The Worklessness Crisis

[kalm]

It literally fits Robinson’s satire. When you resort to name calling so early you’ve already lost the argument, twatscratcher.

The point, is they both need each other. How does a bank lend money to businesses if the businesses have no revenue because they have no workers?

See? Of course you don’t. Nevermind.

Yeah, because business models NEVER change. here’s a small example of how we (as a financial institution struggling to find people willing to work) have adapted: We used to have 200 call center agents answering phone calls. Now we have an automated “assistant” that allows EACH call center rep (and we’re down about 50 at this point), to hold up to SIX conversations simultaneously.

What does a grocery store do? Put in self check-out lanes.
What does fast food do? Automate the ordering process.
What does amazon do? Delivery robots instead of a fleet of drivers.
What does the trucking industry do? Driverless trucks.

Now, how about you answer MY question? And instead of HOW can they do it, WHY should they be allowed to do it on the backs of those who ARE willing to work? Because you KNOW that’s where the money is coming from. Why should MY taxes go up so these fucking freeloaders can game the system and not work at all?

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

[GannonFan]

Yeah, because business models NEVER change. here’s a small example of how we (as a financial institution struggling to find people willing to work) have adapted: We used to have 200 call center agents answering phone calls. Now we have an automated “assistant” that allows EACH call center rep (and we’re down about 50 at this point), to hold up to SIX conversations simultaneously.

What does a grocery store do? Put in self check-out lanes.
What does fast food do? Automate the ordering process.
What does amazon do? Delivery robots instead of a fleet of drivers.
What does the trucking industry do? Driverless trucks.

Now, how about you answer MY question? And instead of HOW can they do it, WHY should they be allowed to do it on the backs of those who ARE willing to work? Because you KNOW that’s where the money is coming from. Why should MY taxes go up so these fucking freeloaders can game the system and not work at all?

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

Just because people make the decision to have a parent stay at home doesn't mean that they need or should get government spending (i.e. taxes from other people). Like you said, it's a personal financial decision and has always been happening. If you choose not to work, that's a decision everyone is free to make.

[kalm]

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

Just because people make the decision to have a parent stay at home doesn't mean that they need or should get government spending (i.e. taxes from other people). Like you said, it's a personal financial decision and has always been happening. If you choose not to work, that's a decision everyone is free to make.

I didn’t say they should expect PA, but some will. This might be a short lived pandemic increased trend but it could be a longer term cultural shift.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah, because business models NEVER change. here’s a small example of how we (as a financial institution struggling to find people willing to work) have adapted: We used to have 200 call center agents answering phone calls. Now we have an automated “assistant” that allows EACH call center rep (and we’re down about 50 at this point), to hold up to SIX conversations simultaneously.

What does a grocery store do? Put in self check-out lanes.
What does fast food do? Automate the ordering process.
What does amazon do? Delivery robots instead of a fleet of drivers.
What does the trucking industry do? Driverless trucks.

Now, how about you answer MY question? And instead of HOW can they do it, WHY should they be allowed to do it on the backs of those who ARE willing to work? Because you KNOW that’s where the money is coming from. Why should MY taxes go up so these fucking freeloaders can game the system and not work at all?

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

I'm not talking about those people, and you know it. I'm talking about the 25-35 year olds who just choose to "not work" because they don't HAVE to. Why do you keep avoiding my question and changing the argument?

[AZGrizFan]

Just because people make the decision to have a parent stay at home doesn't mean that they need or should get government spending (i.e. taxes from other people). Like you said, it's a personal financial decision and has always been happening. If you choose not to work, that's a decision everyone is free to make.

I didn’t say they should expect PA, but some will. This might be a short lived pandemic increased trend but it could be a longer term cultural shift.

So again, why should I work harder so MY money goes to allow THEM to stay home?

[UNI88]

I didn’t say they should expect PA, but some will. This might be a short lived pandemic increased trend but it could be a longer term cultural shift.

So again, why should I work harder so MY money goes to allow THEM to stay home?

Because you're a privileged, white, imperialistic oppressor. I don't care how poor your family was or how hard you and your parents worked to for you to get where you are, you were born on 3rd base and think you hit a triple. Whether you realize it or not, you owe them!

[CID1990]

Yeah, because business models NEVER change. here’s a small example of how we (as a financial institution struggling to find people willing to work) have adapted: We used to have 200 call center agents answering phone calls. Now we have an automated “assistant” that allows EACH call center rep (and we’re down about 50 at this point), to hold up to SIX conversations simultaneously.

What does a grocery store do? Put in self check-out lanes.
What does fast food do? Automate the ordering process.
What does amazon do? Delivery robots instead of a fleet of drivers.
What does the trucking industry do? Driverless trucks.

