted here yesterday;
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/

That reports on a recent study that the financial stress of being poor reduces the amount of time that can be spent on more useful activities, which would make it more likely that that person would remain poor. So reducing that stress by making life a little more livable will increase the chance of someone moving up in the world.

 sebster wrote:

 Jubear wrote:
I am a current great example of this working. I have spent the last yeah getting paid to study by the government (with some part time work mixed in so i have some cash for fun) As a result I have moved out of unskilled retail work and into a much higher pay bracket in my chosen field, Instead of having to work a gakky job full time and spending years studying part time I got to focus on my study and got the result I wanted much easier and faster and that translates into me being a nice little earner for the government.

Exactly. It just shouldn't be that hard to realise that if people have a little spare time and money they might use that to help make something more of themselves.


And then there's this interesting finding I posted here yesterday;
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/

That reports on a recent study that the financial stress of being poor reduces the amount of time that can be spent on more useful activities, which would make it more likely that that person would remain poor. So reducing that stress by making life a little more livable will increase the chance of someone moving up in the world.

Agreed its hard to focus on much when you are not sure when you will eat next or how you are going to make rent. To get back to the core issue it is bloody shameful that someone can work full time and have to be subsidized bey welfare, if your willing to work hard (at any job) you should be able to get ahead and expect a decent quality of life. Does a fast food worker deserve to earn as much a doctor? Well of course not but we already live in a world where people with real useable skills (tradesmen) get paid less then a white color office worker and that is frankly pants on head slowed.

 Jubear wrote:
Agreed its hard to focus on much when you are not sure when you will eat next or how you are going to make rent. To get back to the core issue it is bloody shameful that someone can work full time and have to be subsidized bey welfare, if your willing to work hard (at any job) you should be able to get ahead and expect a decent quality of life. Does a fast food worker deserve to earn as much a doctor? Well of course not but we already live in a world where people with real useable skills (tradesmen) get paid less then a white color office worker and that is frankly pants on head slowed.

Judging by what we ended up getting charged for a plumber to come out and look at a heating system, I'm not sure that's true

But you know, that's Perth. Most of the tradies got drawn out on to the mines, and the ones that are left know they can charge whatever they please.

Yeah to be honest I think tradies do quite well for themselves these days but it was not that way not to long a go. I think its to do with a shortage of skilled labor in most 1st world countries.

One of my mates puts it best if you have a job that provides skills that would be useful a zombie apocalypse then chances are you contribute a lot more to society then a paper pusher (im a IT tech so I am one of the useless ones)

 sebster wrote:

The same is offered here, but there's no government subsidy for students who aren't part of degree programs which means you can pay four or five times as much and so no-one other than some bored doctor's wives does it (though funnily enough its still less than you're likely to pay in the US ).

Less per credit, or less per course? And is that absent the various forms of financial aid in the US, or inclusive of them?

Bullockist wrote:
HAs anyone blames the tacos or the burgers yet? It's their fault workers wages are so low.

Well, if wages go up, the restaurants will have to automate and source cheaper meat.

Surplus population...need for cheap meat = PROFIT!

 dogma wrote:
Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?

I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.

I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.

So no, you don't "need" a cellphone, though I'm amused that question horrifies you.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?

I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.

I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.

So no, you don't "need" a cellphone, though I'm amused that question horrifies you.

Before we dropped our land line, I recall my service provided this "answering machine" thing. At no extra cost even.

And let me tell you, that land line was a HELL OF A LOT cheaper then our cell phones. Stupid contract....

 cincydooley wrote:
Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.

Wish that were true There is so much wrong with the Pell Grant and FAFSA that it's not even funny... I applied, every year like I was supposed to, and my pell grant capped out on the dollars it could provide. We were "poor" for the most part. My dad declared bankruptcy when I was 13 years old, we moved house to house from that point until I was 19, we barely made enough money to be over the poverty line, and yet my university education still cost me over 100 thousand dollars in federal and private student loans. Now granted, it was for 5 years of schooling and not 4, granted my degree program was impossible to finish in 4 years without summer classes and AP credit coming in (a fact they neglected to tell me until my first senior year was coming to a close), and granted my grades slipped from a 3.2 to a 2.75 Sophomore and Junior year, but both Senior years I got a 3.4, with a 3.8 my last semester.

