Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[Hyena Dandy]

Then let's do away with the Work Visa program.

I can't respond to that, your suggestion is nonsensical and betrays an utter lack of understanding of what a Visa is, what a work Visa is, and what Andy was saying.

The problem isn't foreigners filling slots. It's that there's not as many slots to fill. If we fired the entire 16% of the labor force made up of foreign-born workers - Which, by the way, is NOT the same thing as people who are here on work visas, I couldn't find that number, so I'm giving you a much more generous percent that includes literally anyone who is in America for any reason and holds a job here, people who are citizens now, people born and raised here, people who live in America for school, are married to US citizens - We are still not going to get close to fixing the essential problem. A lot of jobs are simply becoming unnecessary. That list is increasing.

You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps when it's been switched to velcro. We need to stop assuming that it's 1950, because, surprisingly, it isn't.

[mjr]

I can't respond to that, your suggestion is nonsensical and betrays an utter lack of understanding of what a Visa is, what a work Visa is, and what Andy was saying.

.

The problem I have with this is, if Andara is correct, you'll have very few people "supporting" a LOT of people.

That, by it's very nature, is not sustainable.

[Hyena Dandy]

The problem I have with this is, if Andara is correct, you'll have very few people "supporting" a LOT of people.

That, by it's very nature, is not sustainable.

Your problem, then, is that it may be true, but you don't like it, therefore, we will act on the assumption that it's NOT true... And tell people to get the jobs that aren't there.

[s_stabeler]

actually, I think what Andara means is that at present, the job market is still more-or-less set up as it was when manufacturing was king- that is, you start out in low-skilled jobs, then gradually get higher-skilled jobs as your career advances. In a world where automation is king, that is a problem, partially because a lot of the lower-skiled jobs no longer exist. ( for example, there used to be someone employed to do noting but stick labels on bottles- now it's done by a machine)

In short, what needs to happen is that a) education needs to be somewhat reformed- since people need to be taught how to do much higher-skilled jobs. b) employers need to ditch the idea that has been appearing increasingly frequently these days that employees should be able to start without any training. Employers need to be willing to actually train employees how to do a job.

[Kheldarson]

In short, what needs to happen is that a) education needs to be somewhat reformed- since people need to be taught how to do much higher-skilled jobs. b) employers need to ditch the idea that has been appearing increasingly frequently these days that employees should be able to start without any training. Employers need to be willing to actually train employees how to do a job.

And higher minimum wage. If we go to a livable minimum wage, you'd see some dual income households being able to reevaluate and possibly allow someone to stay home with the kids, freeing up more jobs.

[TheHuckster]

Your problem, then, is that it may be true, but you don't like it, therefore, we will act on the assumption that it's NOT true... And tell people to get the jobs that aren't there.

No. He's saying he doesn't think it's sustainable, therefore if we have a system where a ton of people are being supported by a minority workforce, it could have bad economic results. And, depending on the implementation of such a system, that is a very possible reality.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly with Andara's assertion that a lot of jobs people rely on today are going to become obsolete very soon, if they aren't already. I see a future where transport jobs are removed due to self-driving vehicles becoming mainstream, fast food vendors being replaced with self-serve takeout machines, and retail either succumbing to online ecommerce or also getting replaced with self-serve takeout machines.

The remaining remnants of the service workforce will consist of knowledgeable staff who consult customers on certain items and wait staff for moderate-upscale restaurants where they are a vital part the dining-out experience. The age of the "menial job" will come to an end in the next few decades.

Now that being said, there are jobs that, yes require skilled labor, but are becoming more and more important to the workforce. Think STEM jobs, where in some sectors employers are hard-pressed to find qualified employees. We have an education system that is broken in that the best STEM training you'll find are at the college level when they really should be at the high-school level now. A high-school level education was adequate for the majority of jobs of yore but today barely qualify someone for anything. I say we reform the grade-school curriculum to better prepare younger students for their adult lives and allow a high-school education to be viable in the workforce again, to fulfill the new demands for these new high-tech jobs.

Some would argue that STEM jobs require a lot more training and education than retail and manufacturing jobs. I assert that it's rather more of a different training and education. We have a lot of important but complex problems facing us today, between climate change, overpopulation, and rapidly changing technologies that shouldn't be worked on by a minority elite of the population who were fortunate enough to have those careers.

Having a system where we have a sub-culture of unemployed people who could be employed by having a more appropriate education system in a job market that is straining to find qualified skilled workers is not the right course of action. It continues the cycle we see today, where those who have a good education foster offspring who continue that trend, while those who did not continue to be jobless which can spread from generation to generation, since that's the only world they know of. That's a terrible system, and one that can really negatively impact society.

