Page 13 of 14 [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Feb 2011, 6:35 pm

marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I didn't adopt an internal locus of control as a defense mechanism. I know first hand how much actively taking control of your life no matter how terrifying it is will get you. I've never sought therapy for my social anxiety and I used to have suicidal thoughts on a daily basis. Not that people shouldn't seek therapy, but I'm just saying that it's definitely possible to overcome problems on your own. I used to be terrified of even being seen by people and now I can comfortably walk and talk. I'm not just mindlessly parroting rhetoric. Not only do I know first hand how taking active control will make things better for you, but there has also been research proving that an internal locus of control leads to better results. Look up "entity vs incremental theory" on google if you wanna check it out.


I admire what you've done for yourself but that does not mean everyone can do the same, or be pushed or prodded to do the same. I believe that I know for a fact many who cannot.

Ultimately, taking control of ones life and rising above the burdens reaps it's own reward. For yourself. But there is no way to force that sense or ability onto others.

Yes. And putting more and more obstacles in front of those who are already disadvantaged only leads to dis-empowerment and further feelings of helplessness. In order to learn that they can overcome obstacles, the situation needs to be realistic. Overcoming social anxiety is one thing.


Well sometimes we can be our own worst enemy in that regard marshall.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 Feb 2011, 6:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I didn't adopt an internal locus of control as a defense mechanism. I know first hand how much actively taking control of your life no matter how terrifying it is will get you. I've never sought therapy for my social anxiety and I used to have suicidal thoughts on a daily basis. Not that people shouldn't seek therapy, but I'm just saying that it's definitely possible to overcome problems on your own. I used to be terrified of even being seen by people and now I can comfortably walk and talk. I'm not just mindlessly parroting rhetoric. Not only do I know first hand how taking active control will make things better for you, but there has also been research proving that an internal locus of control leads to better results. Look up "entity vs incremental theory" on google if you wanna check it out.


I admire what you've done for yourself but that does not mean everyone can do the same, or be pushed or prodded to do the same. I believe that I know for a fact many who cannot.

Ultimately, taking control of ones life and rising above the burdens reaps it's own reward. For yourself. But there is no way to force that sense or ability onto others.

Yes. And putting more and more obstacles in front of those who are already disadvantaged only leads to dis-empowerment and further feelings of helplessness. In order to learn that they can overcome obstacles, the situation needs to be realistic. Overcoming social anxiety is one thing.


Well sometimes we can be our own worst enemy in that regard marshall.

Actually not. It is an evolutionary defense mechanism. It prevents people from jumping off a cliff with the mistaken belief that they can fly.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Feb 2011, 6:54 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I didn't adopt an internal locus of control as a defense mechanism. I know first hand how much actively taking control of your life no matter how terrifying it is will get you. I've never sought therapy for my social anxiety and I used to have suicidal thoughts on a daily basis. Not that people shouldn't seek therapy, but I'm just saying that it's definitely possible to overcome problems on your own. I used to be terrified of even being seen by people and now I can comfortably walk and talk. I'm not just mindlessly parroting rhetoric. Not only do I know first hand how taking active control will make things better for you, but there has also been research proving that an internal locus of control leads to better results. Look up "entity vs incremental theory" on google if you wanna check it out.


I admire what you've done for yourself but that does not mean everyone can do the same, or be pushed or prodded to do the same. I believe that I know for a fact many who cannot.

Ultimately, taking control of ones life and rising above the burdens reaps it's own reward. For yourself. But there is no way to force that sense or ability onto others.

Yes. And putting more and more obstacles in front of those who are already disadvantaged only leads to dis-empowerment and further feelings of helplessness. In order to learn that they can overcome obstacles, the situation needs to be realistic. Overcoming social anxiety is one thing.


Well sometimes we can be our own worst enemy in that regard marshall.

Actually not. It is an evolutionary defense mechanism. It prevents people from jumping off a cliff with the mistaken belief that they can fly.


Oh s**t, man! Thanks for your last post, or else I would have made a terrible mistake!
(I guess I really can't fly, then.) 8O

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

18 Feb 2011, 9:10 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I didn't adopt an internal locus of control as a defense mechanism. I know first hand how much actively taking control of your life no matter how terrifying it is will get you. I've never sought therapy for my social anxiety and I used to have suicidal thoughts on a daily basis. Not that people shouldn't seek therapy, but I'm just saying that it's definitely possible to overcome problems on your own. I used to be terrified of even being seen by people and now I can comfortably walk and talk. I'm not just mindlessly parroting rhetoric. Not only do I know first hand how taking active control will make things better for you, but there has also been research proving that an internal locus of control leads to better results. Look up "entity vs incremental theory" on google if you wanna check it out.