There is far too much wrong with the current post-secondary education system in this country that I've stopped telling people they should go to college unless they want to be something that requires a degree. The first question I ask anyone going for any type of degree is, "what job can you get with that degree?" To put it in perspective, my university just cut tuition 37% this year for the 2014 year. It's now cheaper to go to my school than when I started back in fall of 2007. Yet it's still almost 30,000 dollars a year.

Now you can say, "well Alf you could have gone to a state school." I applied for several state schools and a few private schools, and my university made it extremely affordable for the first year. Ohio University was 18,000 dollars when I applied, my university was 32,000 (almost double). With federal loans, grants, and scholarships, they managed to knock it down to 12k, and Ohio University hadn't responded with financial aid. So I went to Ashland University, the worst 5 years of educational experiences of my life. BUT if I hadn't spent that time there I wouldn't have gotten the IT experience nor the fraternity social networking that has landed me the job I currently have.

As for the pregnancies... if I recall sex is still a relatively cheap form of entertainment, so we shouldn't be denying them that. The biological imperative to procreate is very strong, it's hard to deny. And since (from the news I've seen, remember, I'm an outsider) the only funding for sex education has been for abstinence only programs (which have been repeatedly shown not to work) and abortion is a hot-topic issue, I'd say the parents can also be considered victims in a way. Of the system, I mean.

My local example is even worse. We had one of the lowest birth rates on the planet (similar to Japan's) and everyone was scared that the "French fact" would disappear from North 'Muricah, so the government adopted an aggressive natalist policy, which rewarded any family willing to have three or more children heftily. Most people still don't go for it, but some people are turning around because we've let in "those other peoples" onto our fair land. One of my welfare students explained to me that if you are on welfare and have six kids, then you are actually receiving more money than a couple working full time (it scales the more kids you have, apparently) when on welfare.

If only we could all be (American) CEO's, where job performance doesn't matter.

One of the great American delusions is meritocracy — the idea that everyone competes on an even playing field, and then gets what they deserve. In a meritocratic society, we would expect top-earning chief executives to represent the best and the brightest. Or, at the very least, to be good at their jobs.

Consider the case of Richard Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers from 1994 until 2008. Fuld made the list of America’s twenty-five highest-paid executives for eight years in a row, until the bank collapsed under a slew of bad investments. The Lehman bust was the largest bankruptcy in the nation’s history and a defining event in the financial crisis. For his leadership in the eight years prior to the collapse, while the firm was making bad bets and covering them up with accounting tricks, Fuld raked in more than $466 million.

Then there’s Vikram Pandit, former CEO of Citigroup. Pandit made the top-twenty-five list in 2008, earning $38 million. That same year, his firm laid off 75,000 employees, and took government bailouts ultimately exceeding $472 billion. Pandit accepted only $1 for his services while his firm was in the red, but by 2011 he was back on the list of top earners.

These cases of gross overcompensation for poor performance seem exceptional, but in fact they’re representatives of a trend. A twenty-year review released today by the Institute for Policy Studies found that the records of nearly 40 percent of America’s top-earning executives include leading their firms to bankruptcy, government bailouts, fraud-related fines and settlements, and their own firing.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Like thru a voucher system that allows students to be bussed out of failing schools at that schools expense? Already done.

Well, at the expense of the people who support that school by way of taxation.

So what then? Keep the students in underperforming districts and tell them to suck it? Would you be in favor if the state taking over the district (firing everyone in the process)? There are political realities that must be understood before advocating/dissuading these sorts of options.

And, bear in mind, it is very difficult to create a voucher system which reduces per-student cost without also reducing the quality of education.

You're right about that... in fact, I'd say it'd be almost impossible to be "cheaper".

 cincydooley wrote:

Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.

