View Full Version : Happiness and society
I am reading a book about about societal satisfaction levels in the Blue Zone areas of the world and find it very interesting. Perhaps it explains why we in the US are so unhappy when one realizes that in countries like Denmark that consensus among all is of the utmost importance. Here in America, we argue about everything and come to no conclusion that would help us all. It is always about the individual here and how much money one can make. In Denmark, citizens pay something like 70% tax but for that expense they have all their health care needs met, education is provided, people have well designed cities where they can bike or walk everywhere and nature is held in high regard. There is little emphasis on material posessions - in fact, it is considered crass to bring attention to one's self by virtue of one's stuff. At least this is what the book purports as the reason for their happiness. We are currenltly 23rd on the happiness scale. If so, no wonder that as a country, most of us in the US are pretty miserable. I know the conservatives among board posters will call it socialism but I have to wonder how nice it would be for all citizens not to have to worry about things like huge student loans for nominal education, lack of insurance and quality in retirement as we do.
HappyHiker
10-15-11, 7:27pm
Everything you've observed and the book notes, is truth, IMHO. I keep thinking we need a new economic system that's based on putting something back every time we take something out...it would be balanced and sustainable that way. Time to move beyond labels that box us in...
I think our U.S. population knows, deep in their psyches, that gross materialism is an endless road of want that leads to more unhappiness instead of more fulfillment. And from the demo's taking place all over the world right now, I think many are waking up to a world that's not of their liking--and a world they're hoping to change before we deplete our home planet to an empty husk sucked dry of all resources.
Ying and yang, checks and balances...we're way out of balance...
"Something's happening here...what it is ain't exactly clear..."
iris lily
10-15-11, 7:31pm
...but Ihave to wonder how nice it would be for all citizens not to have to worry about things like huge student loans for nominal education, lack of insurance and quality in retirement as we do.
I have to wonder how boring it would be to live in a mono-culture with essentially one climate, one long shared history, one world view. Group think is easy in that regard.
If I had a province full of like minded conservatives, wouldn't that be nice???!!! I think we could come to some agreements about how big the gubmnet should be and what exactly it should do. Perhaps I'd like to live in a socialist environment if all of my fellow citizens shared more of my POV. The freedom movement in New Hampshire intrigues me.
Yossarian
10-15-11, 8:14pm
I've not seen anything that makes me think it is any better or worse in the US than elsewhere. Some of those rankings have places I would not move to at the top (Nigeria, Mexico, etc). Mexico? I guess that's why all the Americans are sneaking over the border to live there. Others have some small homogeneous countries listed above the US. But if you break out the US into pieces that small, it would not surprise me if some US states were as good. And then there is the paradox that some of those places like Denmark also have the highest suicide rates. Not that that proves anything but happiness is a funny metric, and if you look at the way states rank and knowing about those places first hand there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. So I tend to discount the ranking of nations as well. At the end of the day all you can control is you any way, and wherever you go there you are.
I concur that it might be boring in that sense but haven't humans always been tribe-like in that they are most comfortable with those sharing similar thoughts and habits. I wouldn't know for sure about monocultures unless I tried living there for a while - it does seem that even with all our supposed diversity in this country, we are more divisive than ever. And it isn't taking us to a better place.
Actually denmark is 40th in suicide, compared to the US at 39th, as of 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate Japan has a much higher suicide rate then either.
But I agree, suicide rates don't mean much in and of themselves as there are surely lots of reasons why people kill themselves. Taking a casual look at the list I linked to it's difficult to divine any meaningful explanation for why one country is better or worse in this regard since the list just reads like a random list of countries with no seeming similarities and differences as one goes down the list.
The question posed by the OP is not one that is going to lead to any sort of consensus view. The US has a long history of individualism that many people are not interested in getting rid of. And with our government's main socialistic goals being the socialisation of loss (aka the bank bailouts) it's easy to see why people have a negative view of socialized anything. Perhaps if the government made even a half hearted effort at socializing things like college education and healthcare that benefited the average person the average person wouldn't be so against so much of what the government does.
I wonder whether places like Denmark are happier because they have fewer material worries, or whether they might have a culture of sharing that enhances their family and personal relationships. And that culture extends into their government policies.
How does having equal opportunity of education and the dignity of basic health care for all make us a mono culture? Just because everyone can seek help with health issues doesn't mean they can't speak Spanish, or celebrate St. Patric's day, or plant a yard full of lilies. These things will not make our uniqueness disappear.
What exactly do we lose if everyone has access to health care? Really, what?
pony mom
10-15-11, 11:17pm
I saw a segment of 20/20 or Dateline a year or two ago about Denmark and their state of happiness. A few things they showed was how all careers are considered equal, whether a doctor or garbage man, you were respected. You could leave your baby in a stroller outside of a shop and not worry about someone kidnapping it. People joined groups and clubs (one was a 'laughing club').
Despite having gloomy weather most times of the year, they were a happy bunch.
Yossarian
10-16-11, 1:09am
Actually denmark is 40th in suicide.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-states-have-the-highest-suicide-rates/
http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm
My point was there are many measures, some objective some subjective. Not sure I would conclude things are perfect in the Scandanavian countries, and subjective reporting is suspect.
Aqua Blue
10-16-11, 10:54am
I read that book too and found it very interesting. I thought Denmark sounded like a Your Money or your Life utopia.:cool:
I doubt the USAn is capable of living happily amounst ourselves.!Splat!
ApatheticNoMore
10-16-11, 11:48am
Yea I have heard the Japanese commit suicide more not because they are unhappier but because they have a culture with a tradition of "honorable suicide" or what have you. I don't know.
Anti-depressant use is another measure of how happy a country is IMO. It is off the charts high in the U.S.A..
A few things they showed was how all careers are considered equal, whether a doctor or garbage man, you were respected.
+ 1 Love it. The problem is the tendency of people to equate money with worth and it's BS. What a career pays is just a function of relative demand and scarcity for a particular skill (supply and demand yes), plus any other pressures than can be brought to bear. (haha, the scarcity is often manufactured, many a career out there is right now passing laws to make their skills legally more required and legally more scarce - I've seen it in many careers I've explored). But anyway any way you slice it, pay is a measure of supply and demand, not a measure of moral worth.
You could leave your baby in a stroller outside of a shop and not worry about someone kidnapping it. People joined groups and clubs (one was a 'laughing club').
love it
catherine
10-16-11, 12:05pm
I saw a segment of 20/20 or Dateline a year or two ago about Denmark and their state of happiness. A few things they showed was how all careers are considered equal, whether a doctor or garbage man, you were respected. You could leave your baby in a stroller outside of a shop and not worry about someone kidnapping it. People joined groups and clubs (one was a 'laughing club').
Despite having gloomy weather most times of the year, they were a happy bunch.
Interesting because that ties in with redfox's post about Stress: Portrait of a Killer which makes the point that the lower you are on a social hierarchy the more chronic stress you have. This hypothesis was tested both among primates as well as among the British Civil Service workers, where there is a very structured hierarchy.
So, if no job is deemed better or higher up than another, it makes sense there's less stress.
Just a note: I've heard that the Scandinavian suicide rate is tied to the very short periods of sunlight in the winter. Not sure if it's true, but it may be more due to SAD than social causes.
HappyHiker
10-16-11, 12:50pm
Just finished reading an enthralling book I'd like to recommend highly.
It's entitled: The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. The author, Frans De Waal is one of the nation's premier primatologists and is`a professor of psychology and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta (that's a mouthful).
His book is a rich and fascinating exploration of human behavior based on some of our closest animal relatives--Chimps-- while also providing commentary on today's society and how it's failing to meet our hard-wired, daily human needs.
On page 221, this just leaped out at me and our discussion here:
"A society based purely on selfish motives and market forces may produce wealth, yet it can't produce the unity and mutual trust that make life worthwhile."
Voila!
I highly recommend this book--he's a lovely writer and the primate behavior sections are amazing...who knew how intelligent our ancestors are? I sure didn't.
I know the conservatives among board posters will call it socialism but I have to wonder how nice it would be for all citizens not to have to worry about things like huge student loans for nominal education, lack of insurance and quality in retirement as we do.
I won't presume to speak for any of the other right-wingers here, but IMO this, like almost everything else, is a matter of degree. Some people would be happy to ratchet up to a 70% tax level to receive all the services provided in Denmark from the government and some people would rather go shopping in the free market because we think the government is not an efficient middle man in such transactions.
As pleasant as life in Denmark sounds we have to remember it is apples to oranges to compare it to the US. Denmark has 5.5 million people, very little ethnic diversity, a workforce of around 3 million, a GDP of $300 billion, 16,000+ square miles of land, etc. The USA has 310 million people, is the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet, has a work force of over 230 million, a GDP of over $14 Trillion, 3.8 million square miles of land, etc. While I will agree that it would do us some good to study, and in some cases emulate, what works in Denmark, I don't think trying to overlay their pattern on our cloth would work.
When we're talking about various levels of government control in services it takes a lot of digging to uncover true costs. The OP did mention student loans which I find interesting. If you take the simple 70% tax rate quoted in the OP and multiply that out over a life time of work then take the percentage of that which the government of Denmark dedicates to education you would come up with a number. In the US, if you go to school for X number of years and add up what you spent to get there you also come up with a number. Which do you suppose is lower? My guess is that its almost always going to be cheaper in the US, but maybe its easier to manage (or swallow) in Denmark since its amortized over a lifetime. The part that gets me is that in the US if you don't go to college you won't have student loans. You incur the costs, but also reap the benefits. If you live in Denmark and don't go to college you're still paying. There is a legit argument that the society still benefits so you're be making a sacrifice for the good of the whole, but I'm not sure that would make me happy.
having been to scandinavia many times (and finland), i ahve to say that it is not a boring place.
day one, danes welcomed us. people invited us into their homes in multiple ways.
First, danes often have a spare room in their homes (families will crowd into fewer rooms because they seem to be "more comfortable that way") and that spare room is often rented out to visitors for a very small fee. As in, seriously, a beautiful, simple room and breakfast for $12 per person. You can't beat it! We stayed with a family of 6 who were living in under 300 sq ft, and we had the largest room in the house! :D
Second, we met a young woman and her boyfriend on the train, and they were going to grab some stuff at her place in Copenhagen before heading out to the countryside on a holiday. They suggested that we stay in her appartment while she was away for a week. For free. She just asked that we vacuum the floor before we left. She took us to her place, handed over the keys, and that was that. We bought flowers for her for the day she returned, and we are still pen-pals and on FB.
Third, we met a shop owner and had the BEST chat about all kinds of awesome things, and she invited us to her home for dinner. We then went back to the free apartment, and she said "come back tomorrow, my friends and I meet for brunch. Bring a plate!" so i made a quiche overnight, and the next morning, went back to her place. Several friends and family had gathered in the courtyard of her apartment building, and there must have been about 50 people there. Everyone was welcoming and great.
One of the families that we met was going to the countryside where they were staying at a friend's vacation home. They asked us to join them, to show us "some danish fun." It was entirely free, though we insisted on helping with groceries. They picked us up from the apartment (at that point our friend was coming back the next day, so we left it a day early), drove us to the countryside, bought us ice cream along the way, shared a picnic (we had brought a bit of fruit, cheese, bread, and hard boiled eggs), and spent 4 days at the house with them -- having a grand time.
also on our travels, we got caught in a small town, having missed our bus, and night falling. we had no idea what to do, as there were only about 4-5 houses in town. we thought we would just sleep at the bus stop, which was literally a pole with a sign next to a tree. I figured we'd probably be warm enough together, with what we had with us. About an hour of waiting at the bus stop and looking to settle in for the night, an old man approached us. He didn't speak english, but he beckoned us to come with him.
he took us to his house, and apparently all the neighbors came. none spoke english, but they were singing to us and sharing food, and ultimately, he showed us to a spare room and the bathroom. we were given accommodation for the night, breakfast too, and he got us to the bus on time!
In sweden, we encountered the exact same hospitality -- with people taking us on their boats through the archipeligo, inviting us to family birthday parties, and driving us to sites without us asking about it. People are terribly trusting, loving, and friendly.
In finland and norway, they are more reserved, but just as warm once you get them going. IN fact, they are down-right chatty. :) most invited us into their homes in one way or another, and nearly every person we've met in scandinavia in our travels are in our facebook friend's lists or constant email friends. Only the ones who didn't speak english aren't on our list, and I still send that man a christmas card because i snagged his address from the bus driver. I send a picture of us with is, rather than signing it. I'm sure he understands my gratitude.
---
Truthfully, i would live in DK as a first choice, but I have to say that NZ is pretty fabulous in a lot of ways. Education here, for example, is affordable. A university education can cost a local about $10k all said and done (over 5 years), which is a do-able amount for most students. There's also a culture of working your way through school AND living at home to save on costs.
In addition, jobs here are seen as more equal -- just as in DK -- and having a white-collar job isn't the end all and be all. additionally, you don't need to have an education (necessarily) to get a good job here. Mostly, they look for people with the 'can-do' spirit who can be trained, or wants to join, or what have you. basically, if you are interested in something and show that you are keen to learn, you are more likely to get hired than if you have an education. But, an education can help.
there is also universal health care here, and it is pretty diverse with lots of maori, pacific islanders, south africans (very common now), lots of different kinds of asians, and of course people from europe and so on and so forth. it's a very diverse place, actually. i miss african american faces, in particular, but otherwise, quite nice indeed.
---
There isn't as much consensus here as in DK (as I understand it), but there's a huge focus on sustainability and stability, and people here have the sense of "mucking in" -- the culture here is largely that people were on a distant outpost, and pretty much had to fend for themselves. The earth quake in Christchurch also shows some of that same spirit. We can take care of it ourselves, kiwis say. Yes, the help that was sent DOES help, but they had "the great muck in" where there was a call to all students who were on holiday, or in between university semesters or what have you to come down. Students who went down and gave of their time were often given stipends which most saved to spend on school when they got back. Anyone could go, and so it was completely untrained people going down for the clean up.
That's how it is here, really. People take care of each other. You need each ohter, and you know you need each other because you're one random shake away from being the victim rather than the hero of the day.
And watching the people of CC during tremors, watching them pull blocks of concrete off of cars and getting people out, calling out to each other -- we are here! we are goig to help you! we need to move clear because of the tremor, but we aren't leaving yoU!" and to see that over and over in video and photo, it was powerful. Everyday people helping out every day people.
That's what it is here. Not a day goes by where someone doesn't give someone else bus fare, or someone doesn't finish paying up a bill at a grocery store if you don't have enough money at that moment, or what have you. People are just down-right generous.
Because you know it comes around. YOu know that today you are blessed enough to have the last $5 to cover the bill, and that tomorrow you may not be, but someone else will take care of you.
Arguments about politics and the best way to do things -- those happen here, they really do. And they get heated. But at the end of the day, if someone is a dollar short on bus fare, someone else covers it. If someone can't pay for their coffee that am, and are down on their luck -- someone else buys it for them.
that's just life here in NZ. that's just how it is.
also, i agree with gregg in several points:
1. the US is much larger than DK or NZ. but, i think this can be managed by the states dividing or allocating based on smaller populations, which may have federal oversight (and/or funding), but making sure that funding and population go hand in hand.
2. the government makes a bad manager, and something about the free market.
i agree that the government can make a bad manager, but my experience is that profit-driven companies do not actually support free choice.
for years, we paid for insurance. part o fit was covered by DH's company, but we also paid a portion each month, and had a high-deductable plan to reduce costs to us each month. being young and healthy, it was best for us to go this route.
but there were several problems that were not about a "free market."
A. we didn't get to choose the kind of care we wanted. I believe in a lot of forms of alternative medicine, but most of those are not covered by insurance at all. I would prefer, for example, traditional chinese medicine treatment for cancer. There are numerous medical studies (coming out of harvard et al) that demonstrate that the TCM treatment is less toxic and more effective for most forms of cancer treatment. In las vegas, there is the best TCM treatment center in the US. I'd pay my own way to get there, but i'd like my insurance -- you know, that i pay for? -- to cover these costs. The answer? NO.
lets make it more simple. midwifery is common practice around the world, and homebirth is supported in most developed nations as being safe for low-risk women. unfortunately, if i wanted a homebirth with a midwife, I had to pay out of pocket. my insurance company says NO. I could choose a midwife at an OB practice, and see taht midwife at the hospital, but the birth center (midwife operated) and the homebirth were NO. my insurance company -- you know, the one that i PAY -- doesn't allow it.
B. And what are my other "free market" options? Choose another insurance company. Ok, lets go there. I tell my company that I no longer want their insurance. They do not give me the $ from the benefit (eg, the value of their portion paid out), if i reject hte benefit, too bad. that's that. This is the salary, and you get this benefit. but if you reject the benefit, your income doesn't reflect the cash value. So, i'm out a benefit -- effectively my salary or income is impacted.
I would get my matching -- or the portion that i pay -- in my salary, which was probably about $200/mo. Lets just say it was that. Now, I need to go out and insure myself on what I can afford. And that is $200 per month.
Any insurance companies insuring famiiles for $200/mo? I don't know of any. My aunt was a single, healthy woman with no pre-existing conditions, self employed. Her insurance per month: $800! So, without a considerable raise, I"m not certain that we would have been able to choose another insurance company.
Likewise, can anyone name an insurance company that would allow me to choose TCM treatment over allopathic for cancer? a homebirth midwife over an allopathically managed birth? From my research, the answer is ZERO.
So, really a free market?
I can compare this to my experience here in NZ. Health care is universal, and people also have the option to have health insurance. Some companies even provide this as a service. But first, I"ll talk about the health care.
Health care:
1. If you have an accident of any kind, your medical care is 100% covered. This includes all kinds of things -- from surgery to recovery care. It also includes physiotherapy, acupuncture, osteopathy (traditional), yoga or other physical modalities as determined by the doctor, and several other forms of alternative therapy.
2. maternity care is covered, and you get to choose your care. If you want an OB, you get an OB. If you want a homebirth with a midwife, you get a homebirth with a midwife. Birth center/ yes. Hospital? yes. With midwives at the hospital? yes. Homebirth midwives have hospital privileges. Yes, Yes and Yes. Free choice.
What else do you get? 1 year of care with a nurse -- home visits, office visits, 24 hr call support to help with infant care and to help prevent post partum depression. Lactation consultants -- at the hospital, at the birth center, and in your home. My friend still sees her lactation consultant -- for breastfeeding help -- and her child is 8 weeks old. The LC is there twice a week. She pays 25%, and health care coverage covers the rest. Doctor's visits for mother and baby -- should they be necessary -- 100% covered.
2. you get to choose your doctor.
no networks. no out-of-network fees. You can choose the doctor down the street, or you can choose whatever doctor you like. Want a doctor who also does TCM? no problem. Ayurvedic Doctor? covered. doctor who does herbalism or homeopathy? if the doctor is a registered doctor with the government, guess what? You can choose that doctor. And that doctor will charge the government for your appointments, because, guess what? everyone is covered.
Even though it's Managed by the government, the reality is that you have a LOT more freedom in who you can go to, what sort of medical care you want, and support in what you need. You get a lot more benefits, without having to pay extra, and to be honest, a simple thing can HOSE a family financially.
I'll give an example.
Friend in the US gives birth prematurely and has good insurance coverage. her baby is in the NICU, and needs to be moved to a better hospital, and the best bet is helicopter. Insurance covers 60% of everything, ultimately. My friends own $250k in medical bills, and mounting, because their child still has some respiratory problems that they are working out. The child is 4. Both parents work, but they have to pay for specialized day care as well, to meet the child's needs.
Friend in NZ gives birth prematurely, and baby is flown with father to hospital who can meet his needs. several days later, the mother is cleared and flown to be with the baby. baby is in NICU, and elder child is cared for by family members. Parents are moved into accommodations near the hospital, and the elder child joins them there. Baby spends 6 weeks in NICU, and then kept as an out-patient for another 6 weeks. Neither parent works. 100% coverage soup-to-nuts, including all required respiratory care until age 4, when the child's condition seems to clear. Parents have no mounting medical costs, and no up front costs to cover.
Both families are "working class" and my NZ friends have a much better lifestyle than my american ones. And NZ is a much more expensive country in which to live -- for everything from clothing to food to housing etc -- but the quality of life of my NZ friend's family is HIGHER than my US friend's family because there is no concern about medical needs for their family.
What i have seen -- both in france (studied), switzerland (studied), DK (on the ground, have friends there), and NZ (on the ground) -- is that some level of universal health care provides ACTUAL freedom for the individual to choose the health care needed, to receive health care when needed, and to have a higher quality of life overall.
likewise, people here tend to do MUCH MORE preventative medicine. that's just the way it is. it is seen as a virtue to take really good care of yourself. And while obesity is on the rise, there's a huge cultural thing to get back to fitness here (and it's not just coming from the government). People feel an obligation to not tax the system -- it's understood to be needed for emergency and difficult cases.
And insurance, when people have it here, it's to move them forward with treatment, and really, to help off-set costs of extending the alternative treatments beyond what hte government will cover. EG, you might get 10 acupuncture treatments for X condition, and then it's up to the government if you get more (no different with an insurance company, usually!), and then from there, you can kick into your insurance to cover the rest. And insurance usually costs about $200 per year.
So, i'm just saying.
I thought this was a very good article -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all
Something to keep in mind regarding nationalized health care is that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. In the UK you can choose to have private insurance and see private doctors if you like. There is healthcare provided for all, and if you are unhappy with the care you are free to opt out. And when you choose to go the private route, it is substantially less expensive than someplace like the US.
A very good post Zoe! Yes, universal health care does give you way more freedom, way more security and way more choice, but Those against it don't want people to know that. They just want them to be afraid of the unknown.
Another benefit that folks don't think about is the fact that something like 70% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs. This impacts the whole country.
pinkytoe
10-17-11, 10:28am
Loved all the Scandinavian examples of hospitality, Zoe. I know the grass always seems greener elsewhere and I do appreciate American ingenuity, but somehow it feels like we have grown increasingly more self-centered (my way or the highway) and lost our humanity. I feel like I am living in the wrong culture. Why do we stick our elders in nursing homes, why do we allow homelessness, etc? Won't there always be 5-10% of our population that can't keep up and need looking after?
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-11, 12:41pm
Why do we stick our elders in nursing homes
Really sometimes it is the best choice. In nursing homes at least they make sure they bathe, maybe even get a little exercise etc.. Have you ever tried to get someone with Alzheimers to do that type of stuff of their own will? Months go by without a bath or a shower. Also they get violent sometimes. They hurt their caretakers (spouses, family members etc.). Yell for constant attention etc.. Everyone in my family pretty much gets senile when they get old enough, so I've come to think of it as very common.
I thought this was a very good article -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all
Very insightful article!
“One problem with the American system,” [Dutch author Geert Mak] said, “is that if you lose your job and are without an income, that’s not just bad for you but for the economy. Our system has more security. And I think it makes our quality of life better. My American friends say they live in the best country in the world, and in a lot of ways they are right. But they always have to worry: ‘What happens to my family if I have a heart attack? What happens when I turn 65 or 70?’ America is the land of the free. But I think we are freer.”
I enjoyed the NY times article as well.
You know, I'm sort of surprized that no one has mentioned the things that have come out of our American system of whip and carrot capitalism. The greatest I can think of is the green revolution of modern agricultural methods that has had a significant effect on world food supplies. Basically, computers and the information age had their roots in America as well as many of the green energy technologies, like solar cells. And you could debate military budgets and technologies ad nauseum, but there has been at least one time in the last century when our tax dollar commitment to military spending, perhaps at the cost of other things like socialized medicine, has bailed out most of these European nations.
I'd like to see us become a more sharing economy as well, but there is also something special about our systems here that has made us leaders in innovation and made the world a much better place to live. In some ways we've been sharing with the whole world, not just ourselves.
True, Rogar. It's not all bad. :)
I think the tough thing is that those technologies have not been easily accessible to the common person to put into place, so while fabu, it's not really working for us yet, kwim?
i would love to run my house on wind or solar, or just have all power run that way rather than fossil fuels (via a power company), but it's slow in coming. there's a wind farm outside of welly, and there's also a lot of geothermal power, too. and using hydropower as well. so it's pretty "green" here overall. but. . . anyway.
I'm not so sure I'd tout our modern methods of food production as all that great. Yes we can produce cheap fast "food" and highly profitable packaged "food" thanks to bountiful harvests of corn and soy beans that are dependent on oil for their production, but the amount of energy that goes into them and the environmental pollution from animal waste and destruction of topsoil that's a result of them leaves me questioning the sustainability of the system, as well as the factory farmed animals that have to be fed drugs their whole lives so they won't be too diseased to eat.
And that doesn't even take into account the health issues that many Americans face due to their diets being composed mainly of this type of food.
I'm not so sure I'd tout our modern methods of food production as all that great. Yes we can produce cheap fast "food" and highly profitable packaged "food" thanks to bountiful harvests of corn and soy beans that are dependent on oil for their production, but the amount of energy that goes into them and the environmental pollution from animal waste and destruction of topsoil that's a result of them leaves me questioning the sustainability of the system, as well as the factory farmed animals that have to be fed drugs their whole lives so they won't be too diseased to eat.
And that doesn't even take into account the health issues that many Americans face due to their diets being composed mainly of this type of food.
Current agriculture might be getting a little extreme. I was actually thinking of this green revolution, which globally may have saved a billion lives:
Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_transfer) initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production around the world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#cite_note-0)
The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug), the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-yielding_varieties) of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer), and pesticides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide) to farmers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Modern ag, US style, ultimately isn't sustainable. That said it can be kept up for several more decades. I'm not at all defending industrial, mono-crop agriculture, but it does help feed several billion people. We just need to phase into a more diverse and (bio)logical program as we go forward.
Rogar's point is spot on. A very large part of what allows Denmark, and much of Europe, to enjoy the prosperity and security they do is thanks to the US. If nothing else, the outcome of WWII and NATO's value as a defense against aggression would probably be significantly different without the US.
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-11, 12:50pm
The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.
Clearly oil based fertilizers and pesticides are not sustainable long term. The expansion of irrigation infrastructure might not be either. What is the harm in moving water around? Well maybe not much really, IF the water that is moved only represents what is naturally replaced (via rainfall etc.). But the thing is it doesn't. Aquifiers all over the world are being depleated - aquifiers that do get some yearly replenishment but not enough to keep up with use. We're using water stored millions of years ago.
Rogar's point is spot on. A very large part of what allows Denmark, and much of Europe, to enjoy the prosperity and security they do is thanks to the US. If nothing else, the outcome of WWII and NATO's value as a defense against aggression would probably be significantly different without the US.
The average U.S. citizen should be kind of angry that Europe reaps most of the benefits then - taking their 5 week vacations, while the U.S. citizen worries about how they're ever going to manage to pay for their health insurance :laff: You have to in any fairness also give Russia credit for WWII.
Being the overwhelming military force does give some security (though not immediately applicable to the U.S. citizen worrrying about day to day survival). Given the state of the world, if all else fails resources can always be claimed by force if necessary if you are the overwhelming military power. This is not a moral argument, claiming resources by the ability to bomb people into oblivion killing many an innocent civilian along the way is highly immoral, but it is what U.S. military superiority means. A "get out of declining resources jail free" card that can always be cashed.
Whether this will even be an optimal strategy in terms of results is very dubious. It's putting ALL our eggs in the "military superiority basket" and not even trying to say build up a more sustainable infrastructure (rail, solar power, sustainable agriculture, reasonable conservation etc.). Very dubious as an optimal strategy but it seems to be the ACTUAL strategy being implemented by the powers that be (anything else will have to come from the grass roots). That and what relying on U.S. reserve currency status to last forever, yea that seems to be the strategy.
The average U.S. citizen should be kind of angry that Europe reaps most of the benefits then - taking their 5 week vacations, while the U.S. citizen worries about how they're ever going to manage to pay for their health insurance :laff: You have to in any fairness also give Russia credit for WWII.
Not that I want to be in bed with what was the USSR, but as I recall the Soviet Union opted out of the Marshall Plan when it was offered. The rest of Europe didn't seem to mind taking the US aid. And if you want the truth of it all, this average US citizen IS angry. If conditions in Europe are so much better than they are here our allies across the pond certainly don't need our continued assistance, militarily or otherwise. I'm angry that people here hold up a place like Denmark as the shining example of what a society can be when at the same time that society is standing on the broad, military shoulders of our own. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but admiration for everything Denmark has accomplished and the way the people there live. What stirs my blood is folks that don't take the time or effort to snap all the puzzle pieces together.
NATO has some teeth because of the US involvement. It is debatable whether the organization would continue to exist if the US were to pull out. I'm one of the average US citizens that truly wishes we would radically scale back our military expenditures, especially abroad, and instead devote those resources to domestic infrastructure, energy policy, education and yes, even health care. If we do that, however, there are a lot of places in Europe that might not seem quite as utopian as before. Their spending priorities might change if national security was to become the hot topic all of a sudden.
Clearly we need a second agricultural revolution with new technologies if we are going to feed the growing global population. For the time being, at least as I understand things, plants need water and petroleum based fertilizer is a cost effective way to promote growth. If you are hungry, can't afford a wholesome diet, or starving, like much of the world, sustainability isn't an issue.
Also, ditto what Gregg said. He did a better job than I could have.
Just finished reading an enthralling book I'd like to recommend highly.
It's entitled: The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. The author, Frans De Waal is one of the nation's premier primatologists and is`a professor of psychology and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta (that's a mouthful).
His book is a rich and fascinating exploration of human behavior based on some of our closest animal relatives--Chimps-- while also providing commentary on today's society and how it's failing to meet our hard-wired, daily human needs.
On page 221, this just leaped out at me and our discussion here:
"A society based purely on selfish motives and market forces may produce wealth, yet it can't produce the unity and mutual trust that make life worthwhile."
Voila!
I highly recommend this book--he's a lovely writer and the primate behavior sections are amazing...who knew how intelligent our ancestors are? I sure didn't.
Thank you for that reference! It's now on my Amazon Wish List.
Interestingly enough, Chris Martenson (the ultimate "Prepper", IMO) emphasises community and emotional stability as much as storing food, buying gold, et cetera. He has even mentioned storing and gowing enough food so that one can help unprepared neighbors.
Here's an interesting take on feeding "the growing global population":
"Recent studies attack the contemporary belief that human populations are a naturally explosive independent variable. Thinkers such as Professor David Pimentel (Cornell), Dr. Alan Thornhill, Russell Hopffenberg and author Daniel Quinn propose that like other animals, human populations predictably grow and shrink according to their available food supply – populations grow in an abundance of food, and shrink in times of scarcity."
FULL ARTICLE: http://tinyurl.com/3rpc2qg
And what happens when the oil-based fertilizers are sky-high expensive, post Peak Oil? How are we going to feed millions overseaws then? Much of what's been accomplished in the past fifty or so years has been based on the mistaken beliefs that 1) cheap oil will always be there and 2) if it isn't, some amazing technoligal wizardry will provide an adequate substitute.
Here's another interesting article regarding birthrates dropping in sync with the economy: http://tinyurl.com/3sdrznv
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-11, 5:59pm
If you are hungry, can't afford a wholesome diet, or starving, like much of the world, sustainability isn't an issue.
It can be or not be "an issue" but that which can't be sustained eventually won't be.
Jemima, those are interesting articles. I'm not sure the global birth rate can slow enough, but interesting. I also liked this one in the NY Times, although it doen't seem to discuss diminishing water and peak oil and seems to rely on traditional modern farming methods in low production areas. In the end maybe it will be a combination of these things and more, but I honestly don't think we've come up with the right solution, yet.
"For starters, the group argues that the conversion of forests and grasslands to agricultural use needs to stop now; the environmental damage we are doing chopping down the Amazon far exceeds the small gain in food production, it says.
Next, the paper contends that increases in food supply need to come from existing farmland by a process of intensified production in regions where yields are low: northeastern India, Eastern Europe, parts of South America and large parts of Africa being good examples."
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/deep-thinking-about-the-future-of-food/
Sorry to have pulled things off topic, but my point being that the green revolution which seems to have save millions or more lives, imperfect as it might be for present needs, came from the stick and carrot method of American capitalism. As did the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs that promoted or invented the information age. Solar technology. Military defense. What I'm asking, if not saying, is that the cradle to grave care systems in some counties are admirable, but do they provide the incentives for greatness and innovation.
Ours is obviously not the perfect system.
.....Ours is obviously not the perfect system.
But it's the best the world has seen to date. Let's tear it down now before it does more good.
Sorry to have pulled things off topic, but my point being that the green revolution which seems to have save millions or more lives, imperfect as it might be for present needs, came from the stick and carrot method of American capitalism. As did the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs that promoted or invented the information age. Solar technology. Military defense. What I'm asking, if not saying, is that the cradle to grave care systems in some counties are admirable, but do they provide the incentives for greatness and innovation.
Ours is obviously not the perfect system.
Dragging things off topic is my fault as well. I just get all "het up" when someone proposes solutions that don't include Post Peak Oil. Unfortunately, that includes every politician who comes to mind, whether Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian.
I can't speak for an entire government system, but I can say that I'm personally far more creative and giving as a financially secure retiree than I ever was in the back-stabbing, competitive work environment from which I retired. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both entrepreneurs, which IMO requires a high level of risk tolerance generally not found among us peasants. It seems to me that a lot more people would be willing to try out their ideas if they were assured a minimal amount of financial security and adequate health care whether they succeed or fail.
HappyHiker
10-19-11, 9:41pm
I don't know, sometimes I feel as though I'm living in a spiritually bankrupted system with little hope that things will improve except for the top 2%. But then, at other times, I feel so supported by wonderful community and kinship that I become positively optimistic. I suppose the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
My new novel, Falling Through Time, creates a future world I'd love to live in. The initial premise came to me while in one of darker, spiritually bankrupted moods. The novel ends on a hopeful note, so I guess my optimism prevailed.
JaneV2.0
10-19-11, 10:45pm
But it's the best the world has seen to date. Let's tear it down now before it does more good.
We're number one! I always hear about how we're so special, but when I look at virtually any meaningful measure, like infant mortality, happiness indices, life expectancy, health care costs, gap between rich and poor, incarceration rates, violent crime, education outcomes, education costs, and on and on, we're reliably way down the list. We're on top of the heap when it comes to war, munitions, prison population, and number of billionaires, I think.
I imagine the Founding Fathers would be dismayed that we have devolved right back to government of the few, by the few, for the few.
We're number one! I always hear about how we're so special, but when I look at virtually any meaningful measure, like infant mortality, happiness indices, life expectancy, health care costs, gap between rich and poor, incarceration rates, violent crime, education outcomes, education costs, and on and on, we're reliably way down the list. We're on top of the heap when it comes to war, munitions, prison population, and number of billionaires, I think.
I imagine the Founding Fathers would be dismayed that we have devolved right back to government of the few, by the few, for the few.
BRAVO!!!!! :+1:
Yossarian
10-19-11, 11:28pm
Baloney. Freedom of opportunity ensures the chance to succeed, and to fail.
I liked the discussions of how friendly the Danes are. My MIL is from Denmark, and so we have many friends there. I can say that the Danes I know are very happy, and don't mind the taxes. Something like 70-80% of the country is public sector.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both entrepreneurs, which IMO requires a high level of risk tolerance generally not found among us peasants. It seems to me that a lot more people would be willing to try out their ideas if they were assured a minimal amount of financial security and adequate health care whether they succeed or fail.
Gates and Jobs are certainly examples of the ultimate dream: fantastic success and wealth that can be generated if the capitalistic stars align. Most of us entrepreneurs will never quite reach that level. You're exactly correct that the entrepreneurs most of you know do have a level of risk tolerance. Its simply a requirement. The average entrepreneur is more likely to be the guy selling apples at the farmers market than the guy who started Apple. Small businesses are, IMO, one of the things that truly makes this country great. The risk is part of what DRAWS an entrepreneur in. With that comes the potential for reward. If you eliminate that you WILL kill the system because it will be flooded with people that have no business starting a business. It takes a LOT more than just an idea to be an entrepreneur.
Quick example. I had a construction business for a little over 20 years. We were in a market that got very hot in the 1990's and early 2000's. At that time every carpenter who owned a pick-up was calling himself a contractor. They all had business cards printed up, bought cell phones and paid $18 to take the (open book) state licensing exam. We went from a market with roughly 100 general contractors to well over 1,000 in only a few years, with no real increase in population. When the tech bubble burst, then housing, then recession the work dried up. Almost none of these guys are still in "business". I support being opportunistic, but these guys were not really entrepreneurs. They didn't have long term vision or plans. They weren't willing to do whatever it takes to keep the business going through tough times. They didn't work to gain the skills and knowledge that would have helped sustain them. In short, they never invested anything. That's what entrepreneurs do that most of you "peasants" don't. If you provide a safety net for anyone who wants to take a shot you will eliminate the risk and flood the market with people who have nothing more than an idea and do not make a commitment to (aka investment in) what they are doing. A flooded market will produce sub-standard products and services and create an extremely negative environment for the few people who are actually willing to make some sacrifices to build something of value.
HappyHiker
10-20-11, 7:53am
Yes, Jane, we're constantly being sold the myth of the American Dream. Should the American Dream still exist, and I question that it does, it's mighty tarnished. Good morning America stated yesterday morning that for the first time in our history, college tuition debt has surpassed credit card debt...and many of our expensively educated recent college graduates cannot find jobs.
And jobs they do find, for the most part, lack benefits such as health care. Our older workers are being let go and also cannot find jobs.
The old American Dream is out of reach for most of us...the New American Dream lacks health care and affordable education and jobs. Number One? Us? Hardly. In what area?
I should add that while providing a safety net to cushion or eliminate the negative impacts of failure is a bad idea, reducing or eliminating the obstacles to being able to start and maintain a new venture should have a very positive impact.
Yes, Jane, we're constantly being sold the myth of the American Dream. Should the American Dream still exist, and I question that it does, it's mighty tarnished. Good morning America stated yesterday morning that for the first time in our history, college tuition debt has surpassed credit card debt...and many of our expensively educated recent college graduates cannot find jobs.
And jobs they do find, for the most part, lack benefits such as health care. Our older workers are being let go and also cannot find jobs.
The old American Dream is out of reach for most of us...the New American Dream lacks health care and affordable education and jobs. Number One? Us? Hardly. In what area?
And yet people from all over the world continue to flock to America with little more than a dream...
Two of my three kids graduated college this spring (DS took a 'less direct' approach than DD did). DD got a degree in a very marketable field and got a job right out of the gate. DS got a degree that, as far as I can see, has no real marketable value. He is heading off to grad school since "there are no jobs". Bull****. DD#2 (kid #3) is 15 and has a job where they beg her to put in more hours and work more days. There are plenty of jobs, just not many that met his initial expectations. Turns out the guidance counselors at his college weren't kidding when they told him there were no jobs in his chosen field. In his defense he is now working TWO jobs and will drop one of them when school starts up in January.
If your American dream is to get a degree in whatever field happens to appeal to your 20 year old sensibility then waltz seamlessly into a high paying, high benefit position, then yes, it is probably out of reach. But that's NOT the American dream I was taught about. I was always given examples of the guy who came to the US with $10 in his pocket and then worked his butt off for the next 30 years building something. That still exists, is still possible and the opportunity is still available to anyone who will get after it. To put it bluntly the old American dream is dead for most Americans because they aren't willing to get off their ass and earn it.
Of course a strong work ethic doesn't guarantee anything, but it's virtually assured you won't go very far without one. When did we forget that? Americans have become weak, lazy and want everything handed to us on a silver platter. We've become a nation of wannabe lottery winners. We've lost all sense of perspective, but gained a heck of a sense of entitlement. If private enterprise doesn't give us whatever we feel entitled to then we want the government to give it to us (or make private enterprise give it to us). Well peel me a frickin' grape. If we don't start to provide an environment in which people are encouraged to go after something better than status quo rather than sit around and wait for their _______ (fill in the blank with whatever entitlement or entity works for you) this is as good as its going to get.
iris lily
10-20-11, 10:28am
This is why I love immigrants, they remind me what our country CAN be at it's best.
The Bosnian community here are a real inspirations for the American dream.
And yet people from all over the world continue to flock to America with little more than a dream...
....If your American dream is to get a degree in whatever field happens to appeal to your 20 year old sensibility then waltz seamlessly into a high paying, high benefit position, then yes, it is probably out of reach. But that's NOT the American dream I was taught about. I was always given examples of the guy who came to the US with $10 in his pocket and then worked his butt off for the next 30 years building something. That still exists, is still possible and the opportunity is still available to anyone who will get after it. To put it bluntly the old American dream is dead for most Americans because they aren't willing to get off their ass and earn it.
Of course a strong work ethic doesn't guarantee anything, but it's virtually assured you won't go very far without one. When did we forget that? Americans have become weak, lazy and want everything handed to us on a silver platter. We've become a nation of wannabe lottery winners. We've lost all sense of perspective, but gained a heck of a sense of entitlement. If private enterprise doesn't give us whatever we feel entitled to then we want the government to give it to us (or make private enterprise give it to us). Well peel me a frickin' grape. If we don't start to provide an environment in which people are encouraged to go after something better than status quo rather than sit around and wait for their _______ (fill in the blank with whatever entitlement or entity works for you) this is as good as its going to get.
Well said!
The sad thing is, we're quickly becoming a society which places no value on encouraging individual effort, or a risk/reward system of innovation and accomplishment.
The happiest people I know are those who take responsibility for their own happiness and well being, while the most miserable people I know are those who want the government or society at large to cater to them.
ApatheticNoMore
10-20-11, 12:15pm
I'd believe a little more that opportunities were open to everyone if EVERY SINGLE year, sometimes more than once a year, the state colleges didn't announce that they were cutting classes (and yet with demand as great as ever).
pinkytoe
10-20-11, 12:25pm
Consensus certainly isn't an American virtue these days. I have stopped watching politicians as they are all so combative. Each side of the coin will have to give a little if we are ever to get out of the backslide we are in. Perhaps the great innovators will step up to save us all.
And yet people from all over the world continue to flock to America with little more than a dream...
Two of my three kids graduated college this spring (DS took a 'less direct' approach than DD did). DD got a degree in a very marketable field and got a job right out of the gate. DS got a degree that, as far as I can see, has no real marketable value. He is heading off to grad school since "there are no jobs". Bull****. DD#2 (kid #3) is 15 and has a job where they beg her to put in more hours and work more days. There are plenty of jobs, just not many that met his initial expectations. Turns out the guidance counselors at his college weren't kidding when they told him there were no jobs in his chosen field. In his defense he is now working TWO jobs and will drop one of them when school starts up in January.
If your American dream is to get a degree in whatever field happens to appeal to your 20 year old sensibility then waltz seamlessly into a high paying, high benefit position, then yes, it is probably out of reach. But that's NOT the American dream I was taught about. I was always given examples of the guy who came to the US with $10 in his pocket and then worked his butt off for the next 30 years building something. That still exists, is still possible and the opportunity is still available to anyone who will get after it. To put it bluntly the old American dream is dead for most Americans because they aren't willing to get off their ass and earn it.
Of course a strong work ethic doesn't guarantee anything, but it's virtually assured you won't go very far without one. When did we forget that? Americans have become weak, lazy and want everything handed to us on a silver platter. We've become a nation of wannabe lottery winners. We've lost all sense of perspective, but gained a heck of a sense of entitlement. If private enterprise doesn't give us whatever we feel entitled to then we want the government to give it to us (or make private enterprise give it to us). Well peel me a frickin' grape. If we don't start to provide an environment in which people are encouraged to go after something better than status quo rather than sit around and wait for their _______ (fill in the blank with whatever entitlement or entity works for you) this is as good as its going to get.
It really bothers me when someone says 'people' just don't want to work hard, or young people lack drive and substance, or whatever it was that 'we' had in abundance in our day. Or that other little nut, Don't work harder, work smarter!
Sounds good and all and would certainly get cheers at the republican debates, But doesn't really look at the whole picture. The parameters have changed. The American dream of 30 years ago included being able to work your way through college. You could actually get a job, go to school and pay your bills. You could also pay for your medical needs. You had insurance, and if it didn't cover something, well you could pay out of pocket, or work something out with the dr to pay in a reasonable time. This just isn't so nowadays, and it is totally naive to tell our kids if we did it then you can do it now. It's just not the same. Maybe it should be, but it's not.
I find this is the hardest thing for people to understand, when they talk about health care or the price of gas, or how much it costs to go out to dinner, or anything really. The constant comparison to 20 or 30 or 200 years ago really serves no purpose what so ever in the here and now. Yes, gas used to be 25 cents but it's not now, so saying what it 'should' be every freaking time you fill up will only leave you with the constant feeling you are being cheated and irritate everyone else around you. The same goes for rent and food, and yes college tuition. Instead of telling our kids they aren't working hard enough, perhaps it would be better to help them evaluate their choice of degree, with real world jobs available and the pay scale with that degree. Maybe a trade school or other training would be a better fit. Then we need to accept that in some cases you simply need a degree to get through the door. Whether you actually need a degree to do the job or not, sometimes you simply need that piece of paper.
Your son will have certain doors opened for him, that otherwise would not be, because he has a degree, in his field or not. It's just the way it works. Period.
The American dream is, and always was, just a dream for the majority of Americans, if the American dream looks like Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, or any one other of the 1%
But if we hold these up as the American dream, then we are selling ourselves and our country short. The real American dream is to live in America, this wonderfully diverse and totally unique living experience, right here, right now, warts and all.
I'm not sure what will come of the OWS or the tea baggers or any other social/political/economic movement from the dissatisfied masses, the 99%, but I'm pretty sure it won't look like Denmark. The real trick, in my opinion, is taking the ideas that work in other countries, like health care, and doing it "American style"! Maybe I'm just an old optimist, but if our history is any indication, I'm pretty sure it will be fantastic!
JaneV2.0
10-20-11, 12:48pm
... The real trick, in my opinion, is taking the ideas that work in other countries, like health care, and doing it "American style"! ...
Exactly!
Germany seems to do it right as far as education, apprenticeships, technology and innovation, while still providing national benefits like affordable health care. I'm offended by the notion that, given an effective safety net, we'll turn into a nation of layabouts.
Aqua Blue
10-20-11, 1:20pm
It bothers me a great deal to hear the ole, they just need to work harder.... i come from a family of hard workers. My siblings and I are now in our 50's. I no longer work, partially because of long term pain issues and I decided I could probably get by not working. Really any job i could find would hardly make it worth driving somewhere to work.
My sister, who is a very hard worker, always going the extra mile, has been unempolyed and under employed. Her husband died suddenly 6 years ago, she lost the house, then she lost her job, then she got another job and that business closed. She stored her things in my garage and moved out to be near her daughters hoping to start over. She was there 8 monthes sent out a zillion applications, went to businesses etc. Did not get anything. She moved in her car to another part of the country and now works minimun wage cleaning hotel rooms, lives in a rooming house, and that job ends in nov. She isn't living the American Dream, I can tell you. Did she not work hard enough????
One of my brothers was laid off for lack of work. He too is really hard working, i have never seen him not go the extra mile. He has been known to take equipment home and work on it for free, so it would be up and running the next day, but I am sure he doesn't work hard enough either. After 7 monthes he found another job, worked there for about 6 monthes, they closed, he then was off work for another 6 monthes and now seems to be at a job which might stay in business. he is making 1/4 of what he used to make but I am sure if he had worked harder that would have been different. NOT!
My second brother's job has been pretty stable up until now, now they are talking about eliminating some positions. Guess what positions? the ones with older workers, health care and some retirement! Surprise! He had cancer a number of years ago and did not miss one day due to cancer treatment. But, I suppose he isn't the real hard worker either!
Both of my mid 20 nieces are struggling too. Neither has been able to find full time work, so they both hobble together several part time jobs. neither has found work in the areas they went to school for. As the years go by their education will be less and less likely to get the jobs. They too are hard workers, got good grades in school while holding down part time jobs, willing to to whatever-like sweep the floor even if it isn't really their job. They are young, cute, hard working and will probably never have the American Dream. i think a reasonable good quality life in the US is a fading possiblilty. Greg, you are very lucky your children have done so well, I can think of many many equally hard working kids of friends and family that haven't been so lucky.
As long as I am on a roll, why is it whenever someone brings up how another country does something it turns into, but that isn't America!? Perhaps we could occassionally look at how someone else does something and learn from it. Why do we have to invent it, or it isn't good enough?
Yeah, I don't know a lot of lazy good-for-nothings, but I keep hearing about them. Kind of like Reagan's Welfare Queen.
Y'all are working hard to put words in my mouth (or someone else's). No one here said there aren't plenty of people left in America who work hard and no one here said that someone would succeed if they simply worked harder. What I said was that most people won't get very far if they DON'T work hard. That's an entirely different animal. If hard work was all it took most of us would be rich.
Of course a strong work ethic doesn't guarantee anything, but it's virtually assured you won't go very far without one.
This discussion is beginning to remind me of my dearly departed Mother In Law. She spent 30+ years of her life working as a union packer in a manufacturing facility. Day after day of packing widgets into boxes for shipment. No variety in the job since it was union and deviation of duties was not allowed.
As she got older, a constant complaint was that she deserved to make as much money as the people in the front office or as the professional positions within the company. Her reasoning was that she worked harder than the accountants, the salespeople, the engineers and production planners, etc., she physically worked harder than they did. She deserved it!!
She never understood the value of each position and the skills necessary to be successful at each, or perhaps she did but simply wouldn't acknowledge it. I always thought it was simply narrow minded thinking.
ApatheticNoMore
10-20-11, 2:38pm
Her reasoning was that she worked harder than the accountants, the salespeople, the engineers and production planners, etc., she physically worked harder than they did. She deserved it!!
Pay is determined by supply and demand, nothing more (in a market with very imperfect information) - and supply and demand can be naturally or artifically created. Supply and demand can be influenced by laws, for instance you want to increase the demand for your profession, you write it into the law, you want to flood a labor market, you let in boatloads of immigration. Anyway, it is not determined by how hard work is physically. It is not determined by how hard work is mentally (or all college chemistry grads would be rich). It is not determined by how morally worthy the worker is, or how good a person they are, or how smart they are. Supply and demand - nothing more.
She never understood the value of each position and the skills necessary to be successful at each, or perhaps she did but simply wouldn't acknowledge it.
some of them skills that in my opinion anyone could learn. Accounting for sure, engineering is harder. Salesmanship, well that's not entirely a skill, it's also a personality type, I mean if you are a serious introvert forget it. So basically you are saying she didn't understand that it is all determined by supply and demand, not how hard you work, not moral worthiness, none of that. Hence judging a persons worthiness by their financial worth is just bizarre.
Yes, I call that the Law of Inverse Effort. The harder you work, the less you get paid, and vice versa. It often operates in conjunction with the Law of Who You Know.
Gardenarian
10-20-11, 3:55pm
Americans have become weak, lazy and want everything handed to us on a silver platter.
"Americans work more than anyone in the industrialized world.
More than the English, more than the French, way more than the Germans or Norwegians. Even, recently, more than the Japanese.
And Americans take less vacation, work longer days, and retire later, too."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93364&page=1
"Americans have become weak, lazy and want everything handed to us on a silver platter."
Can you cite data to back this up? If not, I say that's ridiculous on its face.
I'm old enough to remember when ordinary people could afford (ubiquitous non-profit) medical care and (reasonably priced, sometimes free) higher education. You know, the way they do it in all the other developed countries in the world. Is that what you call "handed to us on a silver platter?"
Yossarian
10-20-11, 5:29pm
Pay is determined by supply and demand, nothing more
It's a factor, but it is also governed by the value you create. You can be the only massage therapist within 1,000 miles, but I'm still not going to pay you as much for a massage as I would one of the 100 surgeons down the street if I need a transplant.
It's a factor, but it is also governed by the value you create. You can be the only massage therapist within 1,000 miles, but I'm still not going to pay you as much for a massage as I would one of the 100 surgeons down the street if I need a transplant.
+1
I'm old enough to remember when ordinary people could afford (ubiquitous non-profit) medical care and (reasonably priced, sometimes free) higher education. You know, the way they do it in all the other developed countries in the world. Is that what you call "handed to us on a silver platter?"
No its not. I am also plenty old enough to remember such things. Someone ALWAYS worked for those services. If you got a "free" higher education it was the product of plenty of work that was performed by others. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is EVER free. You can't kick that can far enough down the road to make it true. That belief might just be the very core of what is wrong with our country right now.
And I would love for anyone to tell me exactly when either higher education OR medical care were non-profit. Oh sure, you can talk about state schools who's goal should be to break even and thereby keep the costs to a minimum for students, but I doubt anyone is naive enough anymore to believe that universities, state or otherwise, run on tuition. They don't. And the medical field? When I was a kid in the 60's and 70's the doctors in town lived in the nicest houses. The old country doc that delivered my dad and was a lifelong friend of the family was one of the largest land owners in the state upon his death. He might have been paid in chickens at some time, but most of his pay was in cold, hard dollars. Nothing was free.
Americans believe they are entitled. They believe they have a right to things just like health care. Just because someone else has figured out how to do something doesn't mean I have any right at all to have them do it for me, especially for free (if I can't afford to pay them). It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if they've figured out how to hang a door, bake bread, change a tire or take out an appendix. People do deserve access to services, including health care and we, as a good people, should take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Beyond that no one has any right to expect others to perform any service for them without compensation. If supply and demand regulate pricing then the market will keep the prices EXACTLY where they should be for any service you can think of. Does the insurance field need an overhaul? Of course it does, but stop confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE and then the debate can begin.
ApatheticNoMore
10-20-11, 8:04pm
It's a factor, but it is also governed by the value you create. You can be the only massage therapist within 1,000 miles, but I'm still not going to pay you as much for a massage as I would one of the 100 surgeons down the street if I need a transplant.
How can this not be explained by supply and demand? The garbage collectors prevent far more diseases than the surgeons cure. But going into garbage collection is not a way to great riches.
Those who actually CREATE things can in many situations be paid less than those who market it.
I'm happy to pay taxes to support non-profit state education, just as I'm happy to pay taxes to fund basic health care. (I'm not happy to pay for endless war, but I do anyway.) I remember lots of hospitals run by charities when I was growing up, and very little interference by insurance grifters. No one says doctors or educators shouldn't be well-paid--"non-profit" doesn't mean people work for free; it means there's no incentive for greed and flim-flam to pimp stocks and pump up dividends.
Yossarian
10-20-11, 9:17pm
How can this not be explained by supply and demand? The garbage collectors prevent far more diseases than the surgeons cure. But going into garbage collection is not a way to great riches.
Supply and demand is some of that. But if there were only one garbage man, there is a max you will pay. Scarcity of labor will only get you so far when the intrinsic value of your service is low. My parents don't pay for garbage service, they get rid of it themselves. They won't pay $30 a month, and a labor shortage won't raise payments for them. Same for the rest of us at some point. But at what price do you forgo life saving surgery? There is a price, but the value of that service is higher and you will likely pay more than you would for trash pick up.
A word about immigrants.
Immigrants are everywhere. We are Americans who immigrated to NZ. I am among immigrants from the US, canada, central and south american nations, africans, asian, and europeans. All immigrants from all over the world "flocking" (?) to NZ.
Truth is, immigrants simply seek opportunities. If that opportunity exists in the US, then I would live there. It didn't exist.
The work that I do would require a lot more capital to get started in the US, which would have meant a fair bit of debt. I didn't want to take that on. LIkewise, there's a lot more competition, another thing which means it would be much harder to develop the client base and thereby income. By my estimates (having managed several yoga studios), one needs about $250-400k to start and support a yoga business for the two years it takes to get on it's feet. I didn't have -- nor did i want to borrow -- that kind of money.
With what savings we had, we could buy a business in NZ, rebrand it, and support ourselves for two years. We did sell our house and everything we could to put toward this move, as well as utilize our retirement. Not only was it possible to start this business without a loan (debt), btu we've also been able to create a client base (due to less competition), and grow our business much more quickly than I had anticipated! We made a modest ($6) profit in our first year, and now about 3/4 through our second, we are set to make a larger profit this year.
This opportunity simply did not exist in the US.
There are other benefits in living in NZ as well -- such as not having to worry about health care or education for our son. Just another opportunity to put out there.
We wanted to give our son a steiner education. We believe that this is a good form of education, but in the US, kindergarden was $6k per year. Once the child starts "the grades" (first grade) It goes up to 8.5k. Once they get to "jr high" age, it goes up to $11k. And once they get to high school, it's up around $15k.
Now, as it was, we never had any extra "$6k" sitting around for kindergarden, and with the way my husband's raises worked, and even with me working and improving my business (teaching yoga, private lessons, etc), there was no way that within 10 years or 12 years or 14 years we'll be earning an exta $11k to educate him.
Here in NZ, all schools get federal funding, but private schools have a "special consideration fee." Steiner kindy costs me $1k per year. This is do-able, and it's also considered a "donation" -- so the school can waive it if we can't afford it (so far, they have). My parents have also made donations to the school, which the school has accepted as our "special consideration fee." In addition, once he goes to grades, it goes to $2k, and once in high school, it's estimated it will be about $4k. Since I assume my business will only continue to grow, I can imagine that by the time we get there, we'll be well able to afford $4k per year for the education for our son that we want.
And, i've already spoken about the benefits of our health care. We go to an anthroposophical family doctor -- like we did in the states -- and don't have to pay for it because it's covered by the government. DH has also benefited from acupuncture and physiotherapy for some injuries he's gotten since he's been here, which has been excellent care. Something that would have been simply not possible in the US (these would have been out-of-pocket expenses, as we learned in the past from similar experiences).
We work very hard. We worked just as hard in the US, but really couldn't get ahead, or get to a point where we felt that we coudl do what we wanted (eg, I could start this business) and also educate our son and have the security of knowing that we live in a good place that is safe, etc etc etc.
Here, we work hard for ourselves, and we are succeeding. We want to stay here, so we work double hard -- because we don't get any government support other than education and medical (other visas may qualify for more support than we get).
I think that immigrants just have it in them. They see an opportunity, they act upon it, and they work hard to see it through. They've already given up and risked everything in the coming, so truly -- they, and we, have no where to go but up by the work of our backs.
So wax poetic all day long folks. I am an immigrant in NZ. I know what it is. (i do not know what it is to be a refugee, but i work with refugees through a local organization providing support where we can. It's hard enough being an immigrant, i can't imagine how tough it must be to be a refugee).
catherine
10-21-11, 5:28am
I think that immigrants just have it in them. They see an opportunity, they act upon it, and they work hard to see it through. They've already given up and risked everything in the coming, so truly -- they, and we, have no where to go but up by the work of our backs.
I agree completely. Immigrants are the blood transfusions of the country. Every wave of immigration injects the population with the stock of human capital that is willing to put it all on the line for a better life. That's a certain kind of people, and we all benefit from it.
...the stock of human capital that is willing to put it all on the line for a better life. That's a certain kind of people, and we all benefit from it.
Exactly. Its not just immigrants; there are plenty of people already in this country that would be willing to take the same risks if only educated and encouraged to do so.
Gee.....I *was* told that if you work hard, get good grades, went to college, graduated, that one certainly could live the so called "American Dream"............ I did all that. Joke is on me.
Hard work, a degree, good grades, etc. have always been things that were meant to make the path to your destination smoother, but never the whole picture. The problem, and at the same time the virtue, with a dream is that its different for every single person who has one. I've always thought the "American dream" is less about achieving any one thing than it is a state of mind. At its best its a state of mind where people truly believe anything is possible. When JFK told the nation we were going to put a man on the moon that was an American dream. In our current state the US is, among other things, uninspired. There is a distinct absence of hope. People are not taught to consider all the possibilities, but instead they learn to play to the lowest common denominator. The real questions are... How do we turn that around? How do we create an environment where creativity and fortitude are encouraged and rewarded? How do we get individuals to take more responsibility for themselves? What tools can we use to encourage that? What will it take to give people some pride in the way they live and some hope for the future?
The real questions are... How do we turn that around? How do we create an environment where creativity and fortitude are encouraged and rewarded? How do we get individuals to take more responsibility for themselves? What tools can we use to encourage that? What will it take to give people some pride in the way they live and some hope for the future?
Conservatism
ApatheticNoMore
10-21-11, 11:44am
Gee.....I *was* told that if you work hard, get good grades, went to college, graduated, that one certainly could live the so called "American Dream"............ I did all that. Joke is on me.
Maybe. I never graduated college (that was mostly because I had a complete emotional breakdown at 21 or so and never went back - it certainly wasn't due to bad grades or lack of ability to do college level work) and have always managed to get decent jobs. To my own amazement I got hired in two months of looking in this economy. I really didn't expect that, though I think things are picking up a tiny little bit from how they were two years ago (so had I lost my job then it would have been worse). I do keep expecting my luck to run out and one of these days all doors to be shut because I don't have a degree. "Sorry noone without a degree allowed in to the (ever shrinking) middle class". I do feel I need to make very strategic career direction decisions. I have a 2 years associates for what it's worth (very little :)).
Originally Posted by Gregg
The real questions are... How do we turn that around? How do we create an environment where creativity and fortitude are encouraged and rewarded? How do we get individuals to take more responsibility for themselves? What tools can we use to encourage that? What will it take to give people some pride in the way they live and some hope for the future?
" Conservatism"
:laff::laff::laff: Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day!
ApatheticNoMore
10-21-11, 1:53pm
I have to admit I have fairly low expectations. Expect a middle class income. Kinda :). I'm SPOILED :laff: But expect being middle class can mean I can afford a house in CA? I wish, I envy, but expect that well no .....
Expect work to be some wonderfully fulfilling thing? I wish, I envy those who have it, but expect that, well no. It is why I say we need to allow people to have a life outside of work (ie not work them to death), because most people's main fulfillment will never be found in work. Take a pay cut and a commute to get a job in an economy I know very well is bad? Yep, I did.
People who "do all the right things" and still end up in trouble in this economy. Oh I'm sure they exist (more so among those encountering age discrimination but among the young too - wouldn't want to be just starting out now). But you know the phrase "done all the right things and still ...." irritates me to no end. Because the phrase "done all the right things" itself is too high an expectation of human beings. Human beings don't "do all the right things" instead TO ERR IS HUMAN! :) Now a person who does ALL the wrong things, comes into work stumble down drunk etc., um well uh they've got bigger problems. But making mistakes. Everyone does. So the question then is the economy functioning enough to allow normal recovery (not necessary complete income recovery - but I mean the ability to escape poverty) from normal human mistakes not to mention just plain bad luck for those who want to recover.
Not to mention the criteria for "doing all the right things" keeps being raised. Once upon a time "the right things" might have been working hard, an honest days work for a days pay, etc.. Then much manufacturing disappeared. So the right things becomes having to have a college degree (we'll conveniently avoid the fact that 75% of the population doesn't in our elitist bubble here). But then there's a very large especially somewhat older population with degrees and no jobs, so then the right thing becomes a perfectly linear career path, always knowing exactly which career direction to take long in advance. Etc.
....." How do we get individuals to take more responsibility for themselves? What tools can we use to encourage that? What will it take to give people some pride in the way they live and some hope for the future?"
Ugh......really?? I have taken 100% responsibility for myself. Never taken a handout or assistance of *any* kind. Pride? I have that, and not so much that I haven't taken low paying jobs some people wouldn't have and while in college working towards the "dream" I worked 2-3 jobs 90% of the time! And it's what I was told......my experience is no more or less valid than anyone else's.
"....state of mind that people truly believe anything is possible." I think that is completely misleading to say to someone. Telling someone they can be anything they want to be is not a truth. There are many things from finances to intelligence to myriad other things that makes that statement incorrect and misleading to say to children.
Ok, fair enough. Are you willing to share what is the dream you have that you are not capable of achieving....and why not? Btw, I'm not sure what talking to children has to do with most of this, I am more concerned with society as a whole.
I would be curious to know just how conservatism as a political philosophy or what aspects of it will lead to the overall happiness of a society.
first, i was never educated nor encouraged to take this risk.
every step of the way, my (politically and religiously) conservative family told me not to do it, it couldn't be done, that i -- in particular -- shouldn't do it, would never succeed, etc.
once we made the decision, people -- family and otherwise -- used every coercive and emotional tactic to discourage us from leaving, and once we were set on leaving, wept as if we were dying and accused us of abandoning them.
now, my husband's parents treat us like idiots (nothing new) and ask when we are going to "pack it in and come home" because we are "obviosuly failing" and my parents are more open about it, saying that they are "shocked that i'm proving them wrong."
Thanks guys! * eye roll *
second, i've also never taken a hand out. I've earned scholarships, i've worked while studying (though I wish i would have worked and paid for more), and i've taken jobs that others didn't want.
third, I do believe that I can do anything. I just didn't believe (or perceive) it to be possible in the US. I wrote about how and why in the prior post about it.
forth, i don't see how conservatism fits in or will fix all of societies ills, largely because "conservatism" is a general term. Libertarians are conservatives (technically speaking), but most conservatives do not align themselves or see themselves as libertarians. I suppose they are seen as too radical? Theocons are usually conservatives, but I think they have no real concept of the constitution, and this idea of creating a theocracy is -- in my mind -- insane. It's really no different than Afghanistan pre- the current war or Iran, which is supposedly not about freedom? am I right about that assessment?
I have no issue with Republicanism pre Neo/Theo-cons, and libertarianism. Or, what Thomas Jefferson wrote about. That guy is smart.
I have a real issue with modern "conservatism" that isn't conservative and keeps effing things up. I'm sorry, but the current issues with banks can be traced quite easily back to Reganomics, and I do not get at all why conservatives won't take responsibility for this!!!! They talk a great game about taking personal responsibility, but as a group, will not take responsibility for how bank deregulation lead to this situation!
Anyway, I think if they were to say "ah, well, that didn't work the way we expected. lets figure something else out" rather than "it was the liberals! and the socialists! and the lamestream media!" and "lets keep pretending we are blameless and faultless" and "lets keep pretending that we are ok with the THEOCON agenda!" WTF guys? seriously?
Jefferson rolls in his grave, folks. ROLLING.
iris lily
10-22-11, 11:06am
I would be curious to know just how conservatism as a political philosophy or what aspects of it will lead to the overall happiness of a society.
I'm sure you are aware of that survey that is posted here from time to time that show conservatives to be the happiest of the populace. Whatever that means, and certainly all stuff like this is suspect, but I always find that interesting.
JaneV2.0
10-22-11, 12:57pm
"Conservative" used to mean protective of the environment (as in "conservation"), cautious, slow to embrace change, frugal--maybe to the point of reactionary, perhaps conventionally religious and oriented toward family and community, committed to a strong national defense... I doubt old-style conservatives like Barry Goldwater would recognize today's Ayn Rand worshipping, holy roller permutation ( I would say perversion) of the word.
Aqua Blue
10-22-11, 1:42pm
"Conservative" used to mean protective of the environment (as in "conservation"), cautious, slow to embrace change, frugal--maybe to the point of reactionary, perhaps conventionally religious and oriented toward family and community, committed to a strong national defense... I doubt old-style conservatives like Barry Goldwater would recognize today's Ayn Rand worshipping, holy roller permutation ( I would say perversion) of the word.
Exactly, I considered myself a conservative until they started worshipping people like Rush and Glen. I just couldn't take what I saw as the hatefulness.
Baloney. Freedom of opportunity ensures the chance to succeed, and to fail.
That assumes a level playing field, which I would definitely NOT assume at this point in time. When I was a kid, every child was told he or she could be President or anything else the child wanted to be. Now it costs a fortune just to go to college, let alone run for President.
Yossarian
10-22-11, 3:40pm
That assumes a level playing field
There has never been a level playing field anywhere. I thought this was a good observation:
Maybe this is all really about disappointment. I spoke to a young woman who had clearly bathed more recently than most. I asked her why she was at OccupySF. She told me she'd done all the right things. Studied hard. Graduated college. (She was an art major.) And now she can't get a job. It didn't matter. It's all messed up. She was lied to.
Of course she was. She's a member of the Trophy Generation. Win or lose, you get a trophy. We embraced mediocrity to an entire generation of kids during good times who are now finding themselves mediocre in bad times. There still is that American dream: Go to college, get a job, buy a Prius. But like it or not, studying art or humanities or gender studies won't get you there. Marissa Mayer at Google complains she can't find enough computer-science majors. Civil engineers are getting hired sight unseen.
Educating the whole child was bad advice. So was follow your passion. California spends months teaching ninth-graders how to build a waste-treatment plant with only a day or two on natural selection. I think Occupy Wall Streeters are as much disappointed with the route they all took as they are with "fat cat" bankers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576640962366762204.html
There has never been a level playing field anywhere. I thought this was a good observation:
Maybe this is all really about disappointment. I spoke to a young woman who had clearly bathed more recently than most. I asked her why she was at OccupySF. She told me she'd done all the right things. Studied hard. Graduated college. (She was an art major.) And now she can't get a job. It didn't matter. It's all messed up. She was lied to.
Of course she was. She's a member of the Trophy Generation. Win or lose, you get a trophy. We embraced mediocrity to an entire generation of kids during good times who are now finding themselves mediocre in bad times. There still is that American dream: Go to college, get a job, buy a Prius. But like it or not, studying art or humanities or gender studies won't get you there. Marissa Mayer at Google complains she can't find enough computer-science majors. Civil engineers are getting hired sight unseen....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576640962366762204.html
I'm pushing sixty-six. The generation about which this article was written isn't mine, but I am as disgruntled as the OWSers.
Educating the whole child was bad advice. So was follow your passion. California spends months teaching ninth-graders how to build a waste-treatment plant with only a day or two on natural selection. I think Occupy Wall Streeters are as much disappointed with the route they all took as they are with "fat cat" bankers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576640962366762204.html
That depends on what sort of society you wish to build. Greed and the delusion of never-ending growth has gotten us where we are today. I don't have children, but if I had I would not have raised them to do whatever is most in demand, including being a corporate clone. That is not the sort of person who helped found the "land of the free, and the home of the brave".
I would think someone who spent months building a waste treatment plant might likely end up in civil engineering, but apparently not...
...I've always thought the "American dream" is less about achieving any one thing than it is a state of mind. At its best its a state of mind where people truly believe anything is possible. When JFK told the nation we were going to put a man on the moon that was an American dream. In our current state the US is, among other things, uninspired....
The 99% are more than uninspired, they're depressed and angry that they've been mugged by their own government and trampled by the Too Big To Fail who were bailed out with their hard-earned tax money. Investors and home-buyers alike have been defrauded by big banks, the insured have been bankrupted by insurance companies that turn their backs when someone has the nerve to get seriously ill, and our leaders and aspiring leaders are too busy snarling at one another to pay any attention to the voters. I have a number of friends who've gotten an education, worked hard, and saved and invested their money and they've been royally screwed. How is this national atmosphere supposed to inspire decent, honest people?
loosechickens
10-22-11, 11:11pm
And when the OWS and the Tea Party folks come to the realization that they are suffering the same things, that the deck has been stacked against them in exactly the same ways, by the 1% who have been busy for the past thirty years or so tilting the playing field ever more in their favor, buying politicians and being the ones who manage to almost write the rules and regulations to their own advantage, to the point where the huge majority of the increase of wealth of this country has flowed directly to them and not the 99% of the American people who actually created that wealth........watch out.
Because the people may well take this country back. Unless the folks in power can manage to divide and polarize them to the point where they don't recognize where the enemy actually is. If the big money can manage it, they will set the Tea Party against the OWS folks, and continue on their merry way, mopping up an every increasing amount of wealth as the U.S. slides into greater and greater income inequality and becomes a banana republic.
It's our choice. The people, by their very numbers are still in charge, despite all the power wielded by that top 1%. But whether we use it, or whether we allow ourselves to be divided and polarized remains to be seen.
i'm also not of the 'trophy generation' and I know a lot of people in that generation who are *amazing* and hard-working -- truly inspirational people. I really love them and am inspired by them.
For my own part, while I do believe that the "american dream" is that you can do/be whatever you wish -- i really believe this is the dream of all people, and in fact is possible in more places than the US, though most people in the US seem to think that everyone else doesn't have "freedom." I was chatting with another expat, and he said the funniest question he got when he decided to come to NZ, from his US friends was "do they have freedom in NZ?" we weren't really sure how to even begin to answer that question, but in general, I would say "yes." We have the opportunities and freedom here to follow our dreams.
but with this, i never expected a "level playing field." I was taught, and believe that hard work, opportunity, and being willing to take risks are a massive part of the equation, and also the ability to tolerate uncertainty and accept failure as part of the learning process.
In fact, it is this uncertainty/risk/failure/growth (success) that is capitalism in my opinion. There's a great book that DH and I just read Uncertainty by Jonathan Fields explains it really well. Essentially, you have to take the opportunity, live with the unknown, observe what is working, and then act on it. You may fail (decrease) or you may succeed (growth), and you want growth in some sector at all times.
It is also notable that "maintaining" requires "growth." this might be considered "sustainable growth" or "slow growth" because it requires the same effort as "growth" but allows for less speed. This may be appropriate if you have reached your goals, are not seeking large growth anymore, and simply want to "maintain" the business or what have you, in which case you need to ahve enough growth each quarter to sustain it. Since the conditions in which the business is are constantly changing, your adaptability to those conditions and ability to grow within those conditions due to that adaptability is what allows you to maintain. Thus, constant growth is required UNLESS you are ok with decline.
The book explains it really well.
For my own part, I am actually quite conservative -- ideologically speaking. I prefer a strict construction of the constitution -- Justice Scalia style. Go and read the man's opinions, and you'll catch my drift. I love me some Scalia opinions. Scalia is very clear that most of this crap needs to be managed at state and local levels, and the federal government is not about that.
In regards to debt forgiveness, it's been around for a LONG time, and is even an integral part of our legal system: bankruptcy court.
What happens is you file, the court renegotiates with creditors what you owe, and in some cases, creditors don't get paid at all. That is debt forgiveness. The debt disappears off of your books, and guess what? It doesn't hurt the creditor either -- because the losses are offset in the tax code among other accounting practices. In bankruptcy court, every kind of debt is forgivable except student loans. This leads to indentured servitude, essentially, and this is partly why bankruptcy court was created (to overcome the issues of debtor's prison and indentured servitude, which is a form of slavery).
Likewise, debt relief and forgiveness has been a common practice for a long time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_relief). It's in Leviticus in the bible, and was practiced in ancient athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seisachtheia) -- the birthplace of democracy.
It's largely been used as a sort of "social reset" in order to provide everyone with a clean slate and therefore the opportunity to move forward with their business and their lives.
debt forgiveness financially and socially viable, valuable, and long-established practice. Most recently, Saudi Arabia forgave debt to Iraq, and have also extended debt forgiveness (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view.bg?articleid=1318828&srvc=news&position=recent) to the Saudi people to avoid an Arab-Spring in Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying that i'm all about saudi arabia, it's just a modern example of how debt forgiveness isn't necessarily some back-breaking social situation. It simply allows institutions (banks that hold the loans, for example), to clear them from their books, and it allows the common person to walk away and start anew. This provides the OPPORTUNITY to move forward, whereas crushing debt prevents that opportunity (or makes it a lot riskier. I admit, it was a risk to continue to carry my student debt before moving).
Without debt forgiveness in some form, we create a society of strict hierarchy where the "american dream" isn't as accessible. Recognizing how debt forgiveness works -- from a social and economic standpoint -- helps us better understand why people, even conservatives, are calling for it at this time.
(and yeah, I jumped ship in particular when the theocons got involved, but i dislike the neocon agenda as well, which is about US power overseas, not just the federal government acting on and protecting national interests internationally. . . but really amassing power overseas apparently by any means necessary).
it might also be worthwhile to talk about how this "debt as currency" thing is working out.
take out a loan at citibank, and there is interest accrued. whether you default or not, citibank then sells your debt for pennies on the dollar to either A. investors, or B. another bank, or C. a creditor (debt collection agency). This is whether or not you go into default, btw. And usually, they bundle debts, then chop them up, and sell parts. So often the original signatory actually owes different amounts to multiple parties collecting various interest rates. It's quite difficult to keep up with, to be honest.
But, lets give a simple example. Citibank sells my student loan to Sunshine Debt Collection for pennies on the dollar. SDC gets my loan which is valued at $50k (as an example), with an interest rate of 2.5% (lets just say), which means they can collect whatever that would work out to over time. Citibank usually sends a letter saying 'we sold your loan to SDC, and SDC sends a letter to verify. At this point, you need to file a specific letter with SDC to make sure that they actually own your loan, as there is a lot of fraud out there. They should supply a long list of things -- and you can look on the interwebs as to what you need to ask for and how from any company claiming to hold your loan.
So, SDC paid $.05 for every dollar of the principle, which is $2500. Citibank then shows that the debt is a loss in their books, and they were able to recover $2500 of the debt. Thus, they get the tax break of the "loss," the debt is off their books, and now it is up to SDC.
Now, SDC owns this debt, and they want to make a profit. If you discover that they actually own the debt, you MIGHT be able to negotiate with them. You MIGHT be able to discover how much they spent in the purchase of the loan -- and you MIGHT be able to get that form them or Citibank, but not likely. Your best bet is to say "I know that, in general, these loans are sold for pennies on the dollar, and so how about if I buy the loan at slightly more than what you purchased it for, so that you make a profit?"
This did work,btw, with one credit company that I worked with, once I'd verified their paperwork, for one of my student loans. They were threatening me with things like "you haven't paid your loans! you're going to default" and got rahter aggressive, but I got the paperwork fro them. I was getting the calls, and i said "oh, we're still in the 60 day period when your company can respond to my request for the documentation that you own my loan." And then they'd back off a bit.
When I got the information, it was clear that they did own my loan, and there was a clear accounting of payments I'd made to Citibank, and how much was remaining and the interest rate. The credit company increased my interest rate automatically, and so I contested this -- as I'd never NOT made a payment, it's just that CItibank was not receiving payments from me for that loan anymore, and i'd paid twice before I'd learned that the credit company owned the loan.
So, I had to get that money back from citibank (which took two months and a lot of paperwork), and then put it back into my "pay student loans" account (i have an account that is set up specifically for my income that goes to my student loans and for the student loan credit company to take the payment from that bank account).
Once i had all of this informaiton -- which loan they owned, and i figured out an estimated price for that loan, I offered them a profit on their purchase.
So, they purchased a voucher. Essentially, they paid $2500 with the "value" of $50k plus interest. But, it's like a coupon. You get a voucher for yoga classes -- you pay $48 for something that is normally valued at $96 (this is the voucher we are currently offering online!). So, essentially, if I give them $2500, they break even. If i give them $2700, then they've made a profit.
At this point, where is the debt? Citibank doesn't care about it anymore -- it's off their books. They've made the money that they wanted to, and got the tax write off. SDC bought it for $2500, and their real goal is to make a profit -- and anything more than $2500 is a profit, right? They are a business.
So, i offer an amount that I can afford, and agree to pay it right away, and then that loan is considered paid. Say we all agree with the number $3500. They put it in their books as "profit" -- because they did make a profit. And what happens to the remaining $46,500? Nothing. No one is owed anything. The debt is considered paid off and done.
who lost money? Where was the money lost? Well, it was lost at Citibank, but Citibank apparently didn't care, because they CHOSE to sell at a LOSS to SDC. They felt that's what the loan was worth -- even though I was paying it off and going along nicely.
The same happens with mortgages, btw, they are often sold to other companies when a bank needs to sell some of their debts in order to clear their books and balance out for tax purposes (eg, pay lower taxes), which ultimately keeps them profitable. And it happens with credit card/consumer debt as well.
And this is also what happened with TARP/CPP. The taxpayers "bought" a lot of loans for pennies on the dollar for bundles of loans. Then, the banks "purchased back" for pennies on the dollar this debt. The banks show "balanced books." The government shows "profit." But what about the actual signatories? They still have to pay a bank back. . . a bank that their taxes bailed. And, their government "made that money back" but how is it happening the common signatory?
Think of the debt forgiveness this way. If the "profit" from TARP/CPP went to debt forgiveness a la Saudi Arabia -- a direct investment into what the people actually need such as debt forgiveness, certain investments into sectors to improve markets, and to make homes, etc, accessible -- then EVERYONE gets to move forward.
And, btw, this is "wealth distribution" but it doesn't change the underlying political (democratic) or economic (capitalistic) practices of the country. It simply provides people with the opportunity to move forward just as the banks are getting to move forward.
The banks were insolvent, they were rescued. If the majority of people are insolvent, why aren't they allowed to be rescued?
Or really, if it's a government "for and by the people" why not utilize our collective funds via taxes to rescue all of us, rather than just our banks and automotive industries, etc?
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-11, 12:09am
Maybe this is all really about disappointment. I spoke to a young woman who had clearly bathed more recently than most.
Noone whom I met at occupy smelled. This can't be argued one way or other since hey different experiences, different occupies. But the whole idea that all occupy people smell is dubious.
Educating the whole child was bad advice.
Wait does this have ANYTHING to do with reality? Hasn't arts and music funding for K-12 been on the cutting block forever? I mean seriously funding for such things was cut long ago, long before current budget issues.
Now it is true that when you get to the college level that they MIGHT actually aim for something called a liberal arts education and not try to be purely more prestigious trade schools. If trade schools are what you want, well frankly that shouldn't usually take a full four years for most things!
Marissa Mayer at Google complains she can't find enough computer-science majors. Civil engineers are getting hired sight unseen.
Are young people ever warned of the downsides of these careers also? For instance if you are talking software there are only really so many companies that hire for that. It pretty much necessitates moving or else long commutes whenever you change jobs. Also the workaholic culture of many of these jobs, you have to choose your employer very carefully indeed if you want to avoid that. Workaholic culture (I mean expectations of large amounts of unpaid overtime) may seem like a great deal when your 21 and want to jump into a real and decent paying job. But what about when you find yourself 30 something and female and want to have kids? See.... there's the catch (only TRY to escape that catch now that you see it ....). Still as always better to be able to find work if you want it, than to be without prospects of such.
But really I think I agree young people don't generally go in with truly OPEN eyes to anything. They don't necessarily know hirability of their major and desired career field (plus hirability must take location into account, are they hiring where you want to live?). They might not really understand the pay and what it means (haha, any pay might seem high but really do a budget taking net pay and real cost of living into account first). They don't know the hours they will be expected to work. If it is a field with long hours, do they KNOW and accept this going in or are they in the dark? They don't know the pressures being brought to bear on the field they are majoring in (are they importing or outsourcing a lot of foreign workers for it now? is there still a lot of U.S. work?) They may not know what the work really consists of (hence those who would be happier in an extroverted job end up in a very introverted one and vice versa). Etc.
Are young people ever warned of the downsides of these careers also? For instance if you are talking software there are only really so many companies that hire for that. It pretty much necessitates moving or else long commutes whenever you change jobs. Also the workaholic culture of many of these jobs, you have to choose your employer very carefully indeed if you want to avoid that. Workaholic culture (I mean expectations of large amounts of unpaid overtime) may seem like a great deal when your 21 and want to jump into a real and decent paying job. But what about when you find yourself 30 something and female and want to have kids? See.... there's the catch (only TRY to escape that catch now that you see it ....). Still as always better to be able to find work if you want it, than to be without prospects of such.
Not trying to nitpick here, but I do think its important to have accurate information out here. There are thousands of small software companies in the US developing niche programs. I am not in that field, but do know several people who are, including some family members. As a general rule people who work with computers at this level seem to understand the inherent flexibility. Much of the work can be performed at remote locations (aka: home) and at nearly any time of day. Commuting and office face time are not necessary and often not even desired. One family member has been working from home, developing software, for about 5 years. In that time she has had 2 kids and has been able to spend a huge portion of her days at home with the kids mostly working early in the morning and when they are sleeping. She has a computer science degree, no liberal arts, which is what got her foot in the door. She's paid a salary, receives benefits and gets performance bonuses based on what she accomplishes. Are there millions of jobs like that right now? Nope, but the number is growing. There is no downside for the employee or the company as long as the employee has the proper training to begin with.
ApatheticNoMore
10-24-11, 10:59am
The people who worked for my prior company say, ok decent sized indeed IT department. One or two people went into business for themselves, ALL the rest are employees. That is always how it will be. The employees who got new jobs, ended up getting jobs a decent distance away. That's where the jobs were. Nearby jobs weren't so easy to find. One reason people have actually quit and come back to the same company, you think, hey there are all those wonderful jobs out there but reality is another matter. Lots of people commuting (I mean people crawled back to jobs they claimed to "hate", frankly it was pathetic). Yes the work can IN THEORY be done anywhere, I definitely think so, but companies will seldom allow it of an employee, even companies who had a work from home policy were gradually eliminating it. So no that's not what I have seen and does not at all match what I have observed of others. I wish I did work that was needed everywhere, though I'm not sure what that would be, maybe being a nurse or a pharmacy technician or something, maybe accounting or HR? I really only ended up in the field by following what was hot in the marketplace (remember that dot coms - yea that was when I was a young 'un), I think I should have given things a LOT more thought (not that I was capable of that in my early 20s - I TOTALLY LACKED work and life experience then!!!!). And no it's not as if my parents, already retired for several years at that point, greatest and silent generation experience was all that relevant in giving me any advice in entering a 1990s job market :) But now experts actually advise young people I guess: go into whatever is hot in the job market.
The problem is, you never know what is "hot" in the job market, and honestly, i wish there was more 'truth in advertising."
for me, this is begging the question of the "inherent value" of white-collar jobs.
for the most part, trades and vocations never run out of work and are generally understaffed. I've never met a hairdresser who couldn't support themselves. My hairdresser works 3 days a week and earns $75k. She's doing alright. My uncle is a plumber, and the man works 6 months out of the year for over $100k during that time.
So it's like this. computer programmers may be in demand for google and such -- and perhaps it can be work from home or whatever -- but not everyone is suited to it, and certainly not everyone needs a $50-100k education (debt) to get a job that will pay $60k to start out? if that?
look, even a hot-shot young lawyer is lucky to get $50k, after paying about $100k for the education (after the bachelors), and if they work really hard -- like 80-90 hr weeks for abou 5 or more years, they MIGHT be earning around $100k. But more likely, not. Most of my friends no longer work as lawyers becasue they could make more income working as something else, and one went so far as to go and become a welder! He said he's never out of welding to do, and he makes more than he ever did as a lawyer, and only has to work 4 days a week at that. And paid off his student loans, house, and car after about 4 years welding full time.
---
So, i beg this question -- what gives? my parents and my husband's parents and most of our friends parents go apoplectic at the idea that we would go into trades.
and yet many of us are in some form of trade or vocation at this point, and that's where we are able to make money. and they still aren't happy with it, but i don't get it.
anyway. i'm rambling.
So, i beg this question -- what gives? my parents and my husband's parents and most of our friends parents go apoplectic at the idea that we would go into trades.
and yet many of us are in some form of trade or vocation at this point, and that's where we are able to make money. and they still aren't happy with it, but i don't get it.
From a business standpoint providing a product or service that people need no matter what the economy is doing is just plain shrewd. Our goofy society tends to hold up the crazy inventor types who come up with a fad. It may be a flash in the pan, but just look how rich this guy got... They're usually something that really only benefits one or two people and have very little redeeming social value. At the same time we (as a society) tend to look down our noses at the people who do all the work that keeps us up and running. Its nothing short of bizarre. In an attempt to swing it back in line with the OP, I think happiness only really comes from inside. If whatever you're doing makes YOU feel good then forget parents and in-laws. None of us will ever be happy trying to fit in to someone else's notion of how we should live.
If whatever you're doing makes YOU feel good...
I have come to an age where doing whatever makes other people feel better makes me feel good. That is why I question how we operate here in the US. I think those of us of a certain age grew up in a time when making ourselves feel good was of utmost importance. Be all you can be and all that stuff. I think that is why so many are "shocked" at how they have fallen in the current economic situation.
gregg,
it's the only thing that i can figure that there's some goofy social status thing at play. something that we don't actually hold ourselves as individuals, KWIM?
I mean, us younger ones were *really* pressured to continue toward a "good job with benefits" (or what i consider largely soul-sucking office work unless it truly is your passion/calling/supports you well/etc) even with the knowledge that we wanted something else.
i think, pinkytoe, there is a balance between doing what makes you happy and doing what makes others feel good.
There is, of course, a great benefit in the process of serving others, by striving to create a world in which all of us can live and feel good. My work is service-oriented, and I love doing that work because it is service-oriented.
There is, though, a dark side to the idea of doing what makes others feel good. First, you're making an assumption about what makes another feel good, and truly we are not able to or responsible for making others feel good. Try as we might -- even to our own detriment and cause of our suffering -- it may never work, and we've suffered for it on two or three levels.
For me, I went to law school for my parents. It made them feel good, and for the first time in a long time, I felt like my parents liked me. I know they love me, but I also know that they favor my sister. This is obvious to anyone, but for me, it was "the way things are" and so I wasn't so bothered by it until I had to break free.
When I had to say to my family "I'm doing this yoga thing, and not practicing law." For years, my father would say "but can't you ALSO practice law?" Yes, I could, but practicing law was horrible, and required long hours and often unpredictable hours, and brought me no joy, and really no more money than teaching yoga UNLESS i worked for a high end, big firm working 80-100 hr work weeks (which is common for beginners). I just didn't want to spend that amount of time. I explained this over and over, to no avail. He was sorely disappointed -- in me as well as in the fact that I didn't do what he wanted me to do, what brought him so much pride and joy in me.
I tried really hard to do what my parents wanted me to do -- to my own financial detriment, as well as to my emotional and personal detriment. That is too great a sacrifice for "making others feel good."
A lot of my friends felt a lot of the same pressures to pursue the careers and lifestyles that our parents wanted us to pursue. Many of us feel that we did everything "right" and either A. felt terrible in the doing, even though we were financially secure and our parents "liked" us for doing it or B. when choosing to go our own way, this caused great conflict in our families, even though we are likable and financially sustainable in our work.
I would also say that there's another layer to the whole thing, too, this disappointment. I think a lot of people did go into a given career with excitement and a desire to do it, only to discover that the opportunity isn't there.
I have to complain a bit -- boomers will not retire. Granted, their lives are more expensive than their parent's generation, and our lives our more expensive than our parents (even being frugal), but at the end of the day, when the older generation reaches my parents age, they retire and the younger ones have positions. Not so anymore, as my father isn't retiring (though admittedly, there's no one to replace him, as he's in a career with less than 600 practicing of him in the world) and neither are most of his peers, so where are those jobs?
anyway, rambling again.
ApatheticNoMore
10-25-11, 11:00pm
I find that for me white collar work is the soul suck for sure. If I knew a better way to get by in the world I surely would (so long as I believed it was legal and moral, not likely to turn to a life of crime here - although frankly there are days it seems much preferable! :)).
Sure I've heard alternatives like "go into this and you can earn 20k a year and no healthcare". Well ultimately I know I can't live on that here, so I'll pass that up. Then there are alternatives that require a master's degree, or more. That would be such a long path for me, giving up all life outside of work and study for years and years. The price is too high. I make my choice and I know it (at least for now, I may well get fed up enough that the sacrifice doesn't seem too much afterall). Back to the salt mines and another day of soul suck again tommorow too :~). At least I *have* a job, I guess ..... so many are unemployed.
i agree, ANM, that you should be thankful for the job you have, if you are happier doing that than something else (seeing as you weighed two options there). :)
when my husband had his job (before we moved here), we were thankful every day for it, and for the life and security that it afforded us. It also afforded us our lives here, which is another GREAT blessing. So, i am very thankful for it -- though the emotional cost to my husband was high.
gregg,
it's the only thing that i can figure that there's some goofy social status thing at play. something that we don't actually hold ourselves as individuals, KWIM?
I mean, us younger ones were *really* pressured to continue toward a "good job with benefits" (or what i consider largely soul-sucking office work unless it truly is your passion/calling/supports you well/etc) even with the knowledge that we wanted something else.
I think the social status is a HUGE part of what drives alot (most?) people. I know I spent a good part of my adult life trying to achieve things that I thought would impress other people. There was no real ah ha moment for me, just a slow realization that it was ok to live a lifestyle that doesn't win awards or appear in headlines.
Now it seems our whole society is working like that. Individuals are obviously influenced by now countless sources, but I think there is something to the thought that the US is the best/biggest/baddest/etc. that we can't let go of. We're now the only superpower, so yes, we can kick your ass. We also can and will flash our wad to buy anything anyone wants to sell to us. After that the categories where we rank #1 start to get pretty thin. Most Americans still seem to view ourselves as John Wayne, but I think much of the rest of the world sees us more as Mr. Potter. Rich, yes, but old and soft and crotchety. Their view may be closer to the truth these days, but we're still trying to impress everyone anyway. Its not easy for individuals to be comfortable with themselves when their whole society is having significant image issues.
iris lily
10-26-11, 10:33am
...Most Americans still seem to view ourselves as John Wayne, but I think much of the rest of the world sees us more as Mr. Potter. Rich, yes, but old and soft and crotchety. Their view may be closer to the truth these days, but we're still trying to impress everyone anyway. Its not easy for individuals to be comfortable with themselves when their whole society is having significant image issues.
Never discount the popularity of American culture overseas. While there's little doubt in my mind that this is a sinking ship, our cultural icons are still the gold standard in many many others nations.
I think the social status is a HUGE part of what drives alot (most?) people. I know I spent a good part of my adult life trying to achieve things that I thought would impress other people. There was no real ah ha moment for me, just a slow realization that it was ok to live a lifestyle that doesn't win awards or appear in headlines.
Now it seems our whole society is working like that. Individuals are obviously influenced by now countless sources, but I think there is something to the thought that the US is the best/biggest/baddest/etc. that we can't let go of. We're now the only superpower, so yes, we can kick your ass. We also can and will flash our wad to buy anything anyone wants to sell to us. After that the categories where we rank #1 start to get pretty thin. Most Americans still seem to view ourselves as John Wayne, but I think much of the rest of the world sees us more as Mr. Potter. Rich, yes, but old and soft and crotchety. Their view may be closer to the truth these days, but we're still trying to impress everyone anyway. Its not easy for individuals to be comfortable with themselves when their whole society is having significant image issues.
Given their performance, I don't see much of a case for status anxiety about what "the rest of the world thinks" if you're basing it on an American pop culture reference. And don’t be so quick to sneer at old man Potter. I think many of our current difficulties stem from governments and populations adopting the over-leveraged feel-good blather of George Bailey, rather than the Potter position. Perhaps we need a mean old man to drive home the fact that there is a price to be paid for living beyond your means, for incurring six-figure debt to get an art degree, for constructing a society of thirty year old students and fifty year old retirees.
ApatheticNoMore
10-26-11, 12:17pm
The 30 year old students, though they may come in dog tired after a day of work or be between jobs and between careers, actually know what they are doing and what they want out of life to a degree no 18 year old does. After having paid into the university system all these years, I feel as entitled to use it as anyone half my age is, should I so choose.
The actual age at which I can collect social security is 68, the thought made me whimper the other day: you mean I"m going to be doing *this* until I'm nearly 70? Probably won't be though.
"Perhaps we need a mean old man to drive home the fact that there is a price to be paid for living beyond your means, for incurring six-figure debt to get an art degree, for constructing a society of thirty year old students and fifty year old retirees. " (LDAHL)
Really? I'd rather live in a society with more art and personal freedom and less galley-slave corporate bondage, personally. But you're right about the student loan part; we need to make all education affordable, whatever that takes. We don't have enough jobs for people who need them, so those of us who managed to escape the rat race early--freeing up paying positions--should be congratulated, not scolded. JMO
[QUOTE=JaneV2.0;48661 so those of who managed to escape the rat race early--freeing up paying positions--should be congratulated, not scolded. JMO[/QUOTE]
I often feel this way about my situation. By chosing to retire at 42 and funding my "early retirment" from my own savings until I was able to collect a govmint pension - greatly reduced - at 50 I freed up a good job for someone else. I firmly believe that if more people chose to retire early - and fun dmost of it themselves - there would be more jobs available to younger people. Of course I may just be trying to find a way to justify my joblessness-by-choice lifestyle :-)!
Perhaps we need a mean old man to drive home the fact that there is a price to be paid for living beyond your means, for incurring six-figure debt to get an art degree, for constructing a society of thirty year old students and fifty year old retirees.
The ONLY part of that statement I would tweak, LDAHL, would be the "mean old man" part. I totally believe that we're to the point where we HAVE to be realistic about how much we spend, what we spend it on and how much we are all going to have to pay. Either we can man up (no offense ladies) and elect someone that will lead us in that direction (highly unlikely) or we can continue to slip slide away. That potential leader(s) doesn't need to be mean, only realistic. Of course half our population will probably consider them mean because of what they will have to do to save the ship.
"Of course I may just be trying to find a way to justify my joblessness-by-choice lifestyle :-)!" (Spartana)
No justification required. This country was founded on personal freedom, so that the greed lifestyle, the leisure lifestyle, and the corporate drone lifestyle are all legitimate choices! I paid for my freedom, and so did you.:)
I'll be interested to see who does all the sacrifice when it comes to saving the ship. My prediction--the 99 percent.
"Perhaps we need a mean old man to drive home the fact that there is a price to be paid for living beyond your means, for incurring six-figure debt to get an art degree, for constructing a society of thirty year old students and fifty year old retirees. " (LDAHL)
Really? I'd rather live in a society with more art and personal freedom and less galley-slave corporate bondage, personally. But you're right about the student loan part; we need to make all education affordable, whatever that takes. We don't have enough jobs for people who need them, so those of us who managed to escape the rat race early--freeing up paying positions--should be congratulated, not scolded. JMO
I'm prepared to congratulate anyone who creates art or escapes the rat race by their own efforts. This gets increasingly difficult when we pursue policies that restrain economic growth, debase the currency and generally create uncertainty. I'm less well-disposed toward the belief that we're born with an inherent right to self-actualization at someone else's expense.
I went to public schools and worked my way through a public university, so I guess I'm really just a drain on "productive" society. Do I believe that? No. I believe educated citizens represent an investment, not a burden. And from where I sit, American corporations appear almost completely unbridled, free to exploit cheap overseas labor to maximize profit, and free to off-shore operations to avoid taxes. Again, I think we need to look at countries that balance personal well-being with sustainable growth and productivity to see where we can improve our increasingly dismal performance in both areas.
From Wikipedia:
"Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.[7] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
An analysis of Jefferson's use of this phrase was provided by Garry Wills, in his book Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.[8] While arguing against the commonly held belief that Jefferson took this phrase - but lightly - from Locke's "life, liberty, and property", Wills also argues against the belief that Jefferson was merely offering some vapid nicety, to which the government could not be held to account:
When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government."
I agree with conservatives that we've lost our way and strayed far from our Founders' principles, but I don't agree with their interpretation of how and why.
I'm with Franklin and Jefferson.
I'm confused a bit, there, LDAHL. What has debased the currency and created uncertainty is the combined actions of government and 'wall st' (as a general idea, not the actual people working the exchange, lest anyone get confused). I haven't seen policies that are attempting to 'restrain economic growth" in the past three decades, and in fact policies that attempt to do the opposite.
I also agree that we aren't born with an inherent right to actualization at the expense of someone else, but i have no idea how this manifests (or how you perceive it manifesting. The only connection that I can see is that the 1% does this and the 99% isn't?
Maybe i'm just reading into things. :)
I love me some Jefferson! Have you read his diaries and letters? FABULOUS! :D Franklin is a person hero of my DH's -- growing up in PA.
iris lily
10-26-11, 9:34pm
Come now, Jane, I too believe that an educated populace, a quality BASIC education offered by the taxpayers to all, and some taxpayer subsidy (some mind you) to those who meet the standard for high academic achievement, is one of a handful of things that has elevated this country to the leadership position it has. It WAS critically important.
But isn't it too bad that that taxpayer education now isn't good enough? Something comparable to what my grandfather and father had would simply be sniffed at by today's educational gurus. Those generations sacrificed to get their children educated, and only a small percentage went to college. Their families fed and clothed them while they were in school, NOT producing on the family farm.
I don't see that in many of today's local schools, no one is sacrificing anything. They have no skin in the game. No wonder they don't value it. No wonder student leave uneducated to the basics that we SHOULD take for granted but may not.
If you, Jane, can meet basic high school spelling, writing, and math standards you are a productive member of society and you contribute. I thank you! I think you are not aware of the skills level of those coming out of today's schools. As a taxpayer I have a right to complain, that's MY product that I AM paying for, either get it right or cut the crap and end it. At this point, I have no faith that they (the educational community) with cut the crap. SO, I am in favor of ending a lot of it.
JaneV2.0
10-26-11, 10:34pm
Oh, indeed I am an exemplary citizen; I think most of us are. And I'm not convinced today's schools are the best they can be, by a long shot. But I do believe in state-subsidized non-profit education through college. My property taxes, which I'm paying this week, make a big dent in my budget. Even so, I bite the bullet because I believe strongly in education. I don't disagree that districts seem wasteful and often ineffective, but I can't complain much as I haven't involved myself in fixing the problem.
...Of course, I also bite the bullet because the county is taking its toll with the proverbial gun to my head.!pow!
I think, Iris, you beg a lot of good questions.
First, though, is what a quality basic education consists of and what will keep us competitive internationally in regards to education.
This might bring to bear that trades, vocational, and university degrees are nearly categorically funded by taxpayers (a la denmark) OR that it's simply the high school education.
It might also bring to question what comprises the basic education through high school. I agree with you that I don't think a lot of people are being educated effectively through the system, and also that the system is overrun in many ways (eg, too much administration for example, or too many tests-for-funding issues, or simply too many students and not enough teachers which is usually linked to too much administration!), and it's terribly frustrating to have a society that doesn't have basic literacy overall. That is so important.
And it's funny to me. I used to go to a lot of school board meetings in the US, to make sure that my voice was heard in what was being taught and how! People thought I was nuts, as I didn't have kids at the time. I said "I pay taxes, so I pay for this schooling, and I care that kids are educated. I am vested!" Yuo don't have to have kids to be vested!
Anyway. . .
I went to public schools and worked my way through a public university, so I guess I'm really just a drain on "productive" society. Do I believe that? No. I believe educated citizens represent an investment, not a burden. And from where I sit, American corporations appear almost completely unbridled, free to exploit cheap overseas labor to maximize profit, and free to off-shore operations to avoid taxes. Again, I think we need to look at countries that balance personal well-being with sustainable growth and productivity to see where we can improve our increasingly dismal performance in both areas.
I agree that education funded in part by the public can be an effective competitive tool. Certainly more effective than protectionist measures which merely preserve one set of domestic interests at the expense of others. But it doesn't necessarily follow that bailing out someone who indulged in the educational equivalent of buying designer clothes with a credit card is the best investment we could make.
Education is a funny thing. Just playing advocate here, but if we really want to be truthful does it matter that much if the US ranks 1st or 175th in the world? What actually (historically) causes societies to advance are the big ideas that come from a fairly small portion of the populace. As long as the relatively few people with the capacity to decipher problems, create solutions or look at things in new ways are given the tools society will keep advancing. We don't need everyone to be a doctor or an engineer and we only need a hand full of Einsteins for the real biggies. If the rest of us only get to remedial levels on the three R's we will get along just fine. Think how many hundreds of billions of dollars we could save if we stopped educating everyone who was unmotivated, unrealistic or incapable of learning beyond a basic level.
JaneV2.0
10-27-11, 11:57am
That sounds positively feudal to me. A tiny elite supported by masses of barely literate peasants--just what the Founders carefully worked toward changing. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch proponent of free education. http://jschell.myweb.uga.edu/history/legis/jeffersonuniversal.htm
Think how many hundreds of billions we could save if we quit starting and pursuing pointless wars and instead spent the money on educating our citizens. If this thread is about national satisfaction, clearly education is more valuable than overseas adventurism, unless you're a war profiteer or arms manufacturer. It seems our ideas of "advanced civilization" are starkly different. Maximum profit in every conceivable field (for-profit health care! for-profit schools! for-profit electrocution showers for our troops!) isn't a desirable goal as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I think the notion has elevated naked greed to the level of moral value in this once-great country.
ApatheticNoMore
10-27-11, 12:48pm
Well those ignorant masses they do um ... have the vote. Which mind you is only so powerful in an age when everything including the politicians are for sale but there is still power in the masses in a nominal democracy. Plus even though they are not rich there is also some power in their purchasing decisions. So that's one argument: an educated citizenry. Although frankly for many reasons I think this is a far better argument for libraries than for schools!!!!!! I think libraries truly educate and much education these days doesn't. Currently we force people by law to go to school for 12 years and have a horrendously uneducated citizenry. So I guess it could be even worse (I shudder to think), but the school system really has been an abject failure for acheiving the ends of an educated citizenry.
There is also the idea is you never know who the next Einstein is going to be, so you educate everyone. Which I think is sound
And I REALLY DO believe some of this can work at the college level with state funded colleges. Why? Becaue people VOLUNATARILY choose to be in college (although as college becomes necessary to even flip burgers pretty soon that voluntary aspect will fade, the voluntary aspect is far more true *IF* there are other ways to earn a decent if not spectacular living in the world besides a degree!!). While some elementary school education may be beneficial, much of the K-12 system beyond that point I agree is IMPOSSIBLE, is beyond reform frankly, forcing people who don't want to be there at all, to try to learn, is impossible. But providing opportunities to learn is another matter and can be beneficial. So maybe it all boils down to: providing oppportunity to learn = good. Mandatory attendence and truency laws = bad. Providing college as an opportunity and even a cheap one for those who want it = good. Setting up a society in which the only way to earn a decent living is getting a four year degree = bad.
I really don't want a society where our potential is rigidly determined at an early age. I know much of Europe does actually function this way. I don't prefer it. Call me a dreamer :). Now realistically is a 50 year old going back to school to study physics going to become Einstein, probably not, the peaks for that type of acheivement are under 30, but who am I to stop them if they feel so driven? But a 40 year old going back to school to study accounting or something, noone in their right mind would say that was necessarily hopelessly doomed to failure, even though there is age discrimination.
I also believe talent and ability is broadly distributed. So everyone is going to get their names in the history books? No, of course not. I mean more ordinary talent of course, that doesn't make the history books, but which I am sure has gradually added bit by bit here and there to mankinds technological progress.
That sounds positively feudal to me. A tiny elite supported by masses of barely literate peasants...
Isn't that, in essence, what the occupy groups are saying we already have? The 1% living off the fruits of the labor of the 99%? The exception being that the masses here are literate, for whatever good it does them. In real life I'm for getting as much education as possible to as many people as possible, I just don't see much downside to doing that EXCEPT for the cost. In here, and for the sake of looking at this from another angle, I'm asking what is really accomplished by trying to educate everyone? As ANM pointed out, you never know who the next Einstein is going to be, but by high school we would have a pretty fair idea of who it won't be. Raise the bar for college entrance up about 10 notches and lower the tuition in fields where there is actually demand and/or need. Or better yet, offer student loan forgiveness in high demand fields after a certain length of service in that field.
What have either the individuals or the society gained by having several million citizens who hold a degree, are deeply in debt and don't have jobs, much less jobs in the field they studied? Your twenties may not be the most productive years of your life since that comes with experience, but they are certainly among the most energetic. All those millions of people spent 4 or 5 years consuming, but not producing. Now they have graduated, but are still in the same position. They were taught by my generation that a degree is the key. Is it really? I think we could have done a much better job of giving Generations X and Y a less rigid and broader set of options.
Yes, I believe we're on the road to feudalism.
"Educate" comprises more than a degree in philosophy. I believe we need solid, affordable trade schools and apprenticeship programs like those in Germany, as well as traditional four-year and two year colleges.
We also need to find out what's driving education costs so high (at all levels) and work at bringing them down. The whole college loan industry bears inspection, IMO.
"Isn't that, in essence, what the occupy groups are saying we already have?"
No.
The Occupy groups are saying that we have a corrupted government/corporate system. that is the 1%, and they are consistently harming the 99%.
---
I agree with jane re:trades, apprenticeships, vocationals, plus traditional unis/colleges (particularly community, etc), and then of course, the whole loan industry to be looked at altogether.
And Gregg, thanks for the statement "they were taught by my generation. . ."
Because it is true. Hammered into us. Shamed out of going into trades or vocations. Told we would be losers and unhappy and never amount to anything and never make our parents proud (which is so important to a young person) if we didn't go to college and get a degree. and worse, when we questioned "but how can we/you afford it?" we were told to just take out loans. even if we worked, even if we got scholarships and grants, "just take out debts."
And now, being shamed for having those debts, for having difficulty making ends meet, and not being as good as our parents (not having homes, kids, cars and everything they had by our age), and not having a retirement or savings, and not saving enough etc.
I still disappointment my family every day as far as I can tell. I never save enough, I'm never making enough money, i'm still lazy and a do-nothing. I work probably 60 hour work weeks. I still raise my 3 yr old without child care. I scrimp and save and live frugally. We make the best financial decisions we can with the money available to us. We do our best.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a job with benefits, I don't put my kid in child care to work more and to make more money. I don't have a part time job on top of it just to put that money toward investments.
I'm never, ever good enough.
But the degree (and in fact, in my family, the double-degree) was key. and can't pay for it? just take out loans and don't worry. And now i'm shamed, too, for having those loans. Every day "what do you mean you haven't paid off your student loans?" No, I'm not earning a ton of money, I'm not allowed (due to family policies) to move home and work and put all of my money toward the loans (our family policy is you can live at home for 6 months to 'get on your feet' and anything after that is a 'free ride' and not allowed UNLESS there are extenuating circumstances).
So, it's nice to hear someone of my parents generation say "yeah, we helped create this mess you are in."
So thank you. Thank you for that. It's like a little touch of a balm of gilead.
If it's any consolation, it's not like this is anything new. My grandfather wanted so much for my father to follow him into law, so Father went to law school, but he just didn't have the personality to practice it. After he clerked for a while, he gave it up and followed a circuitous path from small business owner to office manager. I'm sure my grandfather was disappointed, but life went on.
yeah, life goes on. but it makes Skype nearly unbearable.
Boy what a gloomy bunch. Things are just peachy here. My 20 something kids are doing fine and since they didn't qualify for much in the way of school loans, had no problem paying theirs off. I havn't worked in 5 years, my wife and I both quit at 50, and our net worth is higher than its ever been. We are getting ready to go on vacation for awhile, St. Thomas and Antigua, for a few weeks, than back for the Holidays. Then we are going to look around South Florida for a winter home.
And how about those Cards!!!!
Life is good!!!
yeah, life goes on. but it makes Skype nearly unbearable.
Zoe, if you were my daughter I'd be incredibly proud of you! I'd miss you, living out of the country, but amazed and proud of the chances you have taken to follow your dreams.
My son, who is probably around your age, studied anthropology in college (which we paid for). Now he's an actor (successfully). Go figure! AT first it was a little difficult to see him (waste/not use) all the education we paid for, but we tried to be supportive, and it's paid off. Your parents will come around, hopefully. Even if they don't say it aloud, I'll bet they secretly admire you for having the guts to chuck it all and follow your dreams.
Yes, I believe we're on the road to feudalism.
But even in a feudal system you had a middle class of merchants, craftmen, and trademen, as well as soldiers, who were also supported by the bottom rung of the feudal system - the laborers, farmers, herdmen, milkmaids, etc... This is more how I see our society today - but with a much larger middle class who now have the expectations that they should be able to live like the Landed Gentry - and do it on credit rather than living withion their means. And when that didn't work out for them because of a down turn in the economy, they expect that Landed Gentry to bail them out financially while refusing to work in the fields themselves to earn a living at least until they are back on their feet. They would rather import foriegn workers to keep the feudal system alive and well, while they wait for jobs that are in line with their Gentrified ideals and expectations. Just MHO.
And I agree with Zoebird that the protesters are trying to make changes at the govmint as well as the corporate level in order to keep money and corporate influences out of politics. But that entails we make a huge change in the electorial system, not in the financial system of the top 1% of earners. Changing the donation based election process so that corporate money (and lobbiest money) is removed from the system to end political influence is a far cry from making the top 1% of earners "spread the wealth" or forgive voluntary debt. Why should people like Buffet, Gates, Jobs, Winfry, etc... - often self made billionaires - have to live like I do to make society more equal financially. It's apples and oranges to me. Unfortunately, after much watching of liberal non-main stream media like RT News (RT.com), Democracy Now, etc... - all of which heavily support OWS protests - they still VERY much expect and demand complete debt forgiveness for ALL types of loans from both private and govmint. The Zeigiest movement guy was on last night, amonst others, and demanded the same ardently. Said it was the only way to keep the financial system and America solvent and the people protected. Of course, it has been my experience that most people who have debt forgiveness often turn around and get themselves back into debt asap. Not talking about people here who have a much better grasp of simple frugal living as a lifestyle, but other more "normal" people (unlike us crazies :-)!) who still have higher expectations and desires then their earning capacity will ever match. In any case, I think if OWS would focus more on changing the election & lobbiest money donation system rather then demanding debt forgiovness across the boiard, then I think they would have a much great support base and impact.
i think that both are important.
debt forgiveness will provide a certain amount of economic stability, and then this followed up with a great deal of government/etc reform (regulations and deregulations depending upon the what, lobbyist and campaign donations, etc).
thanks peggy.
and by the by, there's no reason why my parents should be unhappy, or my ILs with us. we really are all doing fine. it's just kinda ironic.
stuboyle
10-31-11, 12:57pm
This might be shifting gears a bit but I can't help to think that some form of national healthcare would be boom to small business and would be detrimental to mega-corporations.
It seems that large corporations which can offer group health coverage takes a lot of the talent from the workforce.
What do you think?
Aqua Blue
10-31-11, 1:27pm
This might be shifting gears a bit but I can't help to think that some form of national healthcare would be boom to small business and would be detrimental to mega-corporations.
It seems that large corporations which can offer group health coverage takes a lot of the talent from the workforce.
What do you think?
I tend to agree with that. I think that big corporations are very happy to keep health care attached to jobs. It keeps us needing to work, it is one more link in the golden handcuffs. It means that we will probably be willing to settle for less wages as long as we get HC. I know several people who would have started small businesses IF they didn't need to worry about healthcare for themselves and future employees.
ApatheticNoMore
10-31-11, 1:32pm
To some degree I think companies in general are sick of paying for health care, especially as costs have doubled in the last decade. I think they would like that burden shifted off the companies and on to the individual. And make no mistake if we ever got socialized healthcare (not happening anytime soon obviously) that burden WOULD be paid by the individual in thier role as taxpayer (unless it was funding with corporate taxes or something really odd like that). So yea shifting the cost of healthcare off companies and on to individuals. Of course it would mean there wouldn't be so many uninsured, and healthcare wouldn't be tied to jobs, and it would be easier to go into business for oneself without worrying about needing to be an employee for healthcare etc.. Many big companies actually have lobbied for the public option etc. etc. (not the insurance companies of course! but rather those on the paying side of healthcare costs).
To be sure, companies still pay for healthcare in a national system. Our business pays the ACC levy, which we would pay for each employee. BUT, ACC is largely covered through the GST (goods and services tax) which is a 15% tax on everything. It's just a different way of paying it.
And, to also be sure, health insurance does exist in our system. Most people do not have it, because they do not feel that they need it because the national coverage is good. We would like to have it mostly to cover our dental work, as that is not covered. We like our twice-a-year cleanings! So, when we have the cash, we plan on getting dental coverage for ourselves (children are covered by the government, unless you want to take them to a private provider, which i do, so we will also cover DS). I think that, for the three of us, the basic dental plan comes in around $100 per year, and the price of a single cleaning is $125. THe price of a single dental check up with x-rays is $160. Since we do one check up and two cleanings per year, that adds up, and dental coverage is worth it.
I'm offended by the notion that, given an effective safety net, we'll turn into a nation of layabouts.
Ancient Chinese proverb says:
"If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labour laws are outdated. The labour laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack... The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard."
Ok, it's from Jin Liqun today, but still a vailid point.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011114434664695.html
Boy what a gloomy bunch. Things are just peachy here. My 20 something kids are doing fine and since they didn't qualify for much in the way of school loans, had no problem paying theirs off. I havn't worked in 5 years, my wife and I both quit at 50, and our net worth is higher than its ever been. We are getting ready to go on vacation for awhile, St. Thomas and Antigua, for a few weeks, than back for the Holidays. Then we are going to look around South Florida for a winter home.
And how about those Cards!!!!
Life is good!!!
We also have it good. The investor class has had it good over the last few years. The Great Recession has had no effect of us. Since most of my income comes from investments that are taxed at 15% and with deductions my effective rate is something like 9%. I feel for the poor working guy that has to work hard and pay more in taxes than I do.
I would like to see more people benefit from what the country has to offer.
ApatheticNoMore
11-7-11, 5:22pm
Ancient Chinese proverb says:
"If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labour laws are outdated. The labour laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack... The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard."
Yes whole very complex geopolitical economic situations can be understood by morality tales fit for kindegarteners.
So China claims to be hardworking, remember the Japanese, they were supposed to be hard working too, all those salarymen and so on. Their economy has been in deflation for 20 years. ALTHOUGH .... they are possibly the real true living example of a stable, workable (more or less) non-growth economy.
Why isn't the U.S. in the same boat as Europe? Matter of time mostly. But it's because we're so hard working, huh? (ha, the part of the population that can find work, may work long hours, the rest is unemployed!) But anyway, it couldn't possibly have to do with reserve currency status and the military might (military violence in pursuit of resources if you are avoiding euphamism). Nah, couldn't possibly ....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.