Now, how about you answer MY question? And instead of HOW can they do it, WHY should they be allowed to do it on the backs of those who ARE willing to work? Because you KNOW that’s where the money is coming from. Why should MY taxes go up so these fucking freeloaders can game the system and not work at all?

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

As usual, you bitch about problems without offering realistic solutions

Other than the solution of everybody should think like a klam, anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

As usual, you bitch about problems without offering realistic solutions

Other than the solution of everybody should think like a klam, anyway

Kalm likes to trot out the "businesses need two-income households to drive demand for their product so we should tax those businesses and their owners and give the proceeds to people so they can afford their products" argument. There are at least two problems with this thought: 1) it assumes businesses can't adapt to lower demand and 2) that the public assistance is going back to US companies and that we wouldn't be subsidizing the world (especially China, which would be ironic because we would be borrowing money from China in order to pay Americans who would use some of those funds to purchase Chinese products - win/win for China).

[BDKJMU]

That's where the conservation corps idea (should) come into play. Want that welfare check and food stamps? Do community service somewhere and earn that handout. Hell, don't care if it's walking around the block and picking up trash for a couple hours a week. Just fucking do something.

Exactly. I had a long post typed out but lost it and then got busy with work. That's exactly what the CCC should be. You don't "want" to work but you want the Gov't to subsidize you, fine...but you're working for that money. We need ditches dug, trash picked up, forests to be cleared, river banks cleaned, etc...

Agreed. There should be no such thing as welfare for non elderly ablebodied adults, with exceptions for severely handicapped. Should be ‘workfare’, to include job training & rehab.

[SDHornet]

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

I'm not talking about those people, and you know it. I'm talking about the 25-35 year olds who just choose to "not work" because they don't HAVE to. Why do you keep avoiding my question and changing the argument?

[Winterborn]

My reply to Mr. Robinson and not coincidentally yourself is the below.

I’m not getting it and I’m sure I’ll feel stupid when you explain it.

The fact that you do not recognize the vehicle is not surprising and Mr. Robinson probably wouldn't either, yet both of you make comments about a system that you you only look at the surface of.

I "could" explain it but I am going to let you go fishing instead as it is pretty clear from this thread (and the poli board in general) that you haven't dug into the details and are content to ask surface questions (so is Mr. Robinson from what I read of his book).

Teaching a person how to fish does no good if they are not willing do more than just look at the fishing pole hanging on the wall and asking questions about if mono or braided line is better and what lure they should use.

I also find it funny that you quote a letter to the editor, from a guy who promotes a system that would not let him criticize said system if it was implemented and that same system he criticizes, is the reason he was able to have his thoughts published in the first place.



BTW: I have no problem telling you what fishing hole I am at (car is a Yugo) and you can do your own research into Soviet manufacturing conditions and human psychology in such a system. Which is something Mr. Robinson clearly didn't do.

[Winterborn]

I know that’s where your mind wants to go. Some of it is very true…but some of them aren’t free loaders either. A quick example are parents who chose to forego two incomes for the sake of stay at home parenting and childcare savings. That’s a personal financial decision and was occurring before all of this.

But…but…but…WE need two income households to drive consumer spending on homes! cars! other shiny trinkets we can’t live without!!! So I’m sorry but it’s…back to the mines!!!

Regardless…you and I are going to be dealing with this whether it’s acceptable or not.

I'm not talking about those people, and you know it. I'm talking about the 25-35 year olds who just choose to "not work" because they don't HAVE to. Why do you keep avoiding my question and changing the argument?

Some people are just straight up lazy. And then people want to coddle them thinking they will change.

As the door turns on its hinges,
So does the sluggard on his bed.

[Ibanez]

Exactly. I had a long post typed out but lost it and then got busy with work. That's exactly what the CCC should be. You don't "want" to work but you want the Gov't to subsidize you, fine...but you're working for that money. We need ditches dug, trash picked up, forests to be cleared, river banks cleaned, etc...

Agreed. There should be no such thing as welfare for non elderly ablebodied adults, with exceptions for severely handicapped. Should be ‘workfare’, to include job training & rehab.

Doesn't it warm your heart when you find topics we agree on?

[kalm]

I’m not getting it and I’m sure I’ll feel stupid when you explain it.

The fact that you do not recognize the vehicle is not surprising and Mr. Robinson probably wouldn't either, yet both of you make comments about a system that you you only look at the surface of.

I "could" explain it but I am going to let you go fishing instead as it is pretty clear from this thread (and the poli board in general) that you haven't dug into the details and are content to ask surface questions (so is Mr. Robinson from what I read of his book).

Teaching a person how to fish does no good if they are not willing do more than just look at the fishing pole hanging on the wall and asking questions about if mono or braided line is better and what lure they should use.

I also find it funny that you quote a letter to the editor, from a guy who promotes a system that would not let him criticize said system if it was implemented and that same system he criticizes, is the reason he was able to have his thoughts published in the first place.



BTW: I have no problem telling you what fishing hole I am at (car is a Yugo) and you can do your own research into Soviet manufacturing conditions and human psychology in such a system. Which is something Mr. Robinson clearly didn't do.

Oh shit! I dated a girl who dove a Yugo! If the one you posted had been blue I would have recognized it (should have anyway) but I’ve been looking at way too many 60’s-80’s European cars lately. It muddled my noggin.

I haven’t finished Robinson’s book and haven’t yet reached his solutions. I’m guessing I won’t agree with many of his ideas but then again I enjoyed the Fountainhead and recognize Ayn Rand and her ideology of eat the lazy/oligarchy as untenable too.

Besides Robinson is simply applying the rules of capitalism to a “free” labor market in this case. Why do you hate supply and demand?

The answer is usually in the middle. So you can keep your Yugos, Chrysler K Cars, 2nd Gen Mustangs, and Ford Bronco II’s.

I’ll go with this type of “socialism”, thank you very much…

[Winterborn]

The fact that you do not recognize the vehicle is not surprising and Mr. Robinson probably wouldn't either, yet both of you make comments about a system that you you only look at the surface of.

I "could" explain it but I am going to let you go fishing instead as it is pretty clear from this thread (and the poli board in general) that you haven't dug into the details and are content to ask surface questions (so is Mr. Robinson from what I read of his book).

Teaching a person how to fish does no good if they are not willing do more than just look at the fishing pole hanging on the wall and asking questions about if mono or braided line is better and what lure they should use.

I also find it funny that you quote a letter to the editor, from a guy who promotes a system that would not let him criticize said system if it was implemented and that same system he criticizes, is the reason he was able to have his thoughts published in the first place.



BTW: I have no problem telling you what fishing hole I am at (car is a Yugo) and you can do your own research into Soviet manufacturing conditions and human psychology in such a system. Which is something Mr. Robinson clearly didn't do.

Oh shit! I dated a girl who dove a Yugo! If the one you posted had been blue I would have recognized it (should have anyway) but I’ve been looking at way too many 60’s-80’s European cars lately. It muddled my noggin.

I haven’t finished Robinson’s book and haven’t yet reached his solutions. I’m guessing I won’t agree with many of his ideas but then again I enjoyed the Fountainhead and recognize Ayn Rand and her ideology of eat the lazy/oligarchy as untenable too.

Besides Robinson is simply applying the rules of capitalism to a “free” labor market in this case. Why do you hate supply and demand?

The answer is usually in the middle. So you can keep your Yugos, Chrysler K Cars, 2nd Gen Mustangs, and Ford Bronco II’s.

I’ll go with this type of “socialism”, thank you very much…

Sure.......

The fact that you traditionally go in that direction tells me quite a bit about your political mindset. But you do you.

[kalm]

Oh shit! I dated a girl who dove a Yugo! If the one you posted had been blue I would have recognized it (should have anyway) but I’ve been looking at way too many 60’s-80’s European cars lately. It muddled my noggin.

I haven’t finished Robinson’s book and haven’t yet reached his solutions. I’m guessing I won’t agree with many of his ideas but then again I enjoyed the Fountainhead and recognize Ayn Rand and her ideology of eat the lazy/oligarchy as untenable too.

Besides Robinson is simply applying the rules of capitalism to a “free” labor market in this case. Why do you hate supply and demand?

The answer is usually in the middle. So you can keep your Yugos, Chrysler K Cars, 2nd Gen Mustangs, and Ford Bronco II’s.

I’ll go with this type of “socialism”, thank you very much…

Sure.......

The fact that you traditionally go in that direction tells me quite a bit about your political mindset. But you do you.

Well it’s kind of tough not to with an ancom brother, a commie son, and living in a country that’s experimented in supply side/neoliberalism for 40 years.

But worry not! I still have you guys to balance me out.

And shame on you for not appreciating that p1800 reboot.

They’re boxy but their safe…

[Winterborn]

Sure.......

The fact that you traditionally go in that direction tells me quite a bit about your political mindset. But you do you.

Well it’s kind of tough not to with an ancom brother, a commie son, and living in a country that’s experimented in supply side/neoliberalism for 40 years.

But worry not! I still have you guys to balance me out.

And shame on you for not appreciating that p1800 reboot.

They’re boxy but their safe…

Because like the thought of "socialism working this time around" that car only exists as a concept.


And there you go blaming others for your choices.

[kalm]

Well it’s kind of tough not to with an ancom brother, a commie son, and living in a country that’s experimented in supply side/neoliberalism for 40 years.

But worry not! I still have you guys to balance me out.

And shame on you for not appreciating that p1800 reboot.

They’re boxy but their safe…

Because like the thought of "socialism working this time around" that car only exists as a concept.


And there you go blaming others for your choices.

Reaganomics was a concept car.

[CAA Flagship]

I’m reading Robinson’s book “Why You Should Be a Socialist”.

It's a little secret, just the Robinsons' affair
Most of all, you've got to hide it from the kids

[UNI88]

The fact that you do not recognize the vehicle is not surprising and Mr. Robinson probably wouldn't either, yet both of you make comments about a system that you you only look at the surface of.

I "could" explain it but I am going to let you go fishing instead as it is pretty clear from this thread (and the poli board in general) that you haven't dug into the details and are content to ask surface questions (so is Mr. Robinson from what I read of his book).

Teaching a person how to fish does no good if they are not willing do more than just look at the fishing pole hanging on the wall and asking questions about if mono or braided line is better and what lure they should use.

I also find it funny that you quote a letter to the editor, from a guy who promotes a system that would not let him criticize said system if it was implemented and that same system he criticizes, is the reason he was able to have his thoughts published in the first place.

BTW: I have no problem telling you what fishing hole I am at (car is a Yugo) and you can do your own research into Soviet manufacturing conditions and human psychology in such a system. Which is something Mr. Robinson clearly didn't do.

Oh shit! I dated a girl who dove a Yugo! If the one you posted had been blue I would have recognized it (should have anyway) but I’ve been looking at way too many 60’s-80’s European cars lately. It muddled my noggin.

I haven’t finished Robinson’s book and haven’t yet reached his solutions. I’m guessing I won’t agree with many of his ideas but then again I enjoyed the Fountainhead and recognize Ayn Rand and her ideology of eat the lazy/oligarchy as untenable too.

Besides Robinson is simply applying the rules of capitalism to a “free” labor market in this case. Why do you hate supply and demand?

The answer is usually in the middle. So you can keep your Yugos, Chrysler K Cars, 2nd Gen Mustangs, and Ford Bronco II’s.

I’ll go with this type of “socialism”, thank you very much…

You are correct, the answer is usually in the middle. Not your middle though, that's just a rebranded left.

[Winterborn]

Because like the thought of "socialism working this time around" that car only exists as a concept.


And there you go blaming others for your choices.

Reaganomics was a concept car.

Both have been tried. But there is only one I would rather live under.

[kalm]

Reaganomics was a concept car.

Both have been tried. But there is only one I would rather live under.

Nah…the alternate to Reaganomics in America isn’t socialism. It’s better regulated capitalism. We are witnessing the crumbling of Reaganomics in real time right now.

[kalm]

Oh shit! I dated a girl who dove a Yugo! If the one you posted had been blue I would have recognized it (should have anyway) but I’ve been looking at way too many 60’s-80’s European cars lately. It muddled my noggin.

I haven’t finished Robinson’s book and haven’t yet reached his solutions. I’m guessing I won’t agree with many of his ideas but then again I enjoyed the Fountainhead and recognize Ayn Rand and her ideology of eat the lazy/oligarchy as untenable too.

Besides Robinson is simply applying the rules of capitalism to a “free” labor market in this case. Why do you hate supply and demand?

The answer is usually in the middle. So you can keep your Yugos, Chrysler K Cars, 2nd Gen Mustangs, and Ford Bronco II’s.

I’ll go with this type of “socialism”, thank you very much…

You are correct, the answer is usually in the middle. Not your middle though, that's just a rebranded left.

The middle:

Policies that sustainably support a strong working class, reduce hyper-inflation in standard of living markets like healthcare, tuition, and housing, and provide for a high quality of life.

Why do you think you’re in the middle?

[CID1990]

You are correct, the answer is usually in the middle. Not your middle though, that's just a rebranded left.

The middle:

Policies that sustainably support a strong working class, reduce hyper-inflation in standard of living markets like healthcare, tuition, and housing, and provide for a high quality of life.

Why do you think you’re in the middle?

Loaded Question Fallacy.

[kalm]

The middle:

Policies that sustainably support a strong working class, reduce hyper-inflation in standard of living markets like healthcare, tuition, and housing, and provide for a high quality of life.

Why do you think you’re in the middle?

Loaded Question Fallacy.