Pell Grants were capped at 5,550 USD for the 2011-12 academic year. The average cost of studying at a 4-year, public institution in the 2010-11 academic year was 15,918 USD per academic year.

Hardly a free ride.

Then the solution is to rein in those cost... part of the reason why College Education is so expensive is because of the ease of getting federal school loans. These schools don't put in no where near enough "skin" in the game.

 cincydooley wrote:

There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues.

They might also learn that many people write them off as lower class (read: worthless), and so determine that the probability of successful advancement is very low.

I simply can't wrap my head around this... I personally know many folks who are successful know who grew up poor (and I mean, dirt poor). I think that those who are abusing the system are small (maybe sizable)... but this is the case where the "good" outweighs the "bad". I don't really have an issue with the amount of $$$ being poured into the system... but, at the same time, I'm not against tweaking the system.... you know, prohibit wellfare funds from being used to purchase high-end cellphones (ie, droids, iphones, etc) or Satellite TV. If you want those, use your own money.

Well, the big reason college education is allowed to be so expensive is due to the fact that the gov't guarantees all of the loans because of the "everyone should go to college" myth.

Make those loans subject to bankruptcy like ANY other loan, and all of that will change. That's why the lending for education is so 'free and easy;' there's a ton less risk with them than any other type of lending.

Additionally, while a Pell grant won't pay for a full private (or in many cases now public) education, they WILL pay for a full year of most community colleges. So honestly, if you want to go to a private school (and I did for undergrad and graduate work, so I feel you Alf) you should have to either pay for it on your own or earn--emphasis on earn-- some merit based scholarships, which are readily available (especially to the working poor and minority groups).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
As for the pregnancies... if I recall sex is still a relatively cheap form of entertainment, so we shouldn't be denying them that. The biological imperative to procreate is very strong, it's hard to deny. And since (from the news I've seen, remember, I'm an outsider) the only funding for sex education has been for abstinence only programs (which have been repeatedly shown not to work) and abortion is a hot-topic issue, I'd say the parents can also be considered victims in a way. Of the system, I mean.
.

Who wants to deny them that? No one.

I'm just saying it's really easy (and cheap) to have lots of sex and not get someone pregnant.

That was the point of that paragraph. Not in the current abstinence-only system. Young people are not aware of the means of contraception, and their effectiveness, or how they work. Some groups (like some clinics in Virginia) even go so far as lying about how condoms, the pill, the shot all work. There is pushing from higher ups for people to have more children, for good or bad reasons.

Really? Thats not how its taught here. Further, I wouldn't think any kid actually didn't have that info available in this Decline of the US Empire level we're at.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
That was the point of that paragraph. Not in the current abstinence-only system. Young people are not aware of the means of contraception, and their effectiveness, or how they work. Some groups (like some clinics in Virginia) even go so far as lying about how condoms, the pill, the shot all work. There is pushing from higher ups for people to have more children, for good or bad reasons.

Ehhh... I don't know how true that is. I think plenty of young people are wholly aware of contraception; they just choose not to use it.

I mean, it doesn't help that popular music espouses to young males how awesome it is to feth bareback. Or that MTV glorifies babies having babies with their repugnant Teen Mom series.

That too. And I agree that the information is available. I can only speak anectodically, but my ex-wife had never heard of a condom except on television, and so she didn't quite know what they did, she just had urges, so did the boys around her, and so she got pregnant at 16.

Frazzled: I don't think it's just the US, if that reassures you. Having information available for free, and much more of it, easier to access than in our times... seems to matter less today. The almost limitless power of that knowledge doesn't seem to hold sway over children, then again I can only speak anecdotically.

Cincy: There might be some of that too. I remember when I was in high school, girls would try to get pregnant to "keep their boyfriend from leaving." Some 14 year olds honestly thought they were ready for a family. We had no concrete idea of work at all, either, I grew up relatively sheltered, so it might have influenced their thinking.

 Ahtman wrote:
If only we could all be (American) CEO's, where job performance doesn't matter.

So wait. If an underperforming CEO gets fired, that's conclusive that job performance doesn't matter?

 cincydooley wrote:


See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.

