Equality?

[steelish]

steelish - UK is somewhat different than america. You define class in terms of money whereas in UK it is much more. The man who wins the lottery in America becomes upper class overnight but in UK his education and behavior would be a barrier. My point is everybody who is working works hard - so the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers.

I appreciate there may be a group who are the perpetual unemployed - the scroungers - but they should not be confused with the decent man who lost his job through no fault of his own but rather because the inept politicians and greedy bankers screwed up the economy and made his company bankrupt.

Oh no. In America as well, even should you win the lottery it doesn't automatically make you "upper class". Your original post implied economic classes (you were speaking of employment). Even those without degrees can climb the corporate ladder in the US. It is possible to work your way up the corporate chain within a company by learning from the "ground up". I do not have a college degree yet my previous job consisted of boardroom meetings and I had a second story corner office with a fridge, two computers (Mac and PC), blackberry, etc.

The scroungers are in no way confused with decent people who lose their jobs and are unemployment (at least, not by me)...or those who are on welfare because they simply CANNOT work due to disabilities.

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?

So now along comes Obama and he's going to "fundamentally" transform America. Into what? He's going to "spread the wealth". Where? Within America? To other countries? Why? To make things equal?

Those are the questions I wish mainstream media would ask him. Those are the questions that if he tackled them with honesty we could get an open discussion on the table and possibly not be so alarmed with every move he makes. Honesty is, after all, the best policy.

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

Sorry, I still disagree with this statement. When you're born, you are born a separate person, you're not part of the "borg" so to speak, so individuality is a right (the right to think, feel whatever you want). You have a right to life, only by natural death is that right not infringed upon by another. You have a right to liberty, because at the moment of birth, you are not oppressed. Even someone born into slavery is not oppressed until they are old enough to understand. At that point, their right is infringed upon, not "taken away".

I don't believe natural rights (or God's granted rights, if you will) can be "taken away" but only infringed upon. People who are oppressed and feel their rights are infringed upon eventually rebel in some way.

If you are kidnapped, do you think your right to liberty is gone? If suddenly, Obama becomes a dictator, do you think you no longer have the right to be free? Or will you be strong enough to rebel? (I would hope the American spirit is alive enough to rebel). If oppressed to the point of unhappiness, do you think your right to be happy is gone? I doubt it.

[DuncanONeil]

I was moved by your idea of making the welfare safety net uncomfortable. I then thought of the way many, and you have not, railed of the plight of the poor when in the US 46% of the officially poor OWN their own home, often have more than one car, color TV (B&W is hard to find), A/C, Cable, all kinds of things that qualify as luxuries.
So who really are "the poor"?

Is it any wonder we're losing a work ethic in so many homes. Children don't grow up to understand work because they don't see work. Sad. But, in a down ecomomy people cannot afford the taxation to carry others, yet often there is no job for the others to carry themselves with. Don't like either choice. I cannot see improvement unless we go back, create energy indepencence, become competative in the market, and get Government out of both the market place, and chairity business.

Yet there needs to be something. The years of happieness I shared with my wife were possible because of a transplant surgury we could never have afforded. SSI disability paid for it. I cannot want to completely remove a social safety net.

Maybe having the net, but making it uncomfortable would be a solution. For instance, instead of money to use in stores, a card, and limiting purchases to a very few (minimal) items. Instead of new apaartments with air conditioning, new fridges and washers, have simple barracks, wash racks and swamp coolers. Improvement of ones life is a powerful motivator to strive. However, possession of X-Box's, 60" TV's and the ever lengthing line of new cars and pickups, with dealer plates, at the unemployment and welfare offices seems to indicate to me there is no real incentive to try.

[DuncanONeil]

I have come to the conclusion that when people in this country argue about equality they are arguing from different understandings.

People in this country used to understand the result of hard work - success. That being said it is understandable that "equality" is equality of opportunity. The most vocal among us on the issue of equality are clearly favoring "equality" of result.

The first of those is much more efficient to the advancement of the entire society than the latter.

Oh no. In America as well, even should you win the lottery it doesn't automatically make you "upper class". Your original post implied economic classes (you were speaking of employment). Even those without degrees can climb the corporate ladder in the US. It is possible to work your way up the corporate chain within a company by learning from the "ground up". I do not have a college degree yet my previous job consisted of boardroom meetings and I had a second story corner office with a fridge, two computers (Mac and PC), blackberry, etc.

