Austerity has hardened the nation's heart

Post Reply New Topic

But that's the point - allowing their fellow Americans to have those jobs is the exact opposite of exploitation. After all, I had used the phrase, "sharing the jobs that create wealth." That's hardly exploitation.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

All the government needs to do is allow jobs to flourish by non-interference or at least minimal interference.

Carrying capacity is close to being reached that is the problem. Tech advances aren't quite applicable if the infrastructure is several decades to half a century old.

Then you add globalization of markets on top of that issue. The UK just like the US and many euro nations bled their manufacturing industry to China and other developing nations. Those were millions of jobs worth ...jobs that traditionally were what employed the segments of the population that did not have higher education. Now they were left with two major employment sources: those that require higher education or service-level jobs (restaurants, maintainance, etc). The service level jobs pay very little and keep people trapped in their cycle of poverty (traditionally 'factory' jobs paid decently and allowed a family upward mobility in education for the most part) and the higher education jobs are now saturated.

If you look at Japan's economy, it is one of high automation in factory jobs and very,very high amount of service level jobs. The high education job sector is dominated by prestige groups and socially dominant classes/families to the point where even if a smart kid graduates from their most prestigious university (getting in through a miracle since these socially dominant classes also control admissions) his chances of being hired at a big company in a good position (or getting raised to that position) are very low. The big difference is that in Japan the service sector jobs do have a habit of wanting to keep their good employees for the long haul (unlike western nations where they are expendable) so the pay and working conditions tend to be better. Its an odd synergy they have...very Japanese and because of that, impossible to replicate in the west.

How can this guarantee that investment creates jobs, and more importantly, quality jobs? Since the late 1990s billions of pounds have been invested into property in the UK which creates very few new jobs and the bulk of wealth generated ends up in the pockets of landlords.

Human nature is like an electric current in that it follows the path of least resistance.

landlords need to own all of the land because they are gods.

Our landlords who art in heaven...

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's not about spending but about WHO is spending.

Government HAS NO MONEY. Every dollar a government spends must come from the people (taxes) or must be borrowed (repaid with interest = future taxes). Taxes take money away from people, reducing their ability to spend.

When American had no income tax, our economy exploded. When income tax is reduced, the economy improves. WHEN INDIVIDUALS SPEND MONEY, IT FUELS THE ECONOMY. When government spends money, it might help a small section for a time, but it ultimately hurts the economy because the government ALWAYS has to take out more money from the PEOPLE than it ever spends allegedly for the benefit of the people.

If you give an individual $100 and the government $100 to help the hungry. The individual can give the full $100 to someone in need. The government will give only a fraction because of rules, procedures, regulations, etc. that must be deducted so they can pay the parties involved in handing the money out.

I'm a slumlord which is the most elite landlord possible. I own a house in the ghetto and I have no mortgage.

Even with a job someone can remain poor. The government need to put regulation to raise salaries to reasonable level for the lowest waging jobs, to protect the workers from job hazard and to protect the environment to give a healty life to population. Studies show that the amount of minimun salary has little incidence on jobs creation. With less interference the companies won't create more jobs, as it's not where they put their money. They prefer to raise the salaries of their CEOs.

Charity don't work that way, you don't give the 100$ directly, you give it to a charity organisation. Charity organisation who gonna reduce it to a fraction of it to pay for the working of the organisation. Some peoples make a lot of money by handling charity, and some charity organisation make more harm that good. (Like bringing cholera in Haiti.) The true is that government spending is fuelling his own economy, so cutting the spending only make thing worse in difficult economic situations. (More so, as the private industry don't want to invest because of the economic slowdown and at such won't spent it's money.)

That is indeed the logic under which our rulers operate and they have been very good at getting others to accept it. They are powerful gods who sacrificed enormously to become gods, and so we must sacrifice to them, and failure to do so will be punished by the most horrible wrath, but reward and bounty shall come if we pay the proper devotion. That's the Right's claim to political legitimacy; we are better High Priests than the Left who can't help but offend the gods and so will have Wrath rained down upon is.

If you give $100 to a charity, sure, that's true, but YOU can give $100 directly to someone in need. No loss in that process.

And charities are much more accountable to the donors than the government is to taxpayers. Don't like how a charity operates or how high their operating cost is, don't give your money to that charity. You get no such option with government.

Giving to private charities isn't going to have the reach of government when it comes to caring for the poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The government has been "caring" for the poor since FDR (80 years ago). How come there are still so many poor?

Didn't your buddy Jesus once say that the poor shall always be with us?

ruveyn

Using Jesus' words, you've just answered your own question.
Scourges like poverty and crime will always be with us, but that's no reason not to keep fighting them. We don't just throw our hands in the air, and say "Crime is unending, so why bother even having police," so it's only sensible that caring for the poor, as well, will always happen.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

30 years of neoliberalism is what did it! They are bringing back the era of hobos and flophouses.

Neo-liberalism = soft core Fascism. Tyranny with a smiley face. But just as evil.

ruveyn