Home The Bridge

Key information about the event: Friends Like These - 10/17 - ME#3

1234568»

Comments

  • Banjo1012 wrote: »
    I knew someone would say that it was only one person and shouldn’t condemn them all. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of examples like this. I just didn’t think you wanted a huge list to read through. Inequality is a real thing. It always has been, but it has to be. Say you have a warehouse with 100 workers. You have two managers, four supervisors, and 94 employees. You can’t have 100 members of management. If those 94 were not qualified or perhaps never wanted to be management then that is on them and of course they are not going to get paid as much. Nor should they. That’s just the way of the world and I’m not going to feel bad about it or cry about it being unfair

    That's not wealth inequality, that is hierarchy.

    Wealth inequality is essentially the Gini coefficient, which - globally - has been going down, but in first world nations has been going up as globalisation has imported that inequality as part of reduced friction in trade.

    Problem is, governments have done very little about it and now seem all grumpy all those voters are feeling a little bit cheated. Apparently no one told them cheap electronics and fashion came with a non-monetary price tag.

    And no one is telling them that reversing it means less, and more expensive, toys.

    Fun times.
  • marschallinmarschallin ✭✭✭✭
    I don’t think it’s useful to compare America now to America in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The USA was one of the few first world nations that emerged from WW2 relatively unscathed, with industry intact and poised to expand. It rode that wave for decades. So millennials might have it worse than their parents or grandparents, but that’s because that period in America was a complete aberration in terms of what happened before and after.

    We’re not going back to that level of prosperity again, absent another global disaster that devastates Europe/Asia but leaves America untouched.
  • I don’t think it’s useful to compare America now to America in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The USA was one of the few first world nations that emerged from WW2 relatively unscathed, with industry intact and poised to expand. It rode that wave for decades. So millennials might have it worse than their parents or grandparents, but that’s because that period in America was a complete aberration in terms of what happened before and after.

    We’re not going back to that level of prosperity again, absent another global disaster that devastates Europe/Asia but leaves America untouched.

    I'm not sure they have it objectively worse, they have it different.

    Yes, from a pure fiscal point they're worse off with real wages having deflated, but from a point of utility they're better off than ever before. In the UK and Europe we also have social safety nets and healthcare which adds to our overall wealth.

    Anyone wanting a computer in those decades would have to have been incredibly wealthy, now children have a device more powerful than the supercomputers of those days and with almost unfettered access to more information than children of those times would in a library.

    Change computer for dishwasher. Or washing machine. Or colour TV. Or access to media.

    Times change. Progress is usually zero-sum, and demands a price - usually in blood - and we're paying ever less of that for ever more progress.

    We like to focus on the negative, mainly as that is what we end up doing (cf. social media), but there are a lot of positives too.
  • JeanLucKirkJeanLucKirk ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »

    Perhaps, but I did have to scratch and claw to get to that position. I would never have gotten there by letting grandma get the cup for me

    Hehe, with your drive and ambition no doubts about that bud o:)

    On the other hand: In those timeframes you described you got paid for playing, not working. And as manager you cannot expect focused work by your staff if you don´t deliver the same thing.

    Also there are jobs where lives could get and were lost by people doing it like that. Aka not being focused on the job.

    I have clear dividing lines (gladly call that oldschool): Family time is family time, work time is work time, game time is game time.
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »

    Perhaps, but I did have to scratch and claw to get to that position. I would never have gotten there by letting grandma get the cup for me

    Hehe, with your drive and ambition no doubts about that bud o:)

    On the other hand: In those timeframes you described you got paid for playing, not working. And as manager you cannot expect focused work by your staff if you don´t deliver the same thing.

    Also there are jobs where lives could get and were lost by people doing it like that. Aka not being focused on the job.

    I have clear dividing lines (gladly call that oldschool): Family time is family time, work time is work time, game time is game time.

    If it makes me sound any better I did that I would say perhaps 6 days out of the year. As salary I have also been paid to sit on the couch while others weren’t getting paid. We had a shut down of about 6 weeks where I got paid and everyone else had to collect unemployment. There are different ramifications for every position. Different advantages and disadvantages. On the flip side, being Chicago Teamsters and bullies, the employees made more money doing their job than anyone else in the entire country. I ran the place yet the employees made literally twice what I made. Only place you really see that anywhere else is professional sports. Income inequality certainly was backwards where I was but again, I had some advantages too. You have to work with the hand you have. If you don’t like it, try another hand. Instead of protesting to get a McDonalds employee $15 and hour that McDonalds employee should take their fate into their own hands and try to better their situation, not count on others to affect changes for them
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    You are taking one example and saying it is representative of the whole which is incorrect. Millennials have the highest percentage of college educated people of any group before them. They are working longer hours for less pay than their parents and are unable to afford the same purchases that their parents made.

    The explosion of the number of worthless degrees from this increase in college graduates couldn’t possibly have anything to do with this, could it? So many four year degrees, ranging from English to Poli Sci to Psychology (for example), only really prepare the degree holder for success if they can go on to graduate school and become a professor, lawyer, or something similar. The rest are stuck waiting tables, working retail, and other jobs suited to high schoolers needing some spending money and retirees who need to stave off cabin fever.

    Instead of loading up on worthless degrees and then wondering why there aren’t any suitable jobs, there are a ton of jobs requiring two year degrees or even less that pay incredibly well and are in high demand. Any of the trades would be a good start - plumbers, electricians, industrial maintenance staff, welders, machinists, non-destructive test technicians, and anyone who can run CNC equipment have a wealth of job opportunities available to them. Nurses are also in critical demand, with a variety of certification levels for different amounts of schooling. This notion that a lack of jobs is somehow the fault of all millionaires and billionaires rather than the choices of individual people to prioritize individual enrichment over preparation for the job market, is patently false.
  • ShanShan ✭✭✭✭✭
    As interesting as some of this discussion is, it has derailed so far off tracks that I am closing it.
    Feel free to continue a similar discussion in the appropriate category, thank you :)
This discussion has been closed.