The scroungers are in no way confused with decent people who lose their jobs and are unemployment (at least, not by me)...or those who are on welfare because they simply CANNOT work due to disabilities.

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?

So now along comes Obama and he's going to "fundamentally" transform America. Into what? He's going to "spread the wealth". Where? Within America? To other countries? Why? To make things equal?

Those are the questions I wish mainstream media would ask him. Those are the questions that if he tackled them with honesty we could get an open discussion on the table and possibly not be so alarmed with every move he makes. Honesty is, after all, the best policy.

[TantricSoul]

So who really are "the poor"?

Just in case anyone really wants to know instead of making uninformed generalizations, you can find the answer to that question right here:

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

[steelish]

So who really are "the poor"?

Just in case anyone really wants to know instead of making uninformed generalizations, you can find the answer to that question right here:

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

Well, it depends on how you define "poor". Is someone who is poor a person who is poverty-stricken? Or is someone who is "poor" a person who is unhappy with their lot in life? Some people measure their worth by their possessions, some measure it by their happiness, others measure it by their wage. Everyone views it differently.

[steelish]

I have come to the conclusion that when people in this country argue about equality they are arguing from different understandings.

People in this country used to understand the result of hard work - success. That being said it is understandable that "equality" is equality of opportunity. The most vocal among us on the issue of equality are clearly favoring "equality" of result.

The first of those is much more efficient to the advancement of the entire society than the latter.

Equality of opportunity already exists in the US. Yes, there are some who still discriminate, but forcing understanding down their throats with regulations that cause them to view others with an even more discriminating eye will accomplish nothing. It's those who work hard, behave in a professional manner and don't behave as if the world "owes" them simply for being born a different ethnic background other than caucasian that will change the viewpoint of those who currently discriminate.

[Kendal]

She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

[Kendal]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[steelish]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

Of course education plays a very large role in being a doctor, lawyer or other such profession - but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now. Our current problem is unemployment across the board, but those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors, working at MacDonalds, etc. pass up those jobs in the hopes that the perfect job for them will fall in their lap. I see "Help Wanted" and "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.

As to your second statement; therein lies the misconception. We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else". This is the attack that is being used by people who want a nanny state. Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be? There are a select few who will still be responsible, independent people, but that will be rare. Most of them will hold out their hand every time they need something. A strong nation is a nation full of people who can stand up for themselves. People who are not only independent, but caring. America has always been a nation of such in the past. I hate that we are turning into a nation of dependency.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

"Balancing" the workforce through use of regulations and legislation in my opinion was not the route to take. The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs. Remember, we're talking about legislation that started in the 60s. The problems faced then are hardly comparable to what life is like now. Education is more readily accessible to all ethnic groups whereas in the 60s, such was not the case.

[Kendal]

but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.

To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?

I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now.

I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.

those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors

If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.

We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else".

No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.

Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be?

You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.

The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs.

Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we

[Canyon]

The point is - there is no such thing as equality. Every program created to "enforce" equality has failed miserably. There are those reading this thread who will point fingers at me and yell "racist"...there are those who will point fingers and accuse me of having a cold heart. But...think about it. The American government in their divine wisdom created "equal opportunity" within the workplace. There were thousands upon thousands of businesses who were forced to hire unqualified personnel just to meet the "racial" quota. I've sat in boardrooms (at my previous job) where this was discussed. I've overheard management (at my current job) talking about it. I've seen evidence of it. I've heard an African American (a term I still find offensive) telling co-workers he was going to "sue" the company because he didn't get a job he was qualified for, only to have his co-workers point out his lack of qualification. His response; "I don't care. If I have to play the race card, I will". The result...he got the management position over a year ago and is running the office into the ground.

Since when is it "equal" to give someone an "edge" over another person based upon race? Isn't that racism in and of itself? The thought that someone who is not caucasian needs "help" to get a job seems racist to me. It's the same as saying they can't get a job based upon their own merit. I know someone will say, "But without equal opportunity, there are still corporations that will discriminate". The way to change that mentality is not through brute force (forcing them to hire someone they "discriminate" against) but through example. How can discrimination ever disappear if people are behaving so reprehensibly?

