Unemployment, and so on

[FireIceTalon]

^^Interesting, heh. I actually used to be democratic socialist, but because it involves a heavy handed state still, just with less free market policies, I now embrace full-blown Marxism which its a stateless or near stateless society. Most people think communism is more extreme than socialism, but this is only partially true. It is more extreme in that it is further to the left on the economic scale, but in terms of government size, it is actually socialism that is more extreme than pure Marxism. Me and Kandrathe are probably pretty close on the social or personal scale (we both prefer a minimum government), just opposite on economics. Some might call me an Anarchist, but I may be slightly to the right of them.

[kandrathe]

Me and Kandrathe are probably pretty close on the social or personal scale (we both prefer a minimum government), just opposite on economics.

When I was 10, we moved out of the city to a very rural area. The kind of place that if you needed to call the county sheriff (there were no local police), you had about a minimum hour wait (even in an emergency). So, when it comes down to it, if forced to choose between living in a total (lawless) anarchy, versus living in a controlled state, I'd choose anarchy. I've been in the position of dealing with extreme survival situations (like a homicidal maniac breaking into the house, or packs of wild dogs attacking the livestock), which is one main reason I'm pretty keen on the 2nd amendment as a last line of defense. I've been in a position to use it (and usually chose not).

[FireIceTalon]

Or, they could stop letting corporations outsource jobs to maximize profits, that way the jobs stay here and students will have more incentive to take out a loan that will have more assurance they will be able to pay it back, since there would be many more jobs and careers available.

I don't think this is possible without somewhat draconian means. How do you stop GM from importing transmissions built in Mexico? I believe all flat screens are built by 5 manufacturers in Asia. How do you prevent IBM, or Oracle from using computer programmers from Hyderbad in the development of their software solutions? Where my wife works, the DB (and it's support) is actually in India, and they just sign on and use applications from the US.

In general, I hate student loans and I think they are a ponzi-scheme, but since we will never have a free education system sadly, they are probably a necessity for most.

Well, not remotely like a Ponzi scheme. The student takes out a loan, and pays back the principle with a lower than market interest rate. Now, the Feds have taken over the student loan business, so most loans are direct student loans.

But... Are we that much out of norm? OECD -Education at a glance (note: only the OECD or the UN could publish a ~500 page document and call it "At a glance" )

But when you outsource all the jobs to China so the corporations can exploit the pennies-on-the-dollar slave labor over there to increase their profit margin, and at the same time take away all the jobs here, it does not bode well.

Slave labor? Really?

The price for an education is sadly probably not worth the return anymore. Not that I think an education should solely be to equip and prepare graduates for job, the original purpose of education is to learn. But it isn't the 50's anymore. Having a degree now is a requirement now to even move up at Mcdonalds. Its become a really forked up catch-22 situation. I'm in the middle of my education right now, and hope to have my B.A. in Political Science sometime in 2013.

"The Hamilton Project, an economic policy program sponsored by the Brookings Institution, put the average value of a college degree at $570,000 on an average $102,000 investment." -- UPI story But, then again, you are going for political science... which is more in the liberal arts, not so much a vocational type degree, like economics or accounting. And, your Marxist idealism is sort of going against the grain for becoming highly employable even within the US political establishment. So, I guess you should be scared. Most of the Marxists I know are in academia with advanced degrees, or in the "social democratic" closet working for groups like the former ACORN. Have you thought about "Community Organizer"?

I'm scared shirtless right now about the job market and where this economy is going, and if me and my girlfriend will be able to be able to afford to have children (and we aren't getting any younger, she's 35 right now) in time before she passes childbearing age, cause right now we aren't even close to being ready.

There are always adoptable children, and parenting (while rewarding) is also very challenging. You are smart to not jump into it, but having jumped I'd say no one is ever ready. My wife and I waited for 17 years before jumping, and daily we discover that we are not ready.

As for the rest... Sometimes you just need to HOWL.