Personally, I think that anymore with the way our job market vocational systems are set up, it is increasingly necessary to have internet and at least a basic cell phone. The rest of your list I completely agree with.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well, the big reason college education is allowed to be so expensive is due to the fact that the gov't guarantees all of the loans because of the "everyone should go to college" myth.

Make those loans subject to bankruptcy like ANY other loan, and all of that will change. That's why the lending for education is so 'free and easy;' there's a ton less risk with them than any other type of lending.

Additionally, while a Pell grant won't pay for a full private (or in many cases now public) education, they WILL pay for a full year of most community colleges. So honestly, if you want to go to a private school (and I did for undergrad and graduate work, so I feel you Alf) you should have to either pay for it on your own or earn--emphasis on earn-- some merit based scholarships, which are readily available (especially to the working poor and minority groups).

My pell grant pays for an entire year of community college, all 10$ of my tuition. There are ways to work the system. I get the pell grant and a fee waiver.

I started in fast food at 5.75 an hour. Did I make a enough back then? No, I knew I need a second and sometimes a third job. That's how it's always been. If you want more then you have to work more until you move up the ladder. I worked in the orchards or dug ditches. I do what I have to do to pay the bills and get by. Even now I try and get extra work during the holidays for extra money. I didn't whine and cry and trot out every sob story in the book to make you feel sorry for me. I don't want help. I've got two hands, two feet and a will to work. I don't stand around waiting to be told my next task. I do my job and look for other things I could be doing to be productive.

the biggest problem in the working world today is nobody wants to work. They just want a check.

You want more then work harder.

 djones520 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?

I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.

I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.

So no, you don't "need" a cellphone, though I'm amused that question horrifies you.

Before we dropped our land line, I recall my service provided this "answering machine" thing. At no extra cost even.

And let me tell you, that land line was a HELL OF A LOT cheaper then our cell phones. Stupid contract....

As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.

Your statement lacks support. You need data.
In terms of what it does a land line is typically a good deal cheaper in the US, by multiples, even now.

However, if you have a cell phone as well, often an inexpensive plan with a little extra give is less expensive then a cell phone AND a land line. Unless you include my wife and daughter who talk a lot...

"Yes could I look at your 16,200 minute a month plans?" or "cheeka your cell phone bill is more than the rent I payed before we got married!"

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.

Why do we as consumers not have the right to complain about our service providers? Is it because we signed a contract?
Edit: I am curious because I feel like I'm paying too much for the cell phones my mother and I use.

Careful. The NSA has signed a new agreement with them. Continued griping will result in your being put on the "special" list...

 Frazzled wrote:
Careful. The NSA has signed a new agreement with them. Continued griping will result in your being put on the "special" list...

I'm sure my involvement on Dakka has me on a few lists

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.

Why do we as consumers not have the right to complain about our service providers? Is it because we signed a contract?
Edit: I am curious because I feel like I'm paying too much for the cell phones my mother and I use.

Not at all, let's just say that the american cellphone market is (or was, my experience dates from 2006-2010) incredibly cheap in comparison to the canadian one, so seeing an American complain about the terms of his contracts slightly grinds my gears. Back then, it was a comfortable 20-30$ difference on a single plan, and it went much higher with family plans. Our cancellation policies were ridiculous too. ''Pay 500$ or 6 months of your contract, whichever is higher''. And I used to get death threats over the 175$ Cingular would charge for cancellations...

Also, regarding Dogma's and Seaward's argument, there's a clause in the contracts I used to handle stating that cellphone service is not meant to be a primary communication line. I imagine it's in order to placate the surprisingly numerous amount of people that call in everyday to complain that a loss of service made them lose business and that we are legally responsible to compensate them. Still, if having a cellphone is not a necessity nowadays, it certainly remains a very useful tool. My employer is too cheap to provide me with a company cellphone, but he sure as hell verifies that we have one when he does the hiring.

Isn't the Canadian market a regulated one or something? I believe one of the US companies wants to get into it. Thats what the Globe and Mail had in an article.