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

At work there is a Supervisor who insists that Affirmative Action is necessary because how can you expect in one generation to overcome the deficiencies of the past. We have some "spirited" conversations over this. He thinks it should go on for ever. I say people have had the opportunity to prove they can do the job with government support, now let them prove it without it. He is always angry claiming African Americans do are not properly represented in our Department. He refused to take into account our Peace Officer status, and firearms requirements. the exceptionally large numbers of blacks committing crimes, which disqualify them from this type of job are not my fault. Looking at from a law abiding point of view blacks are overrepresented, as they reflect nearly the population, not the law abiding population. I think he is wrong about his desire for Affirmative Action.

I guess I'm much harder... Take the job, do the job, or lose the job. If you cannot pass our academy or do our job because they don't serve collard greens in the snack bar, that is stupid. Yet you see that type of argument all the time.

Amazing, how even with furloughs, our California Department of Motor Vehicles improve service for a short time, when they thought Arnold would lay people off based on performance, rather than seniority. I know that is not possible but I love the thought. Not only should they use performance, but they should go back for years, before it even became an issue, as performance then speaks to character, not seniority.

steelish I do congratulate you on the jobs you have held without a degree. Performance can go a long way in advancement, for performers.

In a job I had once, I made wheelchairs. My peers always told me that I should not work so hard because if I had a bad, or occasionally less productive day management would notice and come down on me. Everyone has bad days, and management never questioned me if I fell short. I felt I should give them the best days work I could everyday. Thats how I was raised, and between my upbringing and Military time, I really cannot think any other way. In the military there were standards and you met them or exceeded them and I still have trouble dealing with the civilian standard of mediocrity. I know now as a Supervisor myself, how much management at that plant I worked at must have appreciated the extra effort I put in. Often at the bottom you think it is not noticed, but, I assure you, if your first line supervisor is worth anything, it is.

Having said that. many jobs have an educational requirement. Education is always an advantage. If I could go back in time and start over, I would graduate high school with a 4.0, have gone to west point, and pursued my military career from the returning side of the salute. Hard work can take you far, but even CEO's in America who started up the corporate ladder without education, generally get some.

[Canyon]

Having said all of the above, I must say that there are still things that should be done. I'm in my present job, because I needed a health care plan for my wife, and would end up getting laid off when a small companies premiums went up when I added her. I am not a fan of Obamacare, as now I have to wonder, where in the world will all the super rich Canadians and Europeans go to get quality health care. Yet protection against insurance companies discriminating against Pre-existing conditions is a valid problem in our system, with the caveat that the person with the pre-existing condition have been responsible to have insurance when it came up.

Remember too, my wife had a liver transplant, a horribly expensive operation. Although she was young when the original poisoning happened that damaged her liver (a drive by spraying by a farmer with pesticide) and covered by her parents plan, after that she could never get health coverage. SSI paid for that transplant, and indirectly therefore, the happy years we had together. So I'm not willing to throw out all of our programs that help people.

I also believe we should help unemployed people, but not without them trying to find work, even below their "station." If a management type is too proud to flip burgers until another good job comes along, why can't I be too proud to pay him to do nothing.

There has to be a line, and it should be on the recipient to comply with it. If you are on unemployment, as far as I'm concerned it is your job to find a job, and you should look all day, every day. When I was younger, I remember learning about a woman who wanted to be an oceanographer, a very closed profession, with far more people wanting in than good paying jobs. Additionally she felt she should have that work in Florida only. Of course there were jobs available in Washington state, Alaska and I understand even in Canada. (However I suspect these areas are not conducive to wearing a bikini at work and filing sexual harassment suits.) She wanted to be paid by the government and have her student loans paid until she found work in her chosen field, and in the area she wanted to work. I don't mind her career choice or area preference, but why should I have to pay for it. If there is no work where you are, and jobs are available elsewhere or in another field you should take them until your preferences are available. thats only fair to me, and others who are working, and have to pay for you.

We definitely should remove people from public assistance who lie to get it or lie to keep it. I like my departments definition here, Less than Truthful, which is defined as false, incomplete, or intentionally misleading. I would not even mind if we made that retroactive, and cut any one off who was less than truthful at any time in their lives from government aid, even during times no one cared. I should not have to aid those whose character is so poor they think anything is acceptable. It burdens me to carry them. But for the truthful, working, striving ones, I believe we should have that hand out, following an old proverb as best we can, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Sorry if this rambles, I guess I'm a little tired.