Yea, I had to vent some.

Part of me wants to get directly into politics. As a political science student I feel it is not only my passion, but my duty to try and make a difference in helping the cause of others and improving our society. I would certainly have to censor my ideological views (although Senator Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist I think, but "socialist" probably isn't as scary or radical sounding as being a full blown "Marxist" to most people). I'd probably label myself as a left-leaning independent, lol. My passion is certainly politics, but I love writing too, so I am considering a minor in journalism. Maybe I can combine these two for the best of both worlds, and be a columnist for the Huffington Post one day or something, heh. Also plan to write a book or two some day also, when I have a bit more time. I still have yet to choose what my area of focus is going to be though. Certainly will be either American Government or International Relations. Comparative Politics and Political Theory are great but less practical than the other two I think.

As far as having children, I'm in no financial position to do so right now. Sometimes I feel that me and her would be content having no children and just enjoying one anothers company. Yet it feels awkward to not reproduce and just end it here, sad almost. It feels....incomplete?

[DeeBye]

When I was 10, we moved out of the city to a very rural area. The kind of place that if you needed to call the county sheriff (there were no local police), you had about a minimum hour wait (even in an emergency). So, when it comes down to it, if forced to choose between living in a total (lawless) anarchy, versus living in a controlled state, I'd choose anarchy. I've been in the position of dealing with extreme survival situations (like a homicidal maniac breaking into the house, or packs of wild dogs attacking the livestock), which is one main reason I'm pretty keen on the 2nd amendment as a last line of defense. I've been in a position to use it (and usually chose not).

I'm not a fan of guns and my wife hates the thought of them, but we both agree that if we ever move into a home in the country we are going to own a shotgun. This does not change our views on gun ownership.

[kandrathe]

I'm not a fan of guns and my wife hates the thought of them, but we both agree that if we ever move into a home in the country we are going to own a shotgun. This does not change our views on gun ownership.

I keep my guns in one combination safe, and the ammo in a different one. I was raised to treat them with the same respect you'd have for any extremely dangerous tool. My parents put me through hours of safety training as I grew up. My mom's father was a policeman, and she was better than most men with a pistol.

[eppie]

I had a discussion with a friend about this sort of thing today. Living in a pure capitalist society is not very appealing to me. Living in a pure socialist society is not appealing either. I've said it before, but we need a measure of balance between the two. A purely socialistic society that says "screw you" to people that work a little harder, or are a little smarter, or are a little luckier than the rest and then takes all of their wealth and redistributes it is unfair. A purely capitalist society that says "screw you" to people that are not as smart as others, lose employment, suffer from a catastrophic medical condition, or generally down on their luck and lets them go homeless or dead is also unfair.

CAPITALISM [----I------] SOCIALISM

It's a slider, much like how you select the quality of your graphics in a video game. Frames Per Second vs Image Quality. There is a tolerable balance between the two, but it is up to each society to decide that for themselves.

What a dissapointment....I thought that that slider really worked deebye.
Would be great during posting just to slide a bit....

I agree with what you say.....that is why I am always saying that scandinavia is doing so good (just like the Netherlands 20 years ago).

[Jester]

All this corporate welfare is having a much larger impact on peoples lives than you and Jester would like to think.

Funnily enough, one of the few things Kandrathe and I have ever agreed on, is that corporate welfare is loathsome and out of control. Did you notice?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...that is why I am always saying that scandinavia is doing so good (just like the Netherlands 20 years ago).

Maybe it has nothing to do with Socialism, and everything to do with being Scandinavian??? Just sayin...

[Jester]

Maybe it has nothing to do with Socialism, and everything to do with being Scandinavian??? Just sayin...

This is the "Blondes have more fun" theory of economic development?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is the "Blondes have more fun" theory of economic development?

More like Jante Law. I think they have an ancient cultural predisposition toward collectivism.

