Sure, every worker is always confronted with an array of tasty, choice jobs … in the Libertarian/Conservative Sugar Plum Fairy World Economy.
Oh, I don’t think Libertarian is wealthy. I think he’s a wannabe. The wannabes typically are more vociferous than the actual rich, who tend not to want to talk about wealth anyway … upsets the peasants, y’know.
Um … uh … I know this one, teach … uh … inflation?
Businesses will have to provide a humane standard of living for everyone. In the US, this mostly happens, so little basis for change. Good luck with that worldwide, however. I really wouldn’t hold my breath.
I think there are a lot of honest, hard-working poor people in America who in no way deserve what they get in life. They deserve a LOT more. And I think there are a lot of entitled rich people who in no way deserve what they get in life … they deserve a LOT less.
You’re an average working man who has a flight to catch. :dubious:
Working class people don’t fly? 
Only if they truly believe!!
Not very often. Airplane tickets cost money, they’re not dirt cheap like they used to be.
They’re certainly cheaper then they were 30 years ago. A very quick websearch showed 30+ round trip flights from Boston for under $200. Flights are still cheap enough for most people to take a trip if they want to.
You rather missed my point, I think.
Working class people do not spend $200 casually. Hell, a lot of middle class people don’t nowadays. Especially for family vacations, where you multiply $200 times each family member. Kinda mounts up.
Spell it out for me then.
Oh my…well, lots here and no time to really address much of it. Besides, I’m not really qualified in any case. Still…
I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive as I don’t believe the game is zero sum. However, I don’t believe you get economic growth without capital.
No…I believe that Trickle Down Economics is a cartoon version, an over simplification used more for buzzword bingo than a real economic theory. That said, as with many simplifications, there is some truth to it. But it would be like watering down any complex theory into a comic book.
Ok…how would you change things? Would you penalize successful families in some way…and what? Reward less successful ones?
BTW, wealth isn’t consolidated into a single family (that is one of the fallacies of Communist theory, the old zero sum game theory)…and wealthy families are apt to become non-wealthy families in the future, if the folks inheriting the wealth aren’t smart about maintaining it. A lot of people seem to think that wealth is eternal or something…it isn’t.
So what? Do you suppose that because they are rich they are authorities? If other rich people disagree does that make them right? Wrong? Why or why not?
Well, your comfort level aside (I’m perfectly comfortable with the people who risking the capital for my business also reaping the rewards), I will say this about the illusion of my security…you are both right and wrong. Consider…if suddenly the technology that I am familiar with becomes obsolete and if I don’t bother to continue to train and keep current then I could very well be out of a job in the future…the labor market for buggy whips suddenly becoming scarce.
However, lets look at the things you mentioned. Market fluctuations: Certainly when the dot com bust happened a lot of folks in my field lost jobs. The jobs market for IT had become completely bloated and when the bubble popped both the dead wood and useless types AND a lot of good IT engineer types (I like to think I’m in the latter category :)) were effected. In most cases the better prepared engineers and IT technicians had to make adjustments…they needed to look at perhaps taking a pay cut, or moving elsewhere. The paper MCSE types needed to decide if they wanted to push themselves for more training…or move to some other field. But lets say I was in manufacturing…and that there was no hope of a recovery again. What would I do. Well, my choices would be to either re-train at something else or continue to attempt to compete in an increasingly scarce labor market with increasingly more competition. It would suck…but what do you propose exactly? That those rich bastards who own those manufacturing plants be forced to continue to manufacture those goods to guarantee those of us in that labor market a job?
Economic Downturn: Been there and done that…and pretty much the same as the Market Fluctuations I described above. Again, it sucks…but what is the alternative? Should those IT companies who’s stocks were in the tank or who were literally out of business (the last company I worked for, Nextira One, went essentially out of business and filed for bankruptcy) been forced to continue to keep guys like me on the payroll? Was I entitled to my job despite economic conditions? Why? And who foots the bill? It wasn’t the owners of Nextire One (who were idiots, no doubt) who were at fault for the dot com bust…it was pretty much everyone, myself included who were ultimately at fault. Again…what do you propose here…how would you solve the ‘problem’?
Whim of my Boss: Well, if I happen to work in the one place in the country (or world) where my skills are needed then you are right…I’m totally at the mercy of the whim of my boss. However, labor is marketable. To be sure, some labor is more marketable than others. Is it my fault that my labor is more marketable than someone at WalMart? Or that my labor is less marketable than someone who’s skills are more in demand? Is it businesses fault and responsibility to ensure that everyones labor has the same value? Why or why not? And again, how would you fix the ‘problem’? Force businesses to make everyones labor of the same worth and marketability? Guarantee jobs to everyone regardless of market conditions?
If my boss decides on a whim tomorrow to let me go (besides being complete idiots) I would simply take my labor somewhere else. If I worked at WalMart and my boss decided on a whim to get rid of me (besides suing them if they couldn’t make a good case for getting rid of me) I would take my skills over to KMart or Albertsons or some other place where my labor might have some value. I’m not a slave…and my options, while perhaps limited by the choices I made in life aren’t zero. Again though, how would you solve this ‘problem’? Would you force employers to have to keep on employees? How would you do that…and what effect would it have do you suppose?
That’s about all I have in me tonight…I just wanted to comment on one other post real quick:
[QUOTEEvil Captor]
You’re an average working man who has a flight to catch.
[/QUOTE]
A couple of things about this. My first inclination was to simply roll my eyes, but lets talk about this. First off…how do you define ‘working man’ exactly? Secondly, where are you setting the bar for ‘average working man’? What defines ‘average working man’ to you…and why do you feel that the ‘average working man’ can’t afford air travel? Lastly, understand something here…travel is part of my JOB. I’m a field engineer for a large IT company…so, I’m actually not paying for it. The (evil, etc etc) company pays for it, though ultimately the client is paying for it because they are paying my company for my services. Do I not qualify as a ‘working man’? I go to work and collect a pay check and I happen to be a male…am I somehow not qualified as a ‘working man’ somehow in your world view? Is it because my job entails that I travel 3 weeks a month? What if I worked on oil rigs and had to travel…but got my hands dirty? Oil rig operators make more than I do actually (well, some of them do)…do they qualify as working men? What if I were an air line steward? I would fly…would I not be a working man? Or is it that I’m somehow not ‘average’? I’m certainly above the median family income for the US (Which, IIRC, is around $50k…enough IMHO for an occasional flight, ehe?)…but I still work (usually 60+ hours a week…and I’m on salary. I have no fixed or set amount of time I work but because of the nature of IT I work…as long as it takes), still collect a pay check.
-XT
My point was that this:
. . . was useless, stupid, and inaccurate hyperbole, but if you’d gone all out it might at least have had the virtue of being funny.
“Working man” generally means blue collar. You ain’t blue collar, baby. You’re white collar. You are not average either, you make a lot more than the median FAMILY in the US. So, yeah, you’re not an average working man. Nothing wrong with that, I’m just sayin’.
Damn, I thought I did go all out. There is just no satisfying some people.
[quote=xtisme]
If my boss decides on a whim tomorrow to let me go (besides being complete idiots) I would simply take my labor somewhere else. If I worked at WalMart and my boss decided on a whim to get rid of me (besides suing them if they couldn’t make a good case for getting rid of me)
[quote]
Then you must have the fortune of not living in an “at will” state where you can terminated for any reason whatesoever. The fact is a lot of bosses are idiots, or simply spiteful assholes.
Most of your views seem to come from the Libertarian IT Worker’s Economic Handbook. You seem to think it’s all about skills and supply and demand. It’s about power. There is not an equal playing field where everyone has the same opportunities to learn the right skills.
Apology accepted…
At least it still interesting to read… But Im new so its a bit too fast for me to catch up and be part of this discussion!
By who’s definition? What constitutes someone who is ‘blue collar’ exactly? Salary? Type of job? Random definition by Evil Captor declaring it by fiat?
No…I’m not ‘blue collar’, if by that you mean that I am salaried. I’d love to see how you make the cut off though as to who is a REAL worker (my guess is the stale old ‘workers and peasants’ claptrap but I’m willing to hear what your definition is) and who is…what? Some kind of false working man?
Cry me a river. I’ve probably worked more dirty and nasty jobs than you ever dreamed of white boy. I still have cousins who are migrant workers and nearly my entire family would be considered ‘blue collar’ even by the definition of the most pampered and sheltered loony liberal.
Yes I do. So what? I also work longer hours than most people…and I have special skills as well. Should my labor only be marketable at the same level as everyone else’s then?
Well, what is your point exactly? You claim I’m not a working man…so, what does that make me exactly? I’m not independently wealthy…I can’t retire tomorrow and live on a beach somewhere making 20%. I work for a living…I’m a man. I’d say that qualifies me as a ‘working man’. Unless you are using some other definition.
You are missing the point. I’m sure that if my boss took it into her head she could fire me tomorrow if she really wanted to…and I would take my labor somewhere else. After all, she isn’t the only boss in town. This is true if I work in IT or if I work at WalMart…though obviously the more skills one has the more opportunities there are. Less skills means less options open to someone.
Sure…isn’t it great that we aren’t slaves or serfs and can take our labor somewhere else if that is the case??
For someone who has obviously never read the Libertarian IT Worker’s (no peasants allowed) Economic Handbook™ you seem to think you know a lot about it. So, I’ll ask again…what do you propose to fix the ‘problem’? What would you like to see instead of our current system? Are you proposing or considering radical changes or incremental changes to things like the tax structure (which I may actually agree with…you never know)?
Oh, certainly it is. Companies have tremendous power. However, labor has power of it’s own as well. It’s about knowing your worth, the worth of your skills and the value of your labor.
No, of course not. Someone born with a silver spoon in their mouths are going to have opportunities for schooling and training that someone born, oh, say on a dirt farm in Mexico and immigrating to the US when they were a child will have. However, the playing field is equal ENOUGH that even that little boy born on a dirt farm in Northern Mexico could, in theory at least, join the military, go to college and get a degree and become an IT engineer. Just as a theoretical example. The opportunities are out there IF people want to work hard to take advantage of them. To be sure, someone born in poor circumstances or with the wrong color skin (or both) are going to have to work harder than someone born in better circumstances…but the opportunities ARE there.
No Libertarian handbook needed…just a reality check. Again I ask you…how would you fix the system? What changes would you like to see made? More money into programs for training for the poor? I wouldn’t have a problem with that, assuming they were organized and run well (i.e. the waste and fat kept to a minimum). Raise minimum wage? Depends on where you’d want to put it as to whether I’d object…personally I think minimum wage laws hurt as much as they help, but if kept within reason they don’t do to much harm. Guarantee people jobs and take away the ability of companies to lay off or fire people regardless? This would definitely be getting into where I’d have a problem with things. So…what would you like to see or what would you do?
-XT