[Kendal]

I agree with most of what Canyon saysbut would comment:

1. why can't I be too proud to pay him to do nothing.
If the enemy tortures it's prisoners would you say "they do it so why shouldn't we" or would you say "if we do what our enemy does it makes us no better than him and we lose the moral high ground and justification". The reason you cannot be too proud is because pride is a sin and it would be wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right!

2, I believe we should have that hand out
My problem with the why should we help them camp is they see it in simple terms of a taxpayer paying the liviing expenses for the unemployed. There are many types of unemployed at the solutions are different for different categories. I like how Canyon does differentiate between the different cases and offers different approaches.

In Europe people receive(d) assistance for a certain timeframe to give them time to find suitable employment. The Employment (Welfare) discusses their situation and helps them accordingly. For some with obsolete job skills (eg miner in coal depleted England) they put them on job retraining schemes. In other cases they find and offer a suitable job and if the person refuses the job without good cause benefit payments are affected. Yes you will have the group of 'scroungers' who do not work and there needs to be schemes specific to that group. But bear in mind if you cut of the money such that a man is starving the taxpayer will not save - he will pay more when that person turns to crime and ends up in jail.

It's difficult but for me the "why should I pay for him" argument is weak on both the moral and economic level. What annoys me is how I can walk around England as see all manner of public work that needs to be done (eg little, graffiti etc) and the local government says it doesn't have the funds to pay to get it done. Then you walk round the corner and see an army of jobless getting paid for doing nothing. Pity nobody sees the obvious way to kill two birds with one stone.

[steelish]

To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?

I never said we couldn't discuss economic or social classes. All I pointed out was MY interpretation of what you said. You can explain and explain...how I feel and view what you said will still be the same.

I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.

And now you're being deliberately snarky. I am not implying that we've achieved perfection. My point is that America has equal opportunity. We cannot MAKE people view everything the same. (obviously...otherwise there would be no point in discussions or even threads like this). It doesn't matter how many regulations are in place to dictate how people should treat/view others. Until attitudes change things will be "unequal". (and the only way to change attitudes is by the example of those who are discriminated against) It doesn't matter what the discrimination is based upon, attitudes can change.

If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.

Oh, so what you're implying is only the lower classes sweep floors or bag groceries? A janitor in the Post Office where I work used to be in Marketing and yes, has a degree. She said she took the job because it's so hard to find employment. And in Florida, it is. Our unemployment is over 10%. The job fairs I attended had well over 2,000 job seekers vying for what was available. What is wrong with taking a job you are overqualified for? Most employers know what life is like right now and understand.

No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.

Again, that's not what I said. America is a land of choices. You choose not to take a lower paid position because you feel your educational level is above it...so be it. That is your choice. It's not that I have no sympathy for them, but if they come along with hands held out for $$ from the government while ignoring available jobs, well then yes, I will be unsympathetic.

being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.

I know what the programs are for. But they've backfired. What we have now is two generations of Americans who have been raised on Welfare. People who feel that they should be able to live their life collecting what is "due" to them. These same people who drive Cadillac Escalades and wear designer clothes, yet buy their food with food stamps and get a government payout every month. Before anyone scoffs or roll their eyes at what I "think"....it's not what I "think" but what I know. I see them with my own eyes. Hell, I even have a couple of cousins who live this way.

You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.

So you never did chores around the house when you were a kid to get a weekly allowance? While I was growing up, the usual chores (helping with dishes, helping keep the house clean, etc.) didn't result in allowance. However, taking initiative and pulling weeds from the vegetable garden, or mowing the lawn (once I reached 12 years old) gained me $5 weekly. I liked having my own money so much I got a paper route at 13. I'd like to think I would have been that way without learning the value of working hard to earn money, but who knows...

Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we

Ooooo. More snarkiness.
Many of the available scholarships have to be earned. Even the financial aid ones have to be earned through grades.

BTW - Your analogy is lost on me (the 30yo man with the 3yo child) because there are children of all ages in school. It's not as if an entire generation is lost because all kids are 3yo at the same time. A generation might be skipped only in his family. Again...he chose to have a child at the age of 27 (that's when I had mine). How does he get condemned? His child needs no scholarship for basic education, it's free. His child has 12 years in which to apply himself in school and get grades good enough to qualify for a financial aid scholarship. Not only that, but in Florida, he (the man) can apply for Florida Prepaid College Tuition and lock in the college tuition rates while his child is 3, pay monthly into the plan, then when his child graduates high school college will be prepaid. He (or his child) won't have to pay the tuition rates that will be charged when his child is college aged.