[FireIceTalon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/n...employment

Just more proof that crapitalism is complete and utter garbage. This isn't even wage slavery here, this is just plain old fashioned slavery period. Indentured Servitude 101. What the fuck is next? Concentration camps I suppose?

[NuurAbSaal]

This isn't even wage slavery here, this is just plain old fashioned slavery period. Indentured Servitude 101. What the fuck is next? Concentration camps I suppose?

Thanks for helping me decide wether to ignore you or not. Good Bye.

take care
Tarabulus

[FireIceTalon]

Gasp! I suppose I should put my caring face on now, yes? *shrugs*

Take care, Mr. "Wether".

[ShadowHM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/n...employment

Just more proof that crapitalism is complete and utter garbage. This isn't even wage slavery here, this is just plain old fashioned slavery period. Indentured Servitude 101. What the fuck is next? Concentration camps I suppose?

I confess that your over-the-top language is a barrier to me. I do find it difficult to read your posts. I am not even sure I want to read your answer to my question below, because of this. But here goes:

So, how do you make the leap to slavery there? Where, exactly, does that article show that these young people are being forced to do those jobs? All I got out of it is that they lose their government-paid benefits if they don't keep working at jobs they got because of that program. If you define that as slavery, then you need a better education. Just because some lawyers use that language in their presentations on behalf of their clients doesn't make it so.

Oddly enough, although my income is paid by my employer and not by my government, if I don't keep on working I will not be paid either!

[eppie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/n...employment

Just more proof that crapitalism is complete and utter garbage. This isn't even wage slavery here, this is just plain old fashioned slavery period. Indentured Servitude 101. What the fuck is next? Concentration camps I suppose?

I confess that your over-the-top language is a barrier to me. I do find it difficult to read your posts. I am not even sure I want to read your answer to my question below, because of this. But here goes:

So, how do you make the leap to slavery there? Where, exactly, does that article show that these young people are being forced to do those jobs? All I got out of it is that they lose their government-paid benefits if they don't keep working at jobs they got because of that program. If you define that as slavery, then you need a better education. Just because some lawyers use that language in their presentations on behalf of their clients doesn't make it so.

Oddly enough, although my income is paid by my employer and not by my government, if I don't keep on working I will not be paid either!

What I get from this article is omething completely different. Namely unfair competition.....how can a state 'force' people to work for free for a private enterprise? If the UK was part of the Eurozone they for sure would get into trouble on this one, but maybe they still should.

It is like the US govenment would tell all umeployed people to start and work for boeing for free. I don't think it would take long before they would find a letter from Airbus' lawyers in their mailbox.

[kandrathe]

What I get from this article is something completely different. Namely unfair competition.....how can a state 'force' people to work for free for a private enterprise? If the UK was part of the Eurozone they for sure would get into trouble on this one, but maybe they still should.

Perhaps it is more a program similar to how unemployment worked(s) in the States. You are paid by the State (unemployment), but your job, from the states point of view, is to get experience at any company (not specific ones.) The psychology behind it is that if you are out of the house, and going to a job everyday, then you are not as likely to be depressed, laying in your bed, and fretting about not having work to do. However, you still might be depressed about not having enough money to pay the bills.

The US also has the problem of young people being duped by unscrupulous potential employers to take unpaid internships under the guise of work experience. There are rules though; no one likes the scrutiny of government lawyers, and to suddenly need to come up with a huge amount of unplanned compensation.

As a former employer, I believe you tend to "get what you pay for". If I have a job I want done, I want the pay to be high enough to get the best people for the position. It's like hiring someone to work on your house... Would you go with the cheaper, unbonded, here today, gone tomorrow person, or would you go with the one where you know they will stand behind their work and fix it if it is not done properly?

I've had unpaid workers on my staff before, but they were known as "volunteers". It was they who came to me offering to help out for no pay, and just for the experience, a good reference, for something to do and to contribute something to the cause. I still get reference calls for those people to this day, and take the time to give them a proper reference.

[eppie]

What I get from this article is something completely different. Namely unfair competition.....how can a state 'force' people to work for free for a private enterprise? If the UK was part of the Eurozone they for sure would get into trouble on this one, but maybe they still should.

Perhaps it is more a program similar to how unemployment worked(s) in the States. You are paid by the State (unemployment), but your job, from the states point of view, is to get experience at any company (not specific ones.) The psychology behind it is that if you are out of the house, and going to a job everyday, then you are not as likely to be depressed, laying in your bed, and fretting about not having work to do. However, you still might be depressed about not having enough money to pay the bills.

The US also has the problem of young people being duped by unscrupulous potential employers to take unpaid internships under the guise of work experience. There are rules though; no one likes the scrutiny of government lawyers, and to suddenly need to come up with a huge amount of unplanned compensation.

As a former employer, I believe you tend to "get what you pay for". If I have a job I want done, I want the pay to be high enough to get the best people for the position. It's like hiring someone to work on your house... Would you go with the cheaper, unbonded, here today, gone tomorrow person, or would you go with the one where you know they will stand behind their work and fix it if it is not done properly?

I've had unpaid workers on my staff before, but they were known as "volunteers". It was they who came to me offering to help out for no pay, and just for the experience, a good reference, for something to do and to contribute something to the cause. I still get reference calls for those people to this day, and take the time to give them a proper reference.

I agree with the fact that it is good for people to at least start working instead of just sitting home doing nothing. If you can work you should work and not just wait for a unemployment benefit paycheck. However, you should get paid for this job. It might be that this payment is less or more or less equal to what you would get in benefits but it is important that the company pays for it.
If the company has work to be done the company pays......I mean what about the guys that want to work for the company and now are out of a job because the company gets free employees?

[Tal]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/n...employment

Just more proof that crapitalism is complete and utter garbage. This isn't even wage slavery here, this is just plain old fashioned slavery period. Indentured Servitude 101. What the f*** is next? Concentration camps I suppose?

Hi. Keep it PG-13 please.

[kandrathe]

If the company has work to be done the company pays......I mean what about the guys that want to work for the company and now are out of a job because the company gets free employees?

By necessity, companies will always have more work than workers. What they don't have is the money to pay them. It seems pretty fundamental, but the purpose of the company is to earn profits. This means you need to keep costs less than gross sales.

The grocer, for example, makes only a few pennies for each item purchased. From the aggregate of millions of items sold, they can afford to pay for the store building, it's upkeep, it's employees, and the transport of the items from a farm, or wholesaler. But, it all comes down to the price you are willing to pay for the item in the store. It gets more complicated when the grocer is also publicly held on a stock exchange, but in essence a bunch of investors give the grocer money to open more stores with the desire to see a return on their investment from a portion of the grocer's profits. The grocer is willing to get a smaller portion of a larger pie.

[FireIceTalon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/n...employment

Just more proof that crapitalism is complete and utter garbage. This isn't even wage slavery here, this is just plain old fashioned slavery period. Indentured Servitude 101. What the fuck is next? Concentration camps I suppose?

I confess that your over-the-top language is a barrier to me. I do find it difficult to read your posts. I am not even sure I want to read your answer to my question below, because of this. But here goes:

So, how do you make the leap to slavery there? Where, exactly, does that article show that these young people are being forced to do those jobs? All I got out of it is that they lose their government-paid benefits if they don't keep working at jobs they got because of that program. If you define that as slavery, then you need a better education. Just because some lawyers use that language in their presentations on behalf of their clients doesn't make it so.

Oddly enough, although my income is paid by my employer and not by my government, if I don't keep on working I will not be paid either!

Did you read the article? Your response seems to indicate you didn't. They have to work for FREE. That my friend, is S-L-A-V-E-R-Y, with a capital S (even if it is for only 2 months, it is still 2 months of slavery). Such propositions always end up in exploitation or are understated anyway.