@Creature

I think that argument is cherry picking the least social upper class jobs and comparing them against the most social lower class jobs.

There are just as many non-social low-end jobs as their are social low-end jobs... construction workers, dish washers, agriculture workers, factory workers, warehouse workers, delivery drivers... all non-social jobs.

However, if the difference really is just that upper class jobs are less social by nature, than the scientists are merely measuring a gap between social and non-social jobs, rather than some quality about being rich itself. So the study would more accurately be called: "Manual laborers and some rich people have less empathy than wealthy salesmen and some poor people."

1) i'd like to know what unskilled labor jobs the government pays 100k/yr

I'm happy to expand your mind.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

Keep in mind that the bulk of these jobs are make-work jobs and bureaucrats who serve no function except to warm a chair and internacinely war for budget share of the federal pie. There's tons more. Teacher union administrators, the construction worker supervisor who stands around 90% of the day, and on and on and on. Even a cursory google search will bag you thousands on thousands of federal and state employees that are unskilled, overpaid leeches on the economy.

2) the solvency of pensions/health care is quite well documented

Supply the data proving that. The Postal Service is due to collapse in November because it can't pay its operating costs AND keep up the retirement benefits of its retirees. Social Security isn't solvent. Medicare isn't solvent. Medicaid isn't solvent. The benefit programs of federal employees is banked entirely on debt spending. "Solvency" is when the program is in the black.

i know you've been led to believe that only private business could figure out a way to make it work, but who instituted these services in the first place?

Private companies. Long before 'government' ever came along, private individuals performed these tasks for money or goods. Government apes private companies - not the other way around. And 99 times out of 100, government does a lousy job at them because they don't operate logically. Case in point...

the education thing just BLOWS my mind

Yes - I have no difficulty believing that a person steeped in leftist theory would have a hard time understanding the concept that education can take place quite easily and well without government subsidies. The best colleges are private, and people who go to private shools (or are homeschooled) do just as well (or better) than students in public schools. And our public schools do such a good job, don't they? Regardless, I don't have a problem with government providing a "School". I have a problem with government meddling in cirriculum, and the associated teacher's union. Have the government provide the 'school', and then get out of the way.

its CLASS WARFARE when the victim speaks up and demands justice

First - there's no victim here. Second, it is class warfare when pinheads like Obama and his supporters talk out both sides of their mouths, lie, and deceive on this issue. Buffet didn't pay 'less than his secretary' on his income - he paid MORE - but he and Obama are lying and equating capital gains as income as a means to raise taxes NOT on "millionaires", but on the middle class. THAT is class warfare.

"Bailing out the rich". Pht - what a crock. Obumma is only wanting to bail out government, which has overspent and overpromised and he wants to sock it to the middle class. If he was serious then he's freeze all government spending today to 2011 levels and keep them there until the system was in the black. Then he'd pass a balanced budget ammendment and everyone would praise him as the greatest president ever. But no - he's a leftist idiot and all he wants is to raise taxes in a recession - which even he said was a stupid thing to do. Stupid is as stupid does - and the stupid people that agree with it.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? That regardless of how "hard" (the word is in quotations because I am not sure if semantically speaking we are working from the same definition of "more hours worked") someone works, the government is already taking a set amount? I've bolded your own words that mirror my own.

If the government takes a quarter of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/10th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/100th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

That was exactly my point and you seem to agree with it - the government is taking a set amount regardless of how hard you work, whether that's 15 hours a week or 40 hours a week or 80 hours a week. How "hard" (again, as in # of hours) someone works is irrelevant to how much the government is taking.

Your underlying assumption is that working more hours = more money, which is simply not the case for 1. all salaried employees in the workforce and 2. businesses that are subject to market forces/demand. How can someone work 80 hours a week if their business doesn't have sufficient demand/customers to even produce that much? That's like saying home construction workers/architects/building contractors at the trough of the housing crisis would have worked harder if only the government would lower taxes on their income. That's bullshit because home building and renovations/improvements were at record lows during that time.

Unemployment itself is a far, far bigger problem than lowering taxes if we're talking about average Joe Citizen trying to make an honest living.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.
This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.
Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.

>> ^raverman:

I'll lift up a car... but I ain't touching anything more than your floppy shattered leg to drag you out.
Move you far enough from the car to be actually safe? What am i a f--king taxi?
But i'll be damned if i sit by you, see if you're breathing, perform cpr or provide any comfort until help arrives.
Good on them I suppose... but that's the least compassionate non-commital rescue i've ever seen.


I have a different take on this. If you were watching people in a normal environment doing something non-stressful then I'd agree with you. But we're not. We're watching people doing something that could well be the most stressful thing they'll ever do. As far as they know the car could explode at any time, or it could fall on them trapping them in the flames or any number of other things. Whether these things are actually likely or not is immaterial, it's all the things that would be running through these people's head. But they overcame that and did what they had to do.

I have a very close friend who is a fireman and he deals with situations very differently to me. He's used to the stress of the situation. He's used to seeing death. It's just his job and he's de-sensitised to it. I'm not. I was driving along behind a truck in rush hour traffic a few years ago. Long story short, the truck in front of the one in front of me braked very suddenly and the truck in front of me didn't notice. Drove into the back of the other truck and crushed the cab. I screeched to a stop, jumped out and ran to the front of the lorry to see what had happened an if I could help. I'm first aid trained so I should be of some use. I was stood in the middle of the road looking at a crushed cab with the driver crushed against the wheel, unconscious. There was blood dripping from the cab. I looked back to the huge queue of traffic that was stopped behind my car and saw the most terrible thing I've ever seen. Just a huge row of people, all just sat in their cars waiting for someone else to deal with the problem. It was probably the worst moment of my life. No-one else gave a shit and I was watching a man die.

My phone was dead so I ran back to the car behind mine and asked the woman driving to call an ambulance, which she did. I ran back to the cab to see if there was anything I could do and I just froze. I couldn't deal with the stress, my brain just tried to shut down. What snapped me out of it was a guy running toward me to help, from about twenty cars further back down the queue. Just having someone else help - not being alone - was enough and we got the guy out of the cab. Eventually a few other people helped, but it took them a while to come forward.

Every one of the people in this video is risking their life to help someone they don't know. They stepped forward and the guy survived. To sit back in your comfy chair and criticise a construction worker in an incredibly stressful situation not doing precisely the right thing is just the wrong way to look at it. They manned the fuck up and saved his life. You've just seen a lot of very ordinary people do something incredible and they deserve credit for that. If I saw a fire crew do the same thing I'd be disgusted, but that's not what they are.

Your mind goes blank and it takes a huge amount of effort to get anything done in that situation. I've got all the time in the world for every one of the people in this video. It wasn't text book, but they saved him, and deserve all the credit for it.

@marinara, friend, I'm not shouting

You are indeed against R&D. I am in high tech with many years, projects, and products under my belt. One thing I will tell you: even the best, well-thought-out ideas can fail. Risk is part and parcel of effective and innovative R&D. You want to take an example of one failure, and say we shouldn't have taken the risk. If the investors who put $1B into Solyndra shared that attitude, we'd never have a Silicon Valley.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

So, then you agree with me? This article is nothing if not a case for investing in Solyndra. Did you read the article? Hockfield makes a case that directly contradicts your main points. And she even points to examples of the US government subsidizing high tech companies.

Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

If you go to the website, there are links which give a detailed account of what has been spent. To answer your first question, if the tax cuts can help to stimulate the economy, then they would be worth the debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment.

So this one example invalidates the stimulus? Then, if I can point to a success story will you change your mind?

Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.



Why can't we both tax corporations that manufacture overseas and invest in innovative companies that manufacture here? The two are not mutually exclusive.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

>> ^longde:
quoting longde:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx
The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:
•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans


Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

I feel like we're shouting at each other. For me to win this argument, I have to convince you that the "Recovery Act" is worthless and ineffective; For you to win, you have to convince me that the "Recovery Act" actually helps the economy more than it hurts us in interest payments on the national debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment. Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.

>> ^NetRunner:

Data.


Good, something with just full time jobs! Ted, I love you. Thanks for the Data Netrunner. I love you too

On a side note, and something I just noticed from reading this data, it seems that in certain jobs the gap is significantly lowered. By more than 50% in some cases! Holy shit! I wonder if this is due to the "type" of women who gravitate towards certain jobs? I.e., are the women in health and education services more inclined to put personal affairs (Like family, you know, the important stuff,) above work, while the construction workers actually put their jobs ahead?

I am in no way saying women are lazy or ineffective, if indeed what I speculate on is even true in the first place. I myself am forgoing promotions (I.e., $$$'s) BECAUSE I am putting my family first (It's also why I consulted my wife and she decided to become a stay-at-home mother.) Fuck you capitalism, I don't need your dirty money!

I wonder if women do the same as me, more so then most men, specifically in the more education-required jobs?

If any woman on the sift passed up a promotion for something more important I'd like to hear about it... Or if any women on the sift got passed up for some blatant sexist reasons? I would be interested in hearing about that too. Like I said, we learn through perspective (And Netrunner's links.)

I speak farsi. I shall translate what he says, roughly:

"This sign that you see here marks the exit to the Imamzadeh Hashem Shrine, which you can see is presently covered up. Precisely by this sign, in front of this exit, there's a warning sign which reads 'Risk of Death.' This exit is the freeway interchange between Qazvin and Rasht (two cities).

"Now allow us to show you the continuation of this exit so you can see why exactly they've posted a 'Risk of Death' warning. If you look along this path you can see, for example that car there, it enters and turns, and turns and then enters along this overpass we're standing upon. It continues on, and of course with these signs here it must follow this path, bending right, it continues, and then goes straight, straight, and then it goes down, and, it would appear, goes basically right along side oncoming traffic.

"Now, perhaps I've made a mistake in trying to figure this out, let's take a look at the reverse path. If the oncoming cars enter this interchange here, disregarding all the signs which must be wrong because they're pointing the opposite way, they come along, they go down, they pass right by that 'Risk of Death' sign, and then are again right along side the reverse oncoming traffic. I can't make heads or tails of it. I don't understand this whole setup, how this turns this way, this turns that way... Just, thank God I didn't study engineering because then of course people's lives would have been at risk (I detect sarcasm).

"Well you can see these cars here, and how much trouble they get into ahead. they're all stuck behind each other, thinking they'll easily get on the freeway and continue on their way to Rasht. But of course, they come across a 'Risk of Death' sign, and then have to merge, multiple cars, signalling to get on.

•••••

Interview of Iranian driver:

"Hello, sir. Where are you going?"

"I have no idea. I'm trying to make a u-turn."

"Do you realize what happens if you go this way?"

"No."

"If you continue this path here, you'll go straight and keep going and then return coming in the opposing direction of traffic coming from Qazvin headed for Rasht. You'll get crushed! And if you go back this way, you'll come off the interchange going directly opposed to traffic coming from Rasht headed for Qazvin. How did you get on this interchange?"

"They made this thing, how is it supposed to work?"

"I don't know how it's supposed to work, how do you think it was supposed to work?"

"I have no idea. <Unintelligible>"

"What do you have to say to the engineer of this overpass, regarding all this metal and cement and labor and resources that were used on this, what do you want to ask them?"

"Why did they make this overpass? what were they thinking?"

•••••

End:

"And now, our question of the engineers is this: at the time they were building this overpass, with thought to how much this cost to make in money and resources, why/how this overpass ended up like this? While they were building this thing, didn't any engineer, any construction worker, anyone who was working on it oversee this and ask 'what's the deal with this thing? where does the entrance go? where does the exit?' Really, that's what we ask our viewers. How?"

I see the distinction now. Sounds like a good idea. What do mexicans/mexican americans call themselves in spanish?




>> ^bareboards2:
Hey, I'm just quoting a Mexican. Who isn't Chicano, right? Google tells me Chicano is Mexican-American.
Notice, please, that it is a Chicano movement. Not Mexican-American movement. So even they backed away from the word Mexican.
This is specifically about reclaiming the word Mexican, according to this smart, talented Mexican woman.
I have been stewing over @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 18th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/Crosswords">Crosswords post since I read it hours ago. Something about it bugged me.
I think what it is -- why bring up the reasons why the word Mexican has a bad rap? We know all that stereotypical stuff. Why not go the other direction and start to replace this narrow response to the word with other images of dignity?
Frida Kahlo. Diego Rivera. Entertainers, sports figures. Politicians. Cesar Chavez. The Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan. The millions of Mexicans who work hard, often living under a pall of fear of deportation, taking care of our children and our homes. Dedicated to their families, sending money back home. Mexican nationals who have lived their whole lives in America, choosing to become soldiers and fight for what they consider to be their country even though a piece of paper says otherwise. Even construction workers who work hard for a days pay, hoping that they will have a job the next day and in fact do a great job.
We need to start reprogramming ourselves to hear a different image when we hear the word Mexican. That is what I heard that famous Mexican woman talking about.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.
>> ^longde:
Have you never heard of the Chicano Movement? Chicano or mexican pride has been around for decades. >> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

Hey, I'm just quoting a Mexican. Who isn't Chicano, right? Google tells me Chicano is Mexican-American.

Notice, please, that it is a Chicano movement. Not Mexican-American movement. So even they backed away from the word Mexican.

This is specifically about reclaiming the word Mexican, according to this smart, talented Mexican woman.

I have been stewing over @Crosswords post since I read it hours ago. Something about it bugged me.

I think what it is -- why bring up the reasons why the word Mexican has a bad rap? We know all that stereotypical stuff. Why not go the other direction and start to replace this narrow response to the word with other images of dignity?

Frida Kahlo. Diego Rivera. Entertainers, sports figures. Politicians. Cesar Chavez. The Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan. The millions of Mexicans who work hard, often living under a pall of fear of deportation, taking care of our children and our homes. Dedicated to their families, sending money back home. Mexican nationals who have lived their whole lives in America, choosing to become soldiers and fight for what they consider to be their country even though a piece of paper says otherwise. Even construction workers who work hard for a days pay, hoping that they will have a job the next day and in fact do a great job.

We need to start reprogramming ourselves to hear a different image when we hear the word Mexican. That is what I heard that famous Mexican woman talking about.

Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

>> ^longde:

Have you never heard of the Chicano Movement? Chicano or mexican pride has been around for decades. >> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

@mentality

It is really hard to say exactly where the figures come from. The 64.5 million 'empty' figure is the supposed number of apartments which registered zero power consumption according to a leaked report. China's power company denies that, but then of course they would, whether it's true or not.

Just one city with 9 million vacant homes! There's another that's built for 2.5 million which is empty except for construction workers and a few shopkeepers and such to support them in Tibet. I've seen a slideshow of the empty cities in China, it's pretty scary. You don't have to add too many empty apartments in cities with actual populations, like Beijing, to get up to 64 million.

I am not certain that any of those numbers are true. Who can be with China's tight grip on such information. But I believe it. I have seen enough evidence that I have little doubt. 64 million is probably a lowball estimate.

lol

>> ^gwiz665:

I know. It's like, some women think I'm only a penis, and it hurts, you know..?
>> ^bareboards2:
Has anyone heard the story about the SNL skit from the Dan Akroyd/Gilda Radner days where they reversed the roles? The women played the construction workers and Dan played a man walking by the construction site wearing shorts.
It was just a skit, but he ended up deeply upset by it.
All you guys who think this is nothing, just imagine... just imagine... if all you EVER saw of male images was young, taut muscled, and passive. No fighter jocks. No big funny guys with beer bellies. No firemen. Just... pretty body parts.
After you have spent ten minutes thinking about that, really thinking about it, then you can talk.
Until then, just shut the fuck up already. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I am seriously enjoying your embrace of the Penis-dom in some of your posts.

I need a good laugh.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I know. It's like, some women think I'm only a penis, and it hurts, you know..?

>> ^bareboards2:

Has anyone heard the story about the SNL skit from the Dan Akroyd/Gilda Radner days where they reversed the roles? The women played the construction workers and Dan played a man walking by the construction site wearing shorts.
It was just a skit, but he ended up deeply upset by it.
All you guys who think this is nothing, just imagine... just imagine... if all you EVER saw of male images was young, taut muscled, and passive. No fighter jocks. No big funny guys with beer bellies. No firemen. Just... pretty body parts.
After you have spent ten minutes thinking about that, really thinking about it, then you can talk.
Until then, just shut the fuck up already. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I know. It's like, some women think I'm only a penis, and it hurts, you know..?

>> ^bareboards2:

Has anyone heard the story about the SNL skit from the Dan Akroyd/Gilda Radner days where they reversed the roles? The women played the construction workers and Dan played a man walking by the construction site wearing shorts.
It was just a skit, but he ended up deeply upset by it.
All you guys who think this is nothing, just imagine... just imagine... if all you EVER saw of male images was young, taut muscled, and passive. No fighter jocks. No big funny guys with beer bellies. No firemen. Just... pretty body parts.
After you have spent ten minutes thinking about that, really thinking about it, then you can talk.
Until then, just shut the fuck up already. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Has anyone heard the story about the SNL skit from the Dan Akroyd/Gilda Radner days where they reversed the roles? The women played the construction workers and Dan played a man walking by the construction site wearing shorts.

It was just a skit, but he ended up deeply upset by it.

All you guys who think this is nothing, just imagine... just imagine... if all you EVER saw of male images was young, taut muscled, and passive. No fighter jocks. No big funny guys with beer bellies. No firemen. Just... pretty body parts.

After you have spent ten minutes thinking about that, really thinking about it, then you can talk.

Until then, just shut the fuck up already. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.