[steelish]

What annoys me is how I can walk around England as see all manner of public work that needs to be done (eg little, graffiti etc) and the local government says it doesn't have the funds to pay to get it done. Then you walk round the corner and see an army of jobless getting paid for doing nothing. Pity nobody sees the obvious way to kill two birds with one stone.

BINGO!

And you think it's any different in America?

[Kendal]

I am not implying that we've achieved perfection. My point is that America has equal opportunity.
I know it says it has. I know the worker can (in certain fields) rise to become CEO but I have doubts about how equal the equal opportunity is in a land where money talks and those who have it will use it to ensure they and their progeny keep it.

Until attitudes change things will be "unequal".
Didn't you just say you have equal opportunity and now you say unequal. In any cases I dont think anybody expects perfect equality - they are just looking for a fairer opportunity and less loading of the dice to favour the status quo result of years of inequality.

Oh, so what you're implying is only the lower classes sweep floors or bag groceries?
If you want to put it in such harsh terms - yes I am or yes they should.

A janitor in the Post Office where I work used to be in Marketing and yes, has a degree.
And how long do you expect him to stay in the janitor job before he quits for a better job. Staff turnover is a factor for employers to consider when hiring.

What is wrong with taking a job you are overqualified for?
Okay here are a few. The disadvantage to the employer is janitors keep quitting for marketing jobs and the company keeps having to find replacements. You know the importance of stable workforce yes. The disadvantage to the employee is it can adversely affect his chance of getting the executive job and pay negotiation when his last job was janitor. And when you are busy spending all day sweeping floors you are not going to be attending many job interviews are you. And if you do how long before they fire the janitor because he's not there and now he had "fired janitor" on his resumee. Steelish it is not as simple as you make out. From a business point of view you want to use human resources in the most efficient way which means putting round pegs in round holes and when the square peg comes along you don't give him the round hole job.

You choose not to take a lower paid position because you feel your educational level is above it...so be it. That is your choice. It's not that I have no sympathy for them,
The problem is you can get into a downward spiral. I am not saying people should not take lower jobs but you are going from executive to sweeper which is something different and the fact is employers won't hire you because they know you won't stay. Most people take temp employment or some sort of self employed work. That is okay but you are almost advocating career change from executive to sweeper.

So you never did chores around the house when you were a kid to get a weekly allowance?
No. I helped my mother volountarily or was asked to if she was especially busy but I never had "chores" assigned to me. My chores was my homework to get the grades to go to university. Never had a weekly allowance either. Our different backgrounds maybe explain our different outlooks. You are of the - finish the sweeping or you dont get any supper - category. I come from the - can I help you peel the potatos mom - category. I offered and was not coerced because I was taught helping others who need help is the right thing to do.

Ooooo. More snarkiness
Well be fair you can't have it both ways can you. Or maybe in bdsm you can

Even the financial aid ones have to be earned through grades.
The problem with scholarships is they do not (I think) say everybody who gets 80% qualifies for scholarship. They say there are 10 scholarships and we take the top ten. So if 12 get 80%+ grades 2 are going to be disadvantaged and miss out on college even though academically they deserve to be there. I dont know the grades and places available but I do think not everybody who has the academic ability gets the financial ability.

BTW - Your analogy is lost on me
I chose 30 years because thats about what a generation is in terms of workforce. A newborn baby will not enter the workforce untill early-mid twenties then a few years job training before he is fully productive at suitable level. Another 30 years later he is hitting retirement. Your idea that we rely solely on education means if you implement change today the results will not take effect for another 30 years. If you go to the voters and tell them they will never see the benefit of your policy but their children will - few will vote for you.

[Kendal]

BINGO! And you think it's any different in America?

No I dont but personally if I cant put them to public works I'd rather pay them than starve them so they rob my house to buy bread. What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death.

[steelish]

No I dont but personally if I cant put them to public works I'd rather pay them than starve them so they rob my house to buy bread. What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing, while they create future generations who will live the same way? Encouraging that type of behavior?

How about if we turn the programs into something that enables the able-bodied to be independent productive citizens? A program that "weans" people off and into the workforce, rather than continues to blindly hand out money with no end in sight.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

[steelish]

No. I helped my mother volountarily or was asked to if she was especially busy but I never had "chores" assigned to me. My chores was my homework to get the grades to go to university. Never had a weekly allowance either. Our different backgrounds maybe explain our different outlooks. You are of the - finish the sweeping or you dont get any supper - category. I come from the - can I help you peel the potatos mom - category. I offered and was not coerced because I was taught helping others who need help is the right thing to do.

