The part about “recruitment intensity” strikes me as very telling. Put another way, the Human Resources department keep their jobs by going through the motions, but then the decision passes to other hands, and their job is done, quota filled, performance standards met.
Nor do I think that it represents the entirety of the gap. But it’s certainly a key factor.
- It’s amazing. :rolleyes:
My undergraduate degree is in computer science. I no longer practice law, as you might recall, and I have a CISSP and enough hands-on experience that I could work in IT security.
And I could teach math or computer science at the high school level.
I’ve been offered a job as a pastry chef.
I could make a living selling almost anything, although I grant that’s not a skill set that’s easily teachable.
I think this demonstrates a big difference in the overlying philosophy between the two sides in the US. Skilled, talented, hardworking people (and their families) will always thrive, and especially thrive under conservative economic policies. But there are many people who are hardworking but not skilled or talented, or who prioritize family (or community, or charity, or whatever) rather than work and money, and I don’t think conservative economic policies give much of a chance beyond barest subsistence for the non-exceptional folks.
A big reason why I support liberal economic policies is that I believe that it gives the best chance to everyone to achieve a decent life for their family. I believe that the government’s responsibility on economic matters is more than just ensuring talented folks are able to maximize their potential income and achievement- we should institute policies that give a bare minimum quality of life to everyone, which I believe includes health care (and, in my dreams, a single payer system). I don’t believe in punitive tax levels, but to fund programs that ensure this minimum quality of life taxes will probably need to be higher than they are now.
Sure – and that’s an absolutely defensible vision of how the country should be run.
I don’t sign on to it, though – I contend that by ensuring talented folks are able to maximize their potential income and achievement, the result will continue to be what is has the this country’s history: their success will make changes that others will be able to use as well; “a rising tide lifts all boats” sort of view.
But I freely admit that part of why I come to the question with this view is a virtually unshakable belief that government’s primary role is not to take from the successful in order to help the less successful. In other words, you and I have different views of the proper role of government.
But I don’t regard you as evil for holding these views; i don’t call you a thief for wanting to reach into my pocket and fund your plans. I recognize that we simply differ, on a question that has no definitive, objective answer.
Why, then, does the OP not only lay out his own view, but declare that mine places me in a group that deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth?
I recognize this. I wonder how strong your “unshakable” belief is- suppose a financial slow period (perhaps from a “perfect storm” of events like natural disasters and external events like terrorism and war) continues for a decade or more, such that, at any given time, there is only 1 job available for every 5 or 10 looking for work. Would you support government programs that directly created jobs, such as massive public works on infrastructure?
The GOP isn’t evil. Well, some of them are. Cruz and voices like Limbaugh are certainly cynically bad people and are singing a song that the uneducated and delusional in the GOP base like to dance to.
Most of that base aren’t evil. But because of their delusions, they are doing evil. They are bringing more misery into the world, because they are mislead by people they trust. So while I might draw the line at “deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth” I’d agree that because of their ignorant bumbling and the damage they do, the GOP needs to be politically marginalized.
I think most of the voters are just victims, mislead by emailed tracts and nonsense. But yeah, the pocket liners are the trouble here. The official emotion of the 21st Republican Party is seething hatred. And that hatred drives them to the polls.
I suppose a “key factor” could mean it accounts for 10% if there are at least several factors involved. If you mean it is the predominate factor, I think your certainty is misplaced.
I also suspect your view of what government aid is appropriate does actually not turn on the percentage of the population who is out of work for reasons other than their failure to learn or be able to learn a marketable skill. Would it change your view if you were persuaded that most unemployment was the consequence of evil pixies?
So, the talented and successful deserve their wealth, and it is wrong to take it from them. Says who? St. Ayn of Leningrad? Is it a faith, then, this certainty?
There are people who are quite good at putting out fires. People adept in brightening young minds. People so good, so careful at driving trucks and public buses, no one ever gets hurt. People who can reach out to the least of us with dignity, respect and compassion. Are they less talented and successful than the gifted salesman, the master of office politics?
Is that the moral basis for wealth? Only those possessed of these gifts deserve such wealth. Can those gifts be inherited? Wealth certainly can be, seen it happen. So, they then don’t deserve their wealth, its open season, eat the rich?
I’ve met any number of quite brilliant people who are extra decent human beings, and some very talented skunks. Intelligence and talent are not virtues, they are characteristics. Patience, compassion, tolerance, these are virtues. About the only people who deserve to control ten million dollars a year are the ones who don’t want it.
You pronounce anathema on redistribution, but where is it Written? And by Whom? And if those questions lack convincing answers, why should we listen?
You want to know who’s evil? People who type “mislead” and expect me to read it as “misled.”
Okay, maybe I’m overreacting…
Hey, I didn’t use either one of those words!
Okay, maybe a little paranoid…
Nah, it’s on the page previous to this one. Posting from a phone can make me less willing to link to the specific examples. You’re cool.
But the RESULT of your views, however honestly derived, is that you tend to favor policies that harm the poor and the middle class. Not nebulous stuff, stuff like tearing apart the social safety net (things like decent health insurance for all, to get back to the OP) and fighting against raising the minimum wage even when it’s waaaay below being a living wage.
And frankly, despite your stated viewpoints, your beliefs are the same as those of people who are quite frankly monstrous, caring only for themselves as the “job creaters” the “talented and skilled” … whatever approving little terms they use to justify their sense of moral superiority that allows them to disregard the welfare of others. So the question arises … is this a difference that makes no difference?
No, he’s really saying that those with wealth have it because they *deserve *it. Even if it’s inherited or stolen.
“The poor are always with us” said Jesus. And since they are all going to Heaven, the sooner they die, the better. Also, the rest of us don’t have to put up with their whining.
And sure, Jesus healed the sick. But where does it say they were uninsured? Healed the centurion’s son, and his servant, and the royal official’s son. Those people had a few shekels to throw around, so its fair to say that the Lord knew what side his unleavened bread was buttered on.
Appears this new Pope isn’t conversant with these fine theological points. Says people around the world worship a God of money. And people around the world blink and say “Yes? And?”.
Catholic Calvinism is complicated.
This was your opening? Really? Some of our best lawyers are now employing knock-knock jokes in their opening arguments–with great results–you might try it. Feel free to try out this light bulb joke:
Bricker: How many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?
World: Dunno, but I’m afraid this isn’t going to be funny.
Bricker: Just one, but he has to watch himself or a loved one suffer death, disease and or disability first.
Haw haw hawwwww.
In that this is Great Debates and not Facile Aphorisms, I’m sure you have some hard data on the lifetime nutritional needs met among American anglers. A quick search indicates that the fishing business is not only in decline but the median income of fishermen in the United States in 2010 barely or does not even equal what would be considered a living wage.
You seem to be in favor of a market based solution to something that bears none of the hallmarks of a market good or service. You cannot buy and sell health. There is no secondary market. As a service there are precious few options for purchase. You can almost never choose to forgo it. There are massive barriers to enter the market. I could go on, so could you if it didn’t conflict with your comfortable ideology.
The closest analog to a free health market is the supplement and vitamin business. If the market worked, this segment would be almost nonexistent. The market offers no solution to health care and the evidence is right before you. You can stack up unfortunate dead children like cord wood and it would remain a poor inspiration to (what?) have earned harder. Well, monsters love to stack dead children, enjoy the stacking.
They have interns and entry level employees for that. And you are not required to stack your own, that would be heartless. Still, that sort of initiative and dedication doesn’t go unnoticed at your performance review.
To those of you who are soundly arguing against Bricker, I just want you to know that while you are never going to effect change in him, you might be effecting change in others like me.
I used to be against UHC on a national level, feeling it was best to leave this decision up to the states and mostly up to the free market.
But your continued arguments against people like Bricker have convinced me otherwise, and now I am a full supporter of either Canadian or UK style UHC for the United States.
So, thank you to those of you who gave good, reasoned arguments about why health is not a good that works very well for a free market solution. And keep up the good work. You’ll never have an effect on Bricker, but you might have an effect on people like me.