I admire what you've done for yourself but that does not mean everyone can do the same, or be pushed or prodded to do the same. I believe that I know for a fact many who cannot.

Ultimately, taking control of ones life and rising above the burdens reaps it's own reward. For yourself. But there is no way to force that sense or ability onto others.

Yes. And putting more and more obstacles in front of those who are already disadvantaged only leads to dis-empowerment and further feelings of helplessness. In order to learn that they can overcome obstacles, the situation needs to be realistic. Overcoming social anxiety is one thing.


Well sometimes we can be our own worst enemy in that regard marshall.


And the serious answer is ...

It's a delicate dance, push-don't push-enable-support-co depend. The problem is that making the right call for any one person requires truly knowing that one person, and as a pragmatic matter that cannot be provided to everyone in need. So systems and defaults are created, tried, changed. Wth the goal being that it hits a reasonable balance most of the time. But there will always be people for whom the balance isn't right and the world has either taken too tough a stand, causing them to give up, or taken too easy a stand, allowing them to ride it. You have to look at the statistical results and be willing to tweak to get the best possible answer. But it is wrong to see the one rider and say the system should be scraped, because for every rider there are several others with genuine need.

I know it's hard to get right. Look at hard it is just to educate our IEP kids. We're pulling teams of experts together to figure out what this one child needs, and sometimes they do a great job, and sometimes they don't. But every person deserves to have someone at least try.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Feb 2011, 12:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
And what if all the "big box stores" are doing the same thing? Where do you take your business? To a ma and pa store where they have to charge three times as much?

ruveyn


This is as clear a demonstration as you should need of the inequality of bargaining power, and the ongoing need for collective bargaining in our contemporary age. You cannot claim that the labour market is a fair market if one of the two parties to a labour contract has no bargaining power. Yet, individual workers have no bargaining power. The employer sets the wages and the working conditions (withing a very loose framework of regulation) and the employee is left with only two choices: take it or leave it.

There is no excuse for a developed nation to have a class of people who, although working full-time are still living below the poverty line.

Supply and demand suggests that employers can reduce the price it pays for labour during time of surplus. But when the supply and demand for food, for shelter and for clothing does not move in coordination with the fluctuating price of labour, then the moment has arrived for the law to step in to regulate one side of the market or the other. The system is unsustainable, otherwise. You cannot put off the reckoning forever.

For my part, I would far rather see legislated standards for wages and working conditions than legislated control over prices.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Feb 2011, 4:05 pm

visagrunt wrote:

For my part, I would far rather see legislated standards for wages and working conditions than legislated control over prices.


We already have that. So-called minimum wage laws.

If the wages are set too high by the government, there will be less hiring. Is that what you want?

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Feb 2011, 5:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
We already have that. So-called minimum wage laws.

If the wages are set too high by the government, there will be less hiring. Is that what you want?

ruveyn


I am not persuaded that minimum wage legislation dampens job starts. I think there are some compelling reasons to look at the labour market as a monopsony by reason of the "take it or leave it" option that is provided by buyers (employers) to sellers (workers). If that is the case, then classical supply and and demand analysis applies no more to this model than it would to a monopoly. In either circumstance, the side with greater bargaining power gets to set prices without reference to market equilibrium.

Furthermore, many--though not all--employers can readily pass on increased cost of production to consumers--particularly when we are referencing the kind of value added that is provided by workers providing services at the lowest marginal costs.

Finally, there are collateral issues that tend to mitigate the impact of higher minimum wages, lower turnover not least among them.

It should be pointed out, too, that there are policy alternatives to minimum wage legislation. Germany, Sweden and Denmark, for example, have no minimum wage laws, and these are set for particular industries through collective bargaining.


_________________
--James


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Feb 2011, 7:11 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
We already have that. So-called minimum wage laws.

If the wages are set too high by the government, there will be less hiring. Is that what you want?

ruveyn


I am not persuaded that minimum wage legislation dampens job starts. I think there are some compelling reasons to look at the labour market as a monopsony by reason of the "take it or leave it" option that is provided by buyers (employers) to sellers (workers). If that is the case, then classical supply and and demand analysis applies no more to this model than it would to a monopoly. In either circumstance, the side with greater bargaining power gets to set prices without reference to market equilibrium.

Furthermore, many--though not all--employers can readily pass on increased cost of production to consumers--particularly when we are referencing the kind of value added that is provided by workers providing services at the lowest marginal costs.

Finally, there are collateral issues that tend to mitigate the impact of higher minimum wages, lower turnover not least among them.