Now you've offended me. "Finish sweeping the floors or you don't get supper???" Excuse me? I also helped voluntarily. I never said I got allowance for helping with dishes, keeping my room clean, etc. (or even helping peel potatoes). What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond". And, btw - I didn't have to ask if she needed help, I assumed she did and jumped in to help.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.

[denuseri]

How about we put people who loose their jobs in the private sector to work rebuilding the infrastructure (that btw is in a state of rapid decline all over our respective countries) so that they can "earn" their wages and put much tighter restrictions on just who cualifies for any free rides (like those on disability etc)?

[DuncanONeil]

Just in case anyone really wants to know instead of making uninformed generalizations, you can find the answer to that question right here:

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/

Well! That puts you two up on most people.

Many try to do what you said. The chart seems a bit short though it is a good start. The income cutoff goes as high as a little over $30,000. Alaska and Hawaii have separate rates.
Even at these numbers 46% of the poor own their own home! And a whole host of things that many consider luxuries.

[DuncanONeil]

Well, it depends on how you define "poor". Is someone who is poor a person who is poverty-stricken? Or is someone who is "poor" a person who is unhappy with their lot in life? Some people measure their worth by their possessions, some measure it by their happiness, others measure it by their wage. Everyone views it differently.

To discuss the issue we have to have a common definition. I would suggest that a person unhappy is just that not poor.
Growing up I understood my family to be poor. We had no air, one phone, no car, one old TV, had to work to help pay for school. Yet I know find that the families income was a little over 2.5x the average. My dad alone brought home $180 every two weeks!

[DuncanONeil]

Equality of opportunity already exists in the US. Yes, there are some who still discriminate, but forcing understanding down their throats with regulations that cause them to view others with an even more discriminating eye will accomplish nothing. It's those who work hard, behave in a professional manner and don't behave as if the world "owes" them simply for being born a different ethnic background other than caucasian that will change the viewpoint of those who currently discriminate.

In order for the people of the group that my family hails to secure any kind of work they were required to accept wages at a rate lower than the Blacks.

[DuncanONeil]

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued. I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!

[DuncanONeil]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges. Comparisons are not possible in this example.

[DuncanONeil]

About that standard of living! There again we have to get into definitions. As I said before 46% of the official poor in the US own their own home.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[Kendal]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

[Kendal]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!
I do not know the american scholarship system and am also unsure if I understand your point correctly. Personally I do not think the principle - you only get what you work for - is the only principle at work. Often the benefits we received are not the fruits of our labor but the legacy of our parents. I had a good education but did not work for it in the sense you may be implying. The result of that education is an awareness of obligations and my duty to give to my children the same or better than what I received. I do not teach my kid he has to do this to get that. I teach him we do this because it is the right thing to do, it is our way, it is what makes us who we are.

Let's not forget the country benefits from education. and the government is repaid with the higher taxes paid on the higher wages the educated get. The Chinese work bloody hard but China is poorer than USA. The better education in America creates better skilled workers who create better technologies which increase national wealth. The tax the government receives from it's higher paid better skilled workforce is more than from poorly educated and low paid Chinese. I believe education should be free for all. It is not a cost, it is an investment and a bloody good one at that.

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges.
I agree. Steelish introduced the climb up the corporate ladder point. I moved focus away because the number of people who succeed without education is small compared to the people for whom it would be impossible to succeed without education. The apples dont matter compared to the oranges.

PS - I think povery can be defined in terms on the minimum needed to live ie shelter, food, health etc. The country must provide this minimum life support no matter how undeserving the recipients may be. Above that minimum - okay that's a different kettle of apples.

[DuncanONeil]

Kendal, I think you are too fixated on material v, immaterial. You completely miss the point that reward is reward!
It can not be reward unless and until you have done something to earn it. The earning it is the hard work. Were the altruistic people you mention not schooled in the work - reward relationship as youth they would not be capable of deriving the satisfaction that they do in their personal accomplishments.
Further it is acceptable to approach an adult from the aspect of altruism. But children, the ones taught, as we discussed grow from the self to the group. They are all self-centered in the beginning.

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.