What I see is a shift in the job market that no longer applies to our failing education system, not a decreasing job market at all, or at the very least, not a future job market where a far larger percentage of the population won't be able to find jobs.

EDIT: And don't get me wrong. I think having a welfare system that prevents people from starving in the streets is fine. I'd even be okay with a no-strings-attached approach. But we still need a system that inspires opportunity and availability to be qualified for jobs in these new expanding sectors for anyone who, with the right tools, are qualified for it, and give them the incentives to pursue them.

[mjr]

In short, what needs to happen is that a) education needs to be somewhat reformed- since people need to be taught how to do much higher-skilled jobs. b) employers need to ditch the idea that has been appearing increasingly frequently these days that employees should be able to start without any training. Employers need to be willing to actually train employees how to do a job.

If that is indeed what Andara is saying, I somewhat buy that. Especially the education reform. I mean, from what I gather, what you learn/have to do on the job can be VASTLY different from the "real world".

I mean, even where I work as a software developer. We have interns here, and I was talking to one about design patterns, and this intern (who either just graduated or is on the verge of doing so ) had no idea what they were.

[Rageaholic]

Good, because that's what I'm saying.

Do the math - it's not a difficult equation.

The Population is increasing. The job market is shrinking.

Unless we make a massive move away from our outdated, anachronistic, and ultimately doomed to failure industrial age labor marketplace, there's going to be economic trouble ahead to make the recent recession look like a cake walk.

And I don't think this has to be a bad thing either. A lot of people act as if machines replacing jobs is a horrible thing, but it could mean less people will have to rely on employers for basic needs. They are already coming up with ways to make cheaper homes (look up shipping container homes for an example) so it wouldn't be that much of a burden on the taxpayers.

There could still be room for self improvement, and those who do learn the valuable skills would be paid significantly more, so there WOULD be incentive to learn stuff. But those who can't keep up wouldn't be left homeless with no food.

[s_stabeler]

Think STEM jobs, where in some sectors employers are hard-pressed to find qualified employees.

yes and no. It's not that there aren't qualified STEM employees out there- there's actually
quite a few people who have STEM qualifications that don't have jobs- it's more that employers aren't able to get employees as cheaply as they would like.

admittedly, if STEM no longer required a degree, it would probably help. (part of the reason people want higher wages than employer want to pay is the cost of college, after all)

ultimately, as I said, the issue is that the education system was, let's face it, structured to turn out low-level employees in the main. Nowadays the jobs that were envisioned for high-school leavers are disappearing- so high school needs to train people for the actual entry-level jobs. ( oh, and companies need to stop using entry-level as an euphamism for "we don't want to pay what this position is really worth" and drop the annoying requirement that you have 3-5 years experience for an entry-level job.)

[TheHuckster]

ultimately, as I said, the issue is that the education system was, let's face it, structured to turn out low-level employees in the main. Nowadays the jobs that were envisioned for high-school leavers are disappearing- so high school needs to train people for the actual entry-level jobs. ( oh, and companies need to stop using entry-level as an euphamism for "we don't want to pay what this position is really worth" and drop the annoying requirement that you have 3-5 years experience for an entry-level job.)

Yes, that was pretty much the point I made in the later part of the post. I didn't see your reply, since I had hit the reply button before you posted, but your reply is pretty much in line with what I am saying.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem I have with this is, if Andara is correct, you'll have very few people "supporting" a LOT of people.

That, by it's very nature, is not sustainable.

No shit, it isn't. That's my point.

The country is trying to operate based on an Industrial Age labor situation and we've been in the Information Age for over half my life, now.

Unless society changes the expectations of everybody working 40 hours every week just to make a comfortable living, then there is zero other option than to have a few people at the top of the skill tree supporting everybody else who literally have no jobs (because they just don't fucking exist).

In short, what needs to happen is that a) education needs to be somewhat reformed- since people need to be taught how to do much higher-skilled jobs. b) employers need to ditch the idea that has been appearing increasingly frequently these days that employees should be able to start without any training. Employers need to be willing to actually train employees how to do a job.

Bingo!

We need to stop teaching kids how to remember things by rote memory and teaching them how to look up anything and everything they need, because the Internet is a powerful tool and as a society, we're just plain not using it to it's full potential.

We also have to get used to the idea that Artisan is going to become a valid profession again, because in a world where machines do half the labor, you're going to have an amazing surplus of manhours to devote to things other than working for other people.

And higher minimum wage. If we go to a livable minimum wage, you'd see some dual income households being able to reevaluate and possibly allow someone to stay home with the kids, freeing up more jobs.

This is also very much true, and one of the better arguments for raising the minimum wage to a proper living wage. If one person is only making 70% of their living expenses working 40 hours, they're going to go out and take up a job position that could have gone to a second worker. As of 2013, 5% of all workers were working multiple jobs.

It's worth noting that absolutely none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread except, perhaps, as refutation, since the majority of the issues at hand are actually being discussed and addressed by Democrats, primarily. Fun fact: those states that abandoned the Democratic party over the issue of slavery are almost perfectly aligned with those states that allow their businesses to pay the federal minimum wage allowed for workers in tipped positions and are also, typically, still very much not supportive of the Democratic party.

[ben_who]

No offense meant here, but don't liberals do the same thing with Conservatives?

None taken, because I was sort of expecting that reaction. It's a pretty revealing one, actually, that the argument you present here is that because some liberals are intellectually bankrupt, that gives you license to be as well. Shouldn't you be BETTER than your opposition, or is it enough to be right down there in the mud with them?

I don't necessarily see why it's interesting. I'm in favor of "safety nets" and caring for the young, old, and infirm.

"do away with it entirely" was poor wording on my part, and I think I addressed that.

I'd forgotten completely about TANF and "Workfare". Although, again, I must question how many of these programs have gone beyond just helping someone "stay afloat" and put the recipients on a path toward the middle class. Isn't that ultimately the goal?

To a point, I actually agree with you here. I'm sometimes a "natural consequences" type of person.

I don't know if you're reading between the lines of your own post here, but this is a LOT of agreement. EVERY SINGLE THING HERE is common ground for both of us. Which may explain what follows:

And yes, I understand that the counter-argument can be made, but it's interesting to me that there are some out there who will vilify the very individuals that they want more from (i.e. "the rich"). I hear all the time about the "greedy rich", and how they're so "greedy" that they don't want their taxes raised, etc., and at the same time saying "they should help us".

You do realize that this is a completely different topic, right?

I'll have this conversation with you if you want, but this is what it looks like: We're on the verge of an amazing consensus, not just on the necessity of a public social safety net, but on its reach and its goals. We're talking policy specifics. If Congress could do this, it'd make headlines. This is huge.

Is it that painful to be in agreement with a self-described progressive, that you have to start dragging other topics in off the street just so that you can continue to have points of contention? Like I said, I'll have the conversation with you if you want, but I'm not taking the bait if this is just a Gish Gallop.

You're not looking for a rational coalition consensus; you just want to argue with liberals.

[mjr]

Shouldn't you be BETTER than your opposition

I try to be. ;-)

I don't know if you're reading between the lines of your own post here, but this is a LOT of agreement. EVERY SINGLE THING HERE is common ground for both of us.

That may be true, but I think the disagreement is how to get there.

You do realize that this is a completely different topic, right?

Different, yes, but related.

Here's how I see it being related:

"The rich" are often vilified for being "greedy" (it seems as if we're somewhat in agreement on that point).

And more often than not, "the rich" are the ones asked (through an increase in taxation) to "pay for" these policies (regardless of what they are). "They should pay their fair share", etc.

Now, as far as the policy itself goes, the money for said policy (regardless as to what the policy is) must come from somewhere. And where does that money usually come from? Right. A proposed increase on taxes for "The Rich". If that money can't be raised through taxation, it doesn't really matter how good the policy is, does it?

Think of it this way: If you had someone badmouthing you constantly, and then that person said to you, "By the way, I need $50...", how likely are you to give that person the $50?

In other words, it's probably not a good idea for those who are vocal about it to vilify the very people they're asking to help the less fortunate.

And I still have to ask again: I must question how many of these programs have gone beyond just helping someone "stay afloat" and put the recipients on a path toward the middle class.

If that is, indeed, the goal, is there data on this?

[HYHYBT]

And I still have to ask again: I must question how many of these programs have gone beyond just helping someone "stay afloat" and put the recipients on a path toward the middle class.

So often, people say that to mean (at least strongly implied, though often they deny it when asked outright) to mean that what's "just helping someone 'stay afloat'" is therefore bad and should be done away with whether it's been replaced by something that does better or not. Keeping people afloat isn't as good as improving their position, but it's a sight better than NOT keeping them afloat!

As with food stamps: "There are way too many people on food stamps" should lead, NOT to "we need to cut that program's budget and force people off them," but to "we need to find a way to fix it so they don't need it anymore."

[TheHuckster]

As with food stamps: "There are way too many people on food stamps" should lead, NOT to "we need to cut that program's budget and force people off them," but to "we need to find a way to fix it so they don't need it anymore."

This.

And modernizing our grade school education to reflect the world we are in today would go a long way towards that.