It should be pointed out, too, that there are policy alternatives to minimum wage legislation. Germany, Sweden and Denmark, for example, have no minimum wage laws, and these are set for particular industries through collective bargaining.


And yet the right would have us believe that collective bargaining is the work of the devil. :evil:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Feb 2011, 7:29 pm

No, it's more of people on the right feel that Unions have gotten corrupt and push for more money regardless of whether or not it will run a place out of business due to labor costs.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Feb 2011, 7:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
No, it's more of people on the right feel that Unions have gotten corrupt and push for more money regardless of whether or not it will run a place out of business due to labor costs.


Unions are no more corrupt than business. Plus, it's a myth that unions want to kill the cow where they get the milk from. That's just a myth pushed by business and the right to destroy organized labor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

23 Feb 2011, 6:54 am

And really that should be expected, they are fundamental political enemies, and its really only worse when they do not have equal power. Worse in the sense that they are open to political abuse and the abuse of workers that results from unions weaker than their business counter parts.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

23 Feb 2011, 4:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
And yet the right would have us believe that collective bargaining is the work of the devil. :evil:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Only in the public sector, where the politics essentially allow the unions to sit on both sides of the table. Even FDR thought that was a bad idea...


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Feb 2011, 5:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, it's more of people on the right feel that Unions have gotten corrupt and push for more money regardless of whether or not it will run a place out of business due to labor costs.


Unions are no more corrupt than business. Plus, it's a myth that unions want to kill the cow where they get the milk from. That's just a myth pushed by business and the right to destroy organized labor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Teamsters Union, for most of the time it has existed has been run by people from the organized crime syndicates or people closely associated and helped by the organized crime syndicates.

The other unions are mostly associations of knuckling dragging Proles.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Feb 2011, 5:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, it's more of people on the right feel that Unions have gotten corrupt and push for more money regardless of whether or not it will run a place out of business due to labor costs.


Unions are no more corrupt than business. Plus, it's a myth that unions want to kill the cow where they get the milk from. That's just a myth pushed by business and the right to destroy organized labor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The Teamsters Union, for most of the time it has existed has been run by people from the organized crime syndicates or people closely associated and helped by the organized crime syndicates.

The other unions are mostly associations of knuckling dragging Proles.

ruveyn


Well, when Rudy Giuliani was DA in New York, and was cracking down on organized crime in the garment district, it was actually the businesses there that thought Giuliani had gone too far. The reason being, the mafia was run by businessmen like themselves, and could be worked with.
As for knuckle dragging proles, I presume you mean the proletariat - working people. Are you really so much better than the ordinary working joe that you can use despicable language to describe him? Were I you, I'd take care how I answered the question.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Feb 2011, 5:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Well, when Rudy Giuliani was DA in New York, and was cracking down on organized crime in the garment district, it was actually the businesses there that thought Giuliani had gone too far. The reason being, the mafia was run by businessmen like themselves, and could be worked with.
As for knuckle dragging proles, I presume you mean the proletariat - working people. Are you really so much better than the ordinary working joe that you can use despicable language to describe him? Were I you, I'd take care how I answered the question.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I am a member of the Proletariat of the Brain, as opposed to the Proletariat of Muscle. The Muscle Men can be easily replaced by trained simians. Before robots, it might have made sense to guard the rights of the carriers and the schleppers. But now we have automation. The heavy lifting can be done by machine operated by skilled labor. Part of the disgrace of the American Labor Stagnant (I will not call it the American Labor Movement) has been to slow down the rate of technological improvement to our industries and to keep the costs of productive excessively high.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Feb 2011, 5:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

Well, when Rudy Giuliani was DA in New York, and was cracking down on organized crime in the garment district, it was actually the businesses there that thought Giuliani had gone too far. The reason being, the mafia was run by businessmen like themselves, and could be worked with.
As for knuckle dragging proles, I presume you mean the proletariat - working people. Are you really so much better than the ordinary working joe that you can use despicable language to describe him? Were I you, I'd take care how I answered the question.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I am a member of the Proletariat of the Brain, as opposed to the Proletariat of Muscle. The Muscle Men can be easily replaced by trained simians. Before robots, it might have made sense to guard the rights of the carriers and the schleppers. But now we have automation. The heavy lifting can be done by machine operated by skilled labor. Part of the disgrace of the American Labor Stagnant (I will not call it the American Labor Movement) has been to slow down the rate of technological improvement to our industries and to keep the costs of productive excessively high.

ruveyn


Instead of attacking your statement, I will just let working people on this forum flood you with hate emails.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer