# I'm tired of Socialized Fire Fighting! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 14, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373 "2009-08-14T02:25:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/181 "2009-08-16T05:20:06Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Well, then starting a new company might not be for you. Or anyone else who isn’t independently wealthy? (At least, wealthy enough to quit a job to start a business without worrying about death or bankruptcy). No oligarchy here, sir. Nope. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/182 "2009-08-16T05:43:01Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > But I’m 41, and I don’t want to be the stereotypical “short, bald, fat guy.” You already are. Unfortunately, one stereotype of the “short, bald, fat guy” is unfair and cruel (a bit like you). It is that he is probably a tool. It’s clueless, socially-inept ingrates like you that made the stereotype possible. It’s so unfair to the good guys (the vast majority). You probably already _are_ a sweaty tub of goo. But if not, then you will be shortly. You will NEVER be able to resist gorging on all that greasy shit because it serves two functions that are very important to you: 1. Every morsel of food you can stuff in your pie-hole is one less bit of food that could have fed a hungry child. Win! 2. A full belly helps calm the suicidal rage you feel every night when yet again, you don’t get laid. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/183 "2009-08-16T05:57:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The rich contribute to society just fine and still would even under a flat tax system…i.e., Joe Blow making $50,000 a year at 8% flat tax pays $4,000. Robert Gottrocks making $5,000,000 a year at 8% flat tax pays $400,000 dollars and contributes ten times as much to the economy as does Joe Blow. Doesn’t work that way. There are LOTS of taxes. Some progressive, some regressive. I posted a link I can’t be arsed to look up now on the SDMB that showed the tax burden, as a percentage of income, is highest on the bottom 20% of income earners in California (which as a very progressive tax structure). When you include sales tax and all the rest the poor pay more, as a percentage, than the rich. This overly simplistic notion of a flat tax fails. It only makes sense if you focus on a tree and ignore the forest. It ignores, as mentioned, that the US prospered most spectacularly when taxes on the rich were stupendously high compared to today (and the rich still got richer). It ignores that Dem administrations saw the country prosper more than Rep administrations (and guess what, the rich prospered more under the Dems, not make the poor better at rich people’s expense Robin Hood stuff). Some very, very few are making out like bandits. Almost everyone else is screwed. Income disparity in the US is at record highs. The middle class is shrinking. Wages are stagnant at best. Who the fuck do you think will buy an iPod when they are scratching for food? Even if you are one of the very, very few who get colossally rich what kind of country do you want to live in? Bet you’d be considered rich in Somalia. Want to live there? I am betting no (else you’d be there now). ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/184 "2009-08-16T06:11:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It ignores, as mentioned, that the US prospered most spectacularly when taxes on the rich were stupendously high compared to today (and the rich still got richer) Every time I hear this I can’t help but wonder what percentage of the so-called “rich” the 90% rate applied to. When you consider that most states, cities and counties also have taxes, I can’t help but think that the proportion of people who could pay out all that money and still meet their living expenses must have been infinitesimally small. A year or two ago one of the cable channels was running old quiz shows like _What’s My Line_ and _I’ve Got A Secret_, and one night Lucille Ball was the guest. This was in the late fifties/early sixties, the height of Lucy-mania. During the questioning that preceeded her exposure as the guest, she was asked if she was a millionaire. She said no. Later, after her identity was revealed, one of the panelists asked if it were true that she didn’t have a million dollars. She frowned and shook her head, saying that “_With today’s taxes you can’t make a million dollars_.” With regard to the flat tax, I’m aware that among people of a certain political bent, flat tax is considered ill-advised/ridiculous. I’m also aware that people of certain other political beliefs consider it not only feasable but eminately fair. And while I’m not schooled in economics enough to know who to listen to, I have read enough to know that there are highly trained economists who will argue forcefully for one side or the other. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/185 "2009-08-16T12:00:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The flip side is the social contract (I think). The social contract describes how people give up certain rights in order to maintain social order. It is only a “contract” in the loosest sense of the word. A contract usually consists of two parties entering into an agreement of their own free will. You do not have a choice in entering the social contract as the government will force you to abide by its laws. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You live in a society. You have a responsibility to that society. Some have more means than others. Those with more means are a beneficiary of that society that lets them achieve whatever. Having them pay back into that society is right and proper. You do not have a responsibility to provide a living for those who are lazy, incompetant and unwilling to attempt to better themselves. And that is what you are doing when you are forced by government mandate to pay into a system that rewards based on need instead of merit. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The whole, “every dollar given to a starving kid on the street is a dollar not going to some entrepreneur who was creating an invention that could have improved the lives of a thousand people” is bullshit. We have tried trickle down economics and it has proven itself a colossal failure. On the flip side, this country prospered spectacularly in the 50’s when tax rates were ginormous for the rich. It has been shown that the economy flourishes more under Democratic leadership than it does under Republican leadership. More, while the Dems take more from the rich the rich still actually prosper more overall under the Dems. More poor people can buy their shit. Well, I don’t believe that it is as simple as “the economy always runs better under Democrats”, but the numbers do seem to indicate that. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Look at Somalia and tell me the best solution is lack of government, the rich survive and poor get what’s coming to them. Is a Darwinian economic model the society we want? No one said anything about no government. The role of government is to protect people from those who would take from others by force. > [@I Love Me](#): > > Originally Posted by msmith537 > Well, then starting a new company might not be for you. > > Or anyone else who isn’t independently wealthy? (At least, wealthy enough to quit a job to start a business without worrying about death or bankruptcy). > > No oligarchy here, sir. Nope. oligarchy - a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military or religious hegemony. [From this cite:](http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbnumber.html) > [@](#): > > In 2004, there were approximately 24.7 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates there were 29.3 million nonfarm business tax returns in 2004; however, this number may overestimate the number of firms, as one business can operate more than one taxable entity. > > Census data show there were 5.7 million firms with employees and 17.6 million without employees in 2002 (and 18.6 million without employees in 2003). > Applying the sole proprietorship growth rates to the nonemployer figures and similar Department of Labor growth rates to the employer figures produces the 24.7 million figure. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the 24.7 million businesses, as the most recent data show there are 17,000 large businesses. Sounds like an oligarchy to me. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/186 "2009-08-16T13:07:24Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > I don’t think I have ever encountered a group of people so incredibly _white_ anywhere else before… You’re not being forced to be here. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/187 "2009-08-16T16:04:34Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > Yeah, no danger to NYC or Washington, or Pennsylvania, on 9/11, right? > > How soon we forget…:mad: Oh dear god, you’re serious, right? You ARE aware that this thread is _SATIRE_? :smack: **Crafter\_Man** – perhaps a better comparison to fried chicken would be a skinless chicken breast that’s been baked after being marinated in a nice Italian vinigrette? You don’t have to give up taste just because you’re dieting? (And like I said, I’d prefer that – I don’t like fried chicken, as I HATE chicken skin. Ick) And I think most people are getting on your case because the diet you reccomend IS pretty harsh. Most people will tell you that you CAN have treats – just that _moderation_ is the key word. I’ll eat junk food, just not as my main thing. You also don’t just eat less - you have to excercise as well. (Fortunately, I come from a thin family, AND one of the side effects from my meds is an increased metabolism.) As for “PC explanations”, that’s just an excuse for your wanting to make your OWN stereotypes. I’ve known plenty of people who were poor – but not out of being lazy. I’ve known both. So nice to be able to put people into simple little catagories – but life doesn’t work that way. But that’s a hijack of this topic. If you want to talk about lazy poor people and food, start another one. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/188 "2009-08-16T16:21:45Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > You do not have a responsibility to provide a living for those who are lazy, incompetant and unwilling to attempt to better themselves. And that is what you are doing when you are forced by government mandate to pay into a system that rewards based on need instead of merit. Well this is pretty appalling. Generally around 95% of the population is employed (give or take). Of the 5% unemployed many are only temporarily unemployed (always some shifting jobs or from a business that went under and so on). Some very small percentage can be said to be “lazy”. The vast majority work their asses off and it is _their_ hard work that is lining the pockets of a relative few. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/189 "2009-08-16T16:25:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Honestly, how much would corporations give to charity if they didn’t get much more back in free publicity and tax deductions? Well, that’s rather the point. Have a look at the post in which I explained the difference, from Rand’s point of view, between altruism and philanthropy. You can’t always just grap a sentence out of thin air, with no context, and start an argument about it. I mean, YOU certainly can. But one shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/190 "2009-08-16T16:36:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, that’s rather the point. Have a look at the post in which I explained the difference, from Rand’s point of view, between altruism and philanthropy. You can’t always just grap a sentence out of thin air, with no context, and start an argument about it. I mean, YOU certainly can. But one shouldn’t. I’m curious, if we lived in a purely Objectivist society, what would happen to an orphan who got paralyzed from the neck down? Giving any money to care for him would be considered “wasted” because it’s not going to any productive use, right? And if Rand Rover is any indication, Objectivists don’t give a shit about anyone else unless they are friend or family. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/191 "2009-08-16T16:55:36Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > **Crafter\_Man** – perhaps a better comparison to fried chicken would be a skinless chicken breast that’s been baked after being marinated in a nice Italian vinigrette? You don’t have to give up taste just because you’re dieting? (And like I said, I’d prefer that – I don’t like fried chicken, as I HATE chicken skin. Ick). You’re correct. I can eat - and enjoying doing so - poultry that is baked or broiled. I also like fresh fish. I can’t deny that I love the taste of fried food, but I don’t ever touch it. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > And I think most people are getting on your case because the diet you reccomend IS pretty harsh. Most people will tell you that you CAN have treats – just that _moderation_ is the key word. I’ll eat junk food, just not as my main thing. It’s true that you can snack in moderation. But - speaking about my own experience only - I find it is actually easier to completely abstain from eating a certain snack that to “eat a little bit.” If I eat one cookie, for example, I will want another. And another. And another. And, maybe, just one more. And then, just one last cookie. 🙂 Far easier and less stressful to simply not eat any at all. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > You also don’t just eat less - you have to excercise as well. I exercise. I jog during my lunch hour at work. But even then, I understand my exercise program is not a significant factor in helping me maintain a healthy weight. For the vast majority of people, permanent weight control is primarily achieved via a permanent modification of their diet (eating less / eating better), not exercise. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > As for “PC explanations”, that’s just an excuse for your wanting to make your OWN stereotypes. I’ve known plenty of people who were poor – but not out of being lazy. I’ve known both. So nice to be able to put people into simple little catagories – but life doesn’t work that way. Behind most stereotypes is a grain of truth. Based on my experience, chronically poor people are - for the most part - poor _primarily_ because they _ **repeatedly** _ make bad decisions. And most chronically poor people I have come across also seem to be lazy and dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/192 "2009-08-16T17:07:21Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Behind most stereotypes is a grain of truth. Based on my experience, chronically poor people are - for the most part - poor _primarily_ because they _ **repeatedly** _ make bad decisions. And most chronically poor people I have come across also seem to be lazy and dumb. Being raised in a poor environment can [impair](http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/04/stress_poverty_working_memory.php) a child’s neural development, which I’m assuming can make it harder for them to succeed as adults. > [@](#): > > The scientists measured stress by looking at the “allostatic load” of the subjects when age 9 and 13, which is based on variables like blood pressure and levels of stress hormone, such as cortisol and norepinephrine. When the children were 17, they were given a simple test that measures working memory, which in this case meant temporarily remembering a sequence of random digits. (Working memory is strongly correlated with g.) The scientists uncovered a statistically significant link: the longer children had been poor, the worse their working memory. Furthermore, levels of chronic stress seemed to be the causal factor. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/193 "2009-08-16T18:00:14Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > You’re correct. I can eat - and enjoying doing so - poultry that is baked or broiled. I also like fresh fish. I can’t deny that I love the taste of fried food, but I don’t ever touch it. > > It’s true that you can snack in moderation. But - speaking about my own experience only - I find it is actually easier to completely abstain from eating a certain snack that to “eat a little bit.” If I eat one cookie, for example, I will want another. And another. And another. And, maybe, just one more. And then, just one last cookie. 🙂 Far easier and less stressful to simply not eat any at all. But you seem to be in the minority. If you’re counseling people not to snack at all, or just to avoid these foods altogether, no wonder they’re simply giving up! [/quote] Behind most stereotypes is a grain of truth. Based on my experience, chronically poor people are - for the most part - poor _primarily_ because they _ **repeatedly** _ make bad decisions. And most chronically poor people I have come across also seem to be lazy and dumb. [/QUOTE] Plural/anecdote/data and all that. I’ve could say the same about a lot of rich people – raised in luxury, they become lazy, spoiled and stupid. Mommy and Daddy do everything for them, they never have to lift a finger, etc. We can play this game all day, it doesn’t change things, or translate to real life. Besides, I seem to recall (reading over some old threads for cites and such), that you said you went to Catholic school. Didn’t you learn _anything_ at all? ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/194 "2009-08-16T18:20:33Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I seem to recall (reading over some old threads for cites and such), that you said you went to Catholic school. Didn’t you learn _anything_ at all? Yes. That I don’t like Catholic schools. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/195 "2009-08-16T18:59:15Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Take a poor person. Educate them on nutrition. And then present them a bucket of fried chicken and a bucket of steamed broccoli and carrots. Trust me, they will choose the former. Vegetables have a very low calorie density, and don’t do a very good job of making a person feel “full.” To illustrate how ridiculous your example is, I looked up some nutritional statistics and did some math. By my calculations based on the wikipedia entry for [broccoli](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocolli) it would take 14 pounds of brocolli or 11 pounds of [carrots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrots) to reach 2,000 calories. I figured that 2,000 calories worth of fried KFC [drumsticks](http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/pdf/kfc_nutrition_april09.pdf) (Warning: PDF) would be 1.7 pounds. Try working for 8 hours at a grueling minimum wage job, and I give you a choice between scarfing down 14 pounds of broccoli (it would probably take up the rest of your day trying to eat that much, and you’d pretty much have to force yourself to do it and try not to vomit it up) or 1.7 pounds of fried chicken. Which are you going to pick? ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/196 "2009-08-16T20:35:24Z")
**Blalron** : It was not my intention for my example to be taken literally. Want a realistic example? Fine. Take a fat, poor person on welfare and show them a plate of fried chicken, onion rings, and cheesecake. Then show them a plate of broiled chicken breast, fresh string beans, and a lemon water. They will choose the former. The will still choose the former after you “educate” them on nutrition. And they will choose the former regardless of the price difference between them. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/197 "2009-08-16T20:40:53Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > **Blalron** : It was not my intention for my example to be taken literally. Want a realistic example? Fine. Take a fat, poor person on welfare and show them a plate of fried chicken, onion rings, and cheesecake. Then show them a plate of broiled chicken breast, fresh string beans, and a lemon water. They will choose the former. The will still choose the former after you “educate” them on nutrition. And they will choose the former regardless of the price difference between them. How do you know this? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/198 "2009-08-16T21:48:44Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > **Blalron** : It was not my intention for my example to be taken literally. Want a realistic example? Fine. Take a fat, poor person on welfare and show them a plate of fried chicken, onion rings, and cheesecake. Then show them a plate of broiled chicken breast, fresh string beans, and a lemon water. They will choose the former. The will still choose the former after you “educate” them on nutrition. And they will choose the former regardless of the price difference between them. :rolleyes: Why do I suspect you’re speaking of _yourself_ at one time? **Fear Itself** : Take my marinated chicken and grill it, instead. That gives it more flavor. Add a baked potato with low-fat sour cream and fresh tomatos right out of the garden. Maybe some some green peas. And some ice-tea. Dude is giving people hospital food. And once again, enough of the “poor, welfare people.” Give us some cites, or shut up the fuck up. BTW, have you tried those Fiber One bars? They have chocolate chip, and peanut butter, and they’re GREAT. (They have a cheaper version at Aldis, and you can’t even tell the difference.) I do caution against the caramel ones – it’s like eating pancakes with oatmeal. Now, can we PLEASE get back on topic: Socialism is teh EEEEVILLLLLL!!! Hey, dude is railing against poverity and stupidity, but still wants to abolish the Department of Education. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/199 "2009-08-16T22:03:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Well this is pretty appalling. > > Generally around 95% of the population is employed (give or take). Of the 5% unemployed many are only temporarily unemployed (always some shifting jobs or from a business that went under and so on). > > Some very small percentage can be said to be “lazy”. The vast majority work their asses off and it is _their_ hard work that is lining the pockets of a relative few. Actually 95% of the population is NOT employed. Unemployment only measures people over a certain age (16 IIRC) who are looking for a job but can’t find one. Those unemployed are usually only temporarily unemployed and covered by state unemployment insurance. Unemployment statistics don’t include your retired grandmother, your 3 year old brother or, more importantly, people who have stopped looking for work and thus dropped out of the work force. ---
**Author:** ![wierdaaron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wierdaaron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wierdaaron)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373/200 "2009-08-16T22:11:27Z")
People aren’t fat because they like fattening foods. People are fat because the foods they like are fattening. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-tired-of-socialized-fire-fighting/506373.md?page=11)