Re: Wayback/Dan C What World Are You In???


"mario in victoria" <mario5491@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OuY%j.27$7B3.21@xxxxxxxxxxx
Fred Burton wrote:
"Dano" <janeanddano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ktKdnVHmDsYKqd3VnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Louis Martel wrote:
Wayback states " In US there is no one who is poor that didn't CHOOSE
TO BE (caps mine" To which the glib Tailgunner Dan C replies " Goddamn
right".

The "choose to be" statement is so far out that's it's ludicrous. It's
obvious that neither of you are students of US history. Ever hear of
the great depression??? Those thousands that stood in soup lines
weren't there out of choice and they weren't unemployed out of choice
either. I suppose that was before your time(s) so it doesn't
count.The following also may before your time:

My father a naturalized citizen, yes one of those, and WW II vet was
making a decent living as pharmaceutical salesman for a large company
covering a two state area and my mother worked part time as a clerk
in a local small town grocery store. Through no fault of his own my
father began to go blind not exactly a good thing for a traveling
sales person. Of course he lost his job and being now legally blind
was unable to find other employment. At the same time lo and behold
the large A&P chain decided to open a supermarket in this small town
(pop aound 3 thou). Yup the local gorcey market went belly up and so
did my mom's part time job. Mortgage payments, fathers medical bills,
etc with no income. My mom did find a low paying job as a clerk in a
dry cleaning shop in a nearby city. She took a 12 mile one way bus
ride every day as they had sold their car. Now she made enough $$$ to
put food on the table and some how pay the mortgage but other bills
went unpaid. Bill collectors galore came to the door demanding
payment. Were we poor well we sure as hell didn't have much more than
the roof over our head. This went on for approx two years then my mom
got lucky and became employed by the postal system at a decent wage.
The bills finally got paid and life got a little better. My dad died
shortly after my mothers new job. I'm sure he died ashamed of his
being unable to support his family but it wasn't his CHOICE.


My home town was supported for years by a paper mill damn near all
the employable people in the area worked there. In the late 50's the
mill shut down and with that came unemployment. These hardworking
folks many in their fifties had little education or job skills
outside of their mill work. At the same time other factories in the
area (mostly linen mfgrs) closed shop and headed south. The folks in
my hometown did become poor through no fault of their own. They did
not "CHOOSE " that route.

My wife made damn good money selling homes here in FL during the good
times. She now works only part time and out of her choice. The poor
bastards at her office are starving. In todays market some haven't
made a commision in well over 4 months. Too bad you say. Go find
another job. Have you checked out the job market as of late? They
ain't "poor" yet but their on their way.

My neighbor a hard working 39 year old with a wife and two youngsters
came over for a beer the other day. He's worked construction for over
20 years along with his wifes job at K Mart it allowed them to build a
home, support their kids and live the middle class lifestyle. Guess
what due to the housing fiasco he hasn't worked in over three months
and the two months prior to that it was only part time. Oh yes the
KMart closed shop so his frau is also unemployed. He related that
they have gone into their savings big time and if they can't find
work soon they will have to submit for food stamps and other help.
The poor guy was damn near in tears. Did he "CHOOSE" this road that
may well lead to near poverty. No a thousand time no.

Not exactly. Did he choose to work in construction? Did his wife choose
to work at Kmart? Why did either one "only" work in such jobs and not
seek higher-skilled, higher paying employment?

True, but that comment could relate to anything. "Did he/she choose to
work in banking?" "Did he/she choose to be a teacher?" "Did he/she choose
to work at General Motors?" And if the latter, they shouldn't be surprised
that the pension agreement is being rewritten because GM screwed. . .?


Yes, I know that my comment could relate to anything. I thought that it was
obvious. Whatever the road (i.e. career) you choose to walk down, most
likely you made that choice yourself. Of course, no one wants something bad
to happen to them while on that road, but the responsibility for being on
that
"road" is yours, not mine. I wasn't picking on Lou's parents. Only using
them
as an example, since Lou brought them up.



Sure, no one chooses to have big company they work for close or for the
economy to go bad in some sector that impacts you. But the choice to
work
in those sectors of the economy are almost always under your control.
If a person wants the ultimate in job security, maybe they should do
everything humanly possible to get a government job. But if you happen
to love some
other type of job for whatever reason or in whatever economic sector,
those
are decisions that you made for yourself, and will quite likely mean that
there will be factors that impact your job security that are out of your
control.

And that doesn't mean that when the crap hits the fan, that the
consequences
of your choices become my responsibility (unless of course, they really
are my responsibility, like if I happened to own the company that laid a
person off or just plain went out of business).

As right as you are, this deals with specifics, I think.

I don't think so. Different choices you make in your life from the time
you're a
teenager will add up. Do you choose to make yourself as marketable as
possible
for a career? What career path do you choose? Do you work in the public or
private
sector? And so on and so on. All of those choices are largely your own,
and the
consequences of those choices are also your responsibility to deal with,
even when
crap happens.


Does that mean that I don't care? No. It means that I see a great
difference between sympathizing with someone else's problems and being
economically
responsible for them.

<snip>

A few points....

1. Just because something bad happens to you doesn't mean that it isn't
your
own personal responsibility to deal with the consequences. For example,
just because you happened to get some serious illness, a thoroughly
unfortunate event to be sure, it does not then mean that it becomes
everyone
else's responsibility to deal with your personal problem. While it may
not
be your "fault" that you contracted some illness, it's not mine either.
And
I shouldn't be paying for your problems. They're your responsibility to
deal with. Your problems are your problems, and my problems are my
problems. You may think that sounds harsh. I happen to think that it is
harsh for you (through the government) to stick your hand in MY wallet
to solve YOUR problems.

Again, I agree to a degree, but isn't the perfect model something like
Accident & Disability Insurance? Everyone smart enough buys it and pays
into it, and those who never need it technically 'waste' their money, but
their premiums ensure that those who do need it have the benefit at the
appropriate time.

Yes, I understand that it's completely voluntary, but government models of
'coverage' are very similar. The only difference is the voluntary aspect.

.... which is a MEGA-HUGE difference!!!! The 8 trillion pound gorilla in
the corner of the room.



Having said that, I'm not opposed to supporting people who are truly,
truly
incapable of supporting themselves, such as Louis' dad after he became
functionally blind and incapable of finding a job. To me, that's a
different situation.

This doesn't quite gibe. It sounds like you're willing to help the truly
disadvantaged out of pity rather than on moral grounds.

Maybe. So what?




2. There are far too many people who have and do treat school (by which
I mean K-12, but particularly JHS and HS) as some big party thrown for
them and maybe come away with a diploma that's not even worth the paper
it's printed on. And some of these people may or may not get any useful
skills in college or any sort of trade school.

<snip some of school explanation>

I wonder if it's the fault of the students or the educational system? I'm
not arguing, simply wondering.

If someone's treating school as a party, I'm blaming them. That's not to
say that
the school is great or not. But kids can act irresponsible regardless of
the quality
of the school, and it is not the responsibility of the school to make its
students
act responsibly. It's the responsibility of the parents and the kids
themselves.




I have two sets of friends in the US, and they are both sending their
children to Catholic Schools because they like the discipline and feel
their children are exposed to a better education.

And it sounds like your friends are making a solid choice and taking their
responsibilities seriously. I hope that their kids do well and appreciate
it later in life.



I suspect that if you don't have that immense drive to succeed and get
rich
doing it, and you don't have a strong formal education and skills to fall
back on, your chances economically drop way, way off. And it gets back
to making
a choice to educate yourself, to train yourself to have economically
marketable skills that will enhance your earning potential. If you have
not made the
conscious decision to do this, is it the fault and/or responsibility of
everyone else to cover for your mistake?


This shouldn't be about 'getting rich' as much as 'being comfortable.'
Many people (myself among them) are quite happy working just hard enough
to take care of the future and doing okay through the present.

I understand the getting rich vs being comfortable. My point was only that
regard was that there are certainly less than highly educated people who
succeed
economically on a spectacular level, but that they are the exception, not
the rule.
The rest of us have to do it the old-fashioned way ... get educated, get
marketable
skills, and do the best we can.



I have all the toys I need, a house, two cars (more sometimes), travel
every year, have barely five figures in savings and am quite happy. I work
20-30 weekly (I work as a waiter/banquet server) through six months of the
year and take a second job evenings in a fine restaurant for the summer. I
take one to two months off.

I'm glad you're happy.



I could work harder, but don't want to. I don't expect anyone 'to take
care of me,' but I've paid enough into the system that I don't feel guilty
taking Unemployment Benefits two months of the year. And I have free
medical care, etc. (well, not FREE, but...).


Now, obviously, this only speaks to a small portion of the overall
equation
that you and Louis bring up. But I think that it's philosophically an
important
portion.

Good outlining of your position. Thanks.

No problemo.

How's the weather up there?



mario in victoria
--
discussion is